What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)

You have got to rely on what people tell you. I presume that the
papers that are published are honest. It true that a Professor in
South Korea - I forget his name falsified his results and has now been
disgraced. Are you telling me that all the results in Physics have all
been falsified. Really!

The attidude in Science contrasts sharply with what is practiced in
Government.

http://www.democracynow.org/article....=thread&tid=25

John Rendon has been rumbled but he is still held in high esteem. What
a contrast!

BTW - You have not answered my questions.

1) How does the mu meson last so long?
2) What powers quasars?

I want answers.

- Ian Parker

You have got to rely on what people tell you. I presume that the
papers that are published are honest. It true that a Professor in
South Korea - I forget his name falsified his results and has now been
disgraced. Are you telling me that all the results in Physics have all
been falsified. Really!

The attidude in Science contrasts sharply with what is practiced in
Government.

http://www.democracynow.org/article....=thread&tid=25

John Rendon has been rumbled but he is still held in high esteem. What
a contrast!

BTW - You have not answered my questions.

1) How does the mu meson last so long?
2) What powers quasars?

I want answers.

- Ian Parker

Androcles wrote:

> "Predicts" - a word used by any fortune-teller or charlatan. I'm not
> interested in your ability to read horoscopes or predict the future, I'm
> interested in science.

Science *is* about prediction. It's those predictions
that are what makes a theory testable -- you try to
see if the predictions actually come true.

Paul

On 25 Jun, 15:24, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> BTW, I do believe that an established laser beam of photons that
> essentially aligns atoms can help channel or transport other photons
> to the head of the train, which is thereby capable of allowing those
> photons to exceed the speed of light. A conduit or waveguide of FTL
> moving photons has been common place for as long as such radar
> waveguides have existed. Of two opposing or arriving laser beams is a
> differential velocity of 2X 'c'. A quantum photon (FM photon) is
> simply the holy grail of what makes us and everything we can detect
> what we are. Atoms serve the needs of photons, much like batteries
> and wire serves the needs of electrons. Our DNA is nnothing without
> photons.
>
Do you understand the difference between phase velocity and group
velocity? The group velocity is the speed at which information
travels. In an ionized gas the phase velocicity exceeds c, the group
velocity, the velocity of information transfer, does not.

- Ian Parker

On 25 Jun, 15:24, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> BTW, I do believe that an established laser beam of photons that
> essentially aligns atoms can help channel or transport other photons
> to the head of the train, which is thereby capable of allowing those
> photons to exceed the speed of light. A conduit or waveguide of FTL
> moving photons has been common place for as long as such radar
> waveguides have existed. Of two opposing or arriving laser beams is a
> differential velocity of 2X 'c'. A quantum photon (FM photon) is
> simply the holy grail of what makes us and everything we can detect
> what we are. Atoms serve the needs of photons, much like batteries
> and wire serves the needs of electrons. Our DNA is nnothing without
> photons.
>
Do you understand the difference between phase velocity and group
velocity? The group velocity is the speed at which information
travels. In an ionized gas the phase velocicity exceeds c, the group
velocity, the velocity of information transfer, does not.

- Ian Parker

On Jun 25, 8:33 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 Jun, 15:24, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > BTW, I do believe that an established laser beam of photons that
> > essentially aligns atoms can help channel or transport other photons
> > to the head of the train, which is thereby capable of allowing those
> > photons to exceed the speed of light. A conduit or waveguide of FTL
> > moving photons has been common place for as long as such radar
> > waveguides have existed. Of two opposing or arriving laser beams is a
> > differential velocity of 2X 'c'. A quantum photon (FM photon) is
> > simply the holy grail of what makes us and everything we can detect
> > what we are. Atoms serve the needs of photons, much like batteries
> > and wire serves the needs of electrons. Our DNA is nnothing without
> > photons.
>
> Do you understand the difference between phase velocity and group
> velocity? The group velocity is the speed at which information
> travels. In an ionized gas the phase velocicity exceeds c, the group
> velocity, the velocity of information transfer, does not.
>
> - Ian Parker

If our universe is the photon waveguide, then what?

A quantum/FM photon eliminates most all forms of communication
limitations.

I believe that a set of spinning and somewhat AI photon aligned atoms
can hand off as many quantum/FM photons as necessary, thus the speed
or velocity of transfering data/packets at FTL is technically doable.

Of course, if you believe as I don't that a photon can't have or
otherwise represent any mass, then there's no limitation as to it's
velocity. However, since a photon is more than likely of something
greater than zero mass is why the speed of 'c' is about as good as it
gets.

The phase velocity depends on how large of waveguide you've got to
work with. How about a photon waveguide of one or more light years
per dimention?

Seems that anything contained within the light year waveguide is going
to benefit from the ongoing phase velocity that's taking place.

In other words, with a quantum/FM photon there's little if any need of
a group velocity, as each photon becomes worthy of hauling more binary
information than 01.

How about a packet density of 1024 bits per quantum string like
photon?
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 25, 8:33 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 25 Jun, 15:24, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > BTW, I do believe that an established laser beam of photons that
> > essentially aligns atoms can help channel or transport other photons
> > to the head of the train, which is thereby capable of allowing those
> > photons to exceed the speed of light. A conduit or waveguide of FTL
> > moving photons has been common place for as long as such radar
> > waveguides have existed. Of two opposing or arriving laser beams is a
> > differential velocity of 2X 'c'. A quantum photon (FM photon) is
> > simply the holy grail of what makes us and everything we can detect
> > what we are. Atoms serve the needs of photons, much like batteries
> > and wire serves the needs of electrons. Our DNA is nnothing without
> > photons.
>
> Do you understand the difference between phase velocity and group
> velocity? The group velocity is the speed at which information
> travels. In an ionized gas the phase velocicity exceeds c, the group
> velocity, the velocity of information transfer, does not.
>
> - Ian Parker

If our universe is the photon waveguide, then what?

A quantum/FM photon eliminates most all forms of communication
limitations.

I believe that a set of spinning and somewhat AI photon aligned atoms
can hand off as many quantum/FM photons as necessary, thus the speed
or velocity of transfering data/packets at FTL is technically doable.

Of course, if you believe as I don't that a photon can't have or
otherwise represent any mass, then there's no limitation as to it's
velocity. However, since a photon is more than likely of something
greater than zero mass is why the speed of 'c' is about as good as it
gets.

The phase velocity depends on how large of waveguide you've got to
work with. How about a photon waveguide of one or more light years
per dimention?

Seems that anything contained within the light year waveguide is going
to benefit from the ongoing phase velocity that's taking place.

In other words, with a quantum/FM photon there's little if any need of
a group velocity, as each photon becomes worthy of hauling more binary
information than 01.

How about a packet density of 1024 bits per quantum string like
photon?
-
Brad Guth

Lets clear up a few misconceptions. If you have an ionised medium the
phase velocity is >c. The group velocity is not. The result assumes an
infinite medium.

If you switch on a magnetron attached to a waveguide how long is it
before the effects are felt at the other end of the waveguide. It is
the group velocity. Same applies to an ionised medium. In an ionised
medium there is a slight difference between the "swiich on velocity"
shock speed and the group speed. It is small, both are well below c.
The difference is in fact a second order effect.

The form of modulation makes absolutely no difference. When I first
met the topic as an undergraduate, we were taught to visualize a
"group" and group velocity in terms of the Fourier Transform of the
waveform. Each Fourier component travels at a different wave vecocity.

You have not answered my two question, one on the mu meson, the other
on quasars. To me a failure to answer these removes your arguments and
that of Androcles from the scientific sphere. If you do not accept
thhe explanations offered in terms of Relativity Special and General
respectively you wiill have to furnish another explanation that we can
all look at and study.

To say all the scientists whose results back up Relativity are all
frauds is just too far fetched for serious comment. In fact I could
probably claim, with a lot more justification, that psychology was a
load of bunkum and all the results were rigged.

Certainly the field results are extremely disappointing. The Cubans at
the Bay of Pigs hated Battista and the CIA more than they hated Castro
(despite psy ops). There is a civil war going on in Iraq, despite all
the nonsense we were told about democracy (and the psy ops).

As there are no alternative scientific explanation I can only conclude
that there is an ulterior explanation. Einstein was a jew. That is why
you are arguing against it.

- Ian Parker

Lets clear up a few misconceptions. If you have an ionised medium the
phase velocity is >c. The group velocity is not. The result assumes an
infinite medium.

If you switch on a magnetron attached to a waveguide how long is it
before the effects are felt at the other end of the waveguide. It is
the group velocity. Same applies to an ionised medium. In an ionised
medium there is a slight difference between the "swiich on velocity"
shock speed and the group speed. It is small, both are well below c.
The difference is in fact a second order effect.

The form of modulation makes absolutely no difference. When I first
met the topic as an undergraduate, we were taught to visualize a
"group" and group velocity in terms of the Fourier Transform of the
waveform. Each Fourier component travels at a different wave vecocity.

You have not answered my two question, one on the mu meson, the other
on quasars. To me a failure to answer these removes your arguments and
that of Androcles from the scientific sphere. If you do not accept
thhe explanations offered in terms of Relativity Special and General
respectively you wiill have to furnish another explanation that we can
all look at and study.

To say all the scientists whose results back up Relativity are all
frauds is just too far fetched for serious comment. In fact I could
probably claim, with a lot more justification, that psychology was a
load of bunkum and all the results were rigged.

Certainly the field results are extremely disappointing. The Cubans at
the Bay of Pigs hated Battista and the CIA more than they hated Castro
(despite psy ops). There is a civil war going on in Iraq, despite all
the nonsense we were told about democracy (and the psy ops).

As there are no alternative scientific explanation I can only conclude
that there is an ulterior explanation. Einstein was a jew. That is why
you are arguing against it.

- Ian Parker

Odd, it seems this one didn't take, even though I was given the usual
GOOGLE/Usenet message that it was taken into the usenet collective.

On Jun 26, 3:14 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lets clear up a few misconceptions. If you have an ionised medium the
> phase velocity is >c. The group velocity is not. The result assumes an
> infinite medium.

Your God (Einstein) took from others and proceeded to assume all sorts
of things. So, what's your point?

I assume that photons can ride the phase velocity backs of those
carrier waveguide FTL moving photons, but instead of their going back
and forth (side to side or around and around within the photon
waveguide) these secondary photons would simply go directly towards
the target they're pointed at, jumping off each aligned atom that's
spinning and aligned on behalf of the established waveguide.

Once my quantum/FM photons start arriving at the intended target, as
such the amount of data or quantum binary packets of data throughput
is nearly unliminted, except by the available receiving technology.

>
> If you switch on a magnetron attached to a waveguide how long is it
> before the effects are felt at the other end of the waveguide. It is
> the group velocity. Same applies to an ionised medium. In an ionised
> medium there is a slight difference between the "swiich on velocity"
> shock speed and the group speed. It is small, both are well below c.
> The difference is in fact a second order effect.

Those are merely the carrier photons, and not the intended
communication photons. I agree that the carrier wave or given laser
beam of photons will be arriving at not greater than c, which btw is
still a good thousand fold faster than any physical probe.

>
> The form of modulation makes absolutely no difference. When I first
> met the topic as an undergraduate, we were taught to visualize a
> "group" and group velocity in terms of the Fourier Transform of the
> waveform. Each Fourier component travels at a different wave vecocity.

Box status quo thinking has been one of your pesky faults, isn't it.
You have absolutely no idea what a quantum/FM binary photon is, do
you. Each individual quantum string like photon can easly represent a
1024 bit word, as limited only by our existing technology.

>
> You have not answered my two question, one on the mu meson, the other
> on quasars. To me a failure to answer these removes your arguments and
> that of Androcles from the scientific sphere. If you do not accept
> thhe explanations offered in terms of Relativity Special and General
> respectively you wiill have to furnish another explanation that we can
> all look at and study.

mu meson?
quasars?
These items have what to do with ETs being smarter than us, and
especially a whole lot smarter than yourself?

I'll try to share my dyslexic thoughts in a way that's more
entertaining to the naysay collective, although I'll keep insisting
that FTL communications (similar to phase velocity) is doable once the
laser conduit or photon waveguide is established (somewhat how those
FM waves of phonons are speeded up once the telephone line is
established, or terribly slowed down if there's a diamond obstructed
pathway).

>
> To say all the scientists whose results back up Relativity are all
> frauds is just too far fetched for serious comment. In fact I could
> probably claim, with a lot more justification, that psychology was a
> load of bunkum and all the results were rigged.

A well proven naysayer is not a fraud, as such mainstream box limited
naysayers do in fact exist (yourself being a perfectly good example).

>
> Certainly the field results are extremely disappointing. The Cubans at
> the Bay of Pigs hated Battista and the CIA more than they hated Castro
> (despite psy ops). There is a civil war going on in Iraq, despite all
> the nonsense we were told about democracy (and the psy ops).

What exactly doesn't our faith-based government of Zion puppets lie to
us about?

>
> As there are no alternative scientific explanation I can only conclude
> that there is an ulterior explanation. Einstein was a jew. That is why
> you are arguing against it.
>
> - Ian Parker

But you silly folks don't seem to like any such "ulterior
explanation".

Apparently Einstein wasn't even a very good Jew, certainly not nearly
as good of a Zion bigot and a rusemaster of a naysayer like yourself.
Thinking outside the box (as long as it was kept terrestrial) was a
good part of what made Einstein worth keeping.

Much like Van Allen was created out of thin air, sort of speak,
whereas the likes of Einstein was allowed to take the lead point
because, at the time those Zions had none better. In many ways, even
Hitler got as far as he did because of smart Jews. (Jews have never
been totally dumb and dumber, have they, although they do have a
tendency of putting their own kind on a stick in order to prove a
point).

However, your Einstein also never agreed to the BB fiasco. At least
I'll accept the mother of all black holes doing it's imploding thing,
as having created at least two opposing universes. Of course that
original black hole had to exist/coexist within something much larger
and much older. I too (like Einstein) don't believe in God farts.
-
Brad Guth

Odd, it seems this one didn't take, even though I was given the usual
GOOGLE/Usenet message that it was taken into the usenet collective.

On Jun 26, 3:14 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lets clear up a few misconceptions. If you have an ionised medium the
> phase velocity is >c. The group velocity is not. The result assumes an
> infinite medium.

Your God (Einstein) took from others and proceeded to assume all sorts
of things. So, what's your point?

I assume that photons can ride the phase velocity backs of those
carrier waveguide FTL moving photons, but instead of their going back
and forth (side to side or around and around within the photon
waveguide) these secondary photons would simply go directly towards
the target they're pointed at, jumping off each aligned atom that's
spinning and aligned on behalf of the established waveguide.

Once my quantum/FM photons start arriving at the intended target, as
such the amount of data or quantum binary packets of data throughput
is nearly unliminted, except by the available receiving technology.

>
> If you switch on a magnetron attached to a waveguide how long is it
> before the effects are felt at the other end of the waveguide. It is
> the group velocity. Same applies to an ionised medium. In an ionised
> medium there is a slight difference between the "swiich on velocity"
> shock speed and the group speed. It is small, both are well below c.
> The difference is in fact a second order effect.

Those are merely the carrier photons, and not the intended
communication photons. I agree that the carrier wave or given laser
beam of photons will be arriving at not greater than c, which btw is
still a good thousand fold faster than any physical probe.

>
> The form of modulation makes absolutely no difference. When I first
> met the topic as an undergraduate, we were taught to visualize a
> "group" and group velocity in terms of the Fourier Transform of the
> waveform. Each Fourier component travels at a different wave vecocity.

Box status quo thinking has been one of your pesky faults, isn't it.
You have absolutely no idea what a quantum/FM binary photon is, do
you. Each individual quantum string like photon can easly represent a
1024 bit word, as limited only by our existing technology.

>
> You have not answered my two question, one on the mu meson, the other
> on quasars. To me a failure to answer these removes your arguments and
> that of Androcles from the scientific sphere. If you do not accept
> thhe explanations offered in terms of Relativity Special and General
> respectively you wiill have to furnish another explanation that we can
> all look at and study.

mu meson?
quasars?
These items have what to do with ETs being smarter than us, and
especially a whole lot smarter than yourself?

I'll try to share my dyslexic thoughts in a way that's more
entertaining to the naysay collective, although I'll keep insisting
that FTL communications (similar to phase velocity) is doable once the
laser conduit or photon waveguide is established (somewhat how those
FM waves of phonons are speeded up once the telephone line is
established, or terribly slowed down if there's a diamond obstructed
pathway).

>
> To say all the scientists whose results back up Relativity are all
> frauds is just too far fetched for serious comment. In fact I could
> probably claim, with a lot more justification, that psychology was a
> load of bunkum and all the results were rigged.

A well proven naysayer is not a fraud, as such mainstream box limited
naysayers do in fact exist (yourself being a perfectly good example).

>
> Certainly the field results are extremely disappointing. The Cubans at
> the Bay of Pigs hated Battista and the CIA more than they hated Castro
> (despite psy ops). There is a civil war going on in Iraq, despite all
> the nonsense we were told about democracy (and the psy ops).

What exactly doesn't our faith-based government of Zion puppets lie to
us about?

>
> As there are no alternative scientific explanation I can only conclude
> that there is an ulterior explanation. Einstein was a jew. That is why
> you are arguing against it.
>
> - Ian Parker

But you silly folks don't seem to like any such "ulterior
explanation".

Apparently Einstein wasn't even a very good Jew, certainly not nearly
as good of a Zion bigot and a rusemaster of a naysayer like yourself.
Thinking outside the box (as long as it was kept terrestrial) was a
good part of what made Einstein worth keeping.

Much like Van Allen was created out of thin air, sort of speak,
whereas the likes of Einstein was allowed to take the lead point
because, at the time those Zions had none better. In many ways, even
Hitler got as far as he did because of smart Jews. (Jews have never
been totally dumb and dumber, have they, although they do have a
tendency of putting their own kind on a stick in order to prove a
point).

However, your Einstein also never agreed to the BB fiasco. At least
I'll accept the mother of all black holes doing it's imploding thing,
as having created at least two opposing universes. Of course that
original black hole had to exist/coexist within something much larger
and much older. I too (like Einstein) don't believe in God farts.
-
Brad Guth

Nick Mason wrote:
>
> wwer werj w ws wrh lwerh w;q wer

Please ignore the gibberish, the damn cat came in out of rain and was
walking all over they keyboard dripping everywhere. Between him and me
trying to keep the keyboard dry we managed to send that!

Sorry.

--

Regards
Nick

Nick Mason wrote:
>
> wwer werj w ws wrh lwerh w;q wer

Please ignore the gibberish, the damn cat came in out of rain and was
walking all over they keyboard dripping everywhere. Between him and me
trying to keep the keyboard dry we managed to send that!

Sorry.

--

Regards
Nick

You folks should know, ETs being smarter than us doesn't mean they
have space travel or even RF/microwave technology nailed.

Surviving for perhaps as long or longer than us is more than enough to
qualify such ETs as being intelligent.

Just because they may not look like us or think like us is also not
the least bit of any count against their likely superior survival
intelligence.

Of course, those interplanetary or especially interstellar worthy ETs
are likely going to be a whole lot smarter than us, and in more ways
advanced in their DNA or whatever else makes them tick. And, just
because they're smarter and/or technologically advanced isn't
necessarily a bad thing for us having new goals and redirection,
instead of all the ongoing collateral damage and carnage of the
innocent that buys us nothing but future grief.

I'd thought we'd learned from Hitler and of his swarm of Zion friends
that bulluism doesn't work. I guess we haven't quite figured that one
out.
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 19, 8:14 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> having accommodated intelligent life?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

You folks should know, ETs being smarter than us doesn't mean they
have space travel or even RF/microwave technology nailed.

Surviving for perhaps as long or longer than us is more than enough to
qualify such ETs as being intelligent.

Just because they may not look like us or think like us is also not
the least bit of any count against their likely superior survival
intelligence.

Of course, those interplanetary or especially interstellar worthy ETs
are likely going to be a whole lot smarter than us, and in more ways
advanced in their DNA or whatever else makes them tick. And, just
because they're smarter and/or technologically advanced isn't
necessarily a bad thing for us having new goals and redirection,
instead of all the ongoing collateral damage and carnage of the
innocent that buys us nothing but future grief.

I'd thought we'd learned from Hitler and of his swarm of Zion friends
that bulluism doesn't work. I guess we haven't quite figured that one
out.
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 19, 8:14 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> having accommodated intelligent life?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

On 27 Jun, 13:03, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Too bad the very same Zion swarm mindset of opposing all that's
> possible wasn't getting applied when they were pulling out all the
> stops on behalf of sucking up to Hitler.
>
> Way to go, Ian Parker (let us kill all the Jews and anyone else that
> comes along, just so that Ian Parker's Zion swarm can have it their
> way).

I am not going to argue the toss on Relativity. Nobody has proposed
any alternative theories.

1) Why does the mu meson last so long?
2) What is the energy source of quasars?

No answer - no alternative theory.

Why should one race of people be killed? Under the United Nations
charter every country has the right of self defense. I think you
should devote your energies to combating Arab extremism. The US
supports Isreal - OK I agree with that. Unfortunately it has also
fanned the flames of religious extremism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Murky isn't it? Note that CIA involvment preceeded the Soviet
invasion. I have some more. In 1999 the US bombed the Serbs to hell.
Ostensable reason the atrocities being committed by Serb forces in
Kosovo. The truth of the matter was that a nasty war was being waged
on both sides with the CIA supporting OBL's KLA.

http://www.geocities.com/cpa_blackto...ciakltimuk.htm

In fact now the CIA is now alarmed at the links between Bosnia, Kosovo
and militant Islam

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/ips072505.htm

It did fan it originally. Quite honestly I don't know what the Central
Stupidity Agency is playing at. It seems very like the sourcerer's
apprentice. The stick fought in Afghanistan and Kosovo and can't now
be put away.

Israel never fanned or fed the beast. That was the role of the CIA
(CSA). You seem to want Israel removed now - it would make far more
sense to sink Langley and all its staff in the Mediterranean.

There are ways in which religious extremism can be fought, fanning it
or giving in to it are not options. What do you suppose an Arab
Palestine would be like, after gorging itself on Israel? Do you think
they would stop there?

9/11 was caused directly by the Soviet defeat and to some extent the
Serb defeat. It was radical Islam emboldened by the victories they had
obtained with US arms.

The Palestinians are not only threatening Israel with destruction they
are also persecuting the Arab Christians. Do you want to kill those
too?

I find you hard to make out. On relativity and Science you do not have
a leg to stand on. Are you simply ignorant or a disinformer. I think
you are a disinformer. If you were ignorant you wwould have attempted
explanations of some sort to my questions.

- Ian Parker

On 27 Jun, 13:03, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Too bad the very same Zion swarm mindset of opposing all that's
> possible wasn't getting applied when they were pulling out all the
> stops on behalf of sucking up to Hitler.
>
> Way to go, Ian Parker (let us kill all the Jews and anyone else that
> comes along, just so that Ian Parker's Zion swarm can have it their
> way).

I am not going to argue the toss on Relativity. Nobody has proposed
any alternative theories.

1) Why does the mu meson last so long?
2) What is the energy source of quasars?

No answer - no alternative theory.

Why should one race of people be killed? Under the United Nations
charter every country has the right of self defense. I think you
should devote your energies to combating Arab extremism. The US
supports Isreal - OK I agree with that. Unfortunately it has also
fanned the flames of religious extremism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

Murky isn't it? Note that CIA involvment preceeded the Soviet
invasion. I have some more. In 1999 the US bombed the Serbs to hell.
Ostensable reason the atrocities being committed by Serb forces in
Kosovo. The truth of the matter was that a nasty war was being waged
on both sides with the CIA supporting OBL's KLA.

http://www.geocities.com/cpa_blackto...ciakltimuk.htm

In fact now the CIA is now alarmed at the links between Bosnia, Kosovo
and militant Islam

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/ips072505.htm

It did fan it originally. Quite honestly I don't know what the Central
Stupidity Agency is playing at. It seems very like the sourcerer's
apprentice. The stick fought in Afghanistan and Kosovo and can't now
be put away.

Israel never fanned or fed the beast. That was the role of the CIA
(CSA). You seem to want Israel removed now - it would make far more
sense to sink Langley and all its staff in the Mediterranean.

There are ways in which religious extremism can be fought, fanning it
or giving in to it are not options. What do you suppose an Arab
Palestine would be like, after gorging itself on Israel? Do you think
they would stop there?

9/11 was caused directly by the Soviet defeat and to some extent the
Serb defeat. It was radical Islam emboldened by the victories they had
obtained with US arms.

The Palestinians are not only threatening Israel with destruction they
are also persecuting the Arab Christians. Do you want to kill those
too?

I find you hard to make out. On relativity and Science you do not have
a leg to stand on. Are you simply ignorant or a disinformer. I think
you are a disinformer. If you were ignorant you wwould have attempted
explanations of some sort to my questions.

- Ian Parker

Thanks for all the off-topic feed back, of which I'll try to
eventually answer. However, for the moment, it's yourself and those
of your infomercial spewing kind that are the ones pretending there's
nothing faith-based getting in the way of the truth, not me.

My theory is that for the most part we've been lied to about ETs, and
worse of all we've been continually lied to by our own kind (somewhat
like Christ getting put on a stick by his own kind). The best of our
world history has been skewed in order to suit the motives and
collective swarm mindset of those in charge of our private parts,
including those of yours. In other words, of what we often think we
know is a lie.

Observationology simply isn't a dead science, in fact it's pretty much
the one and only science of interpretation that counts unless you're
into braillology. Deductive science of dot and pixel connecting is
exactly what it is, and as such it gives us an honest future of hope
that's most likely to transpire unless we allow our faith-based swarm
mindset to take control, in which case we get nothing but more of the
same old faith-based crapolla and WWIII to look forward to.

I'll have to get back to you on those other points that you folks of
naysayism like to keep forcing upon us.

Those nifty 36 look/pixel radar images of Venus are not the hocus-
pocus of any NASA/Apollo missions, and I do believe there's lots of
other physics and the best available science that's telling us we have
those ETs onboard Venus.

You folks should have always known, that ETs being smarter than us
doesn't mean they have space travel or even RF/microwave technology
nailed.

Surviving for perhaps as long or longer than us is more than enough to
qualify such ETs as being intelligent.

Just because they may not look like us or think like us is also not
the least bit of any count against their likely superior survival
intelligence. Just because they take the fullest advantage of their
toasty environment is not a sign of lacking intelligence. However,
because your swarm mindset is obstructive and/or stuck in naysayism
mode is a good sign of your having no intelligence whatsoever.

Of course, those interplanetary or especially interstellar worthy ETs
are likely going to be a whole lot smarter than us, and in more ways
advanced in their DNA or whatever else makes them tick. And, just
because they're smarter and/or technologically advanced isn't
necessarily a bad thing for us having new goals and redirection,
instead of all the ongoing collateral damage and carnage of the
innocent that buys us nothing but future grief.

I'd thought we'd learned from Hitler and of his swarm of Zion friends
that bulluism doesn't work. I guess we haven't quite figured that one
out.
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 27, 6:42 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 Jun, 13:03, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Too bad the very same Zion swarm mindset of opposing all that's
> > possible wasn't getting applied when they were pulling out all the
> > stops on behalf of sucking up to Hitler.
>
> > Way to go, Ian Parker (let us kill all the Jews and anyone else that
> > comes along, just so that Ian Parker's Zion swarm can have it their
> > way).
>
> I am not going to argue the toss on Relativity. Nobody has proposed
> any alternative theories.
>
> 1) Why does the mu meson last so long?
> 2) What is the energy source of quasars?
>
> No answer - no alternative theory.
>
> Why should one race of people be killed? Under the United Nations
> charter every country has the right of self defense. I think you
> should devote your energies to combating Arab extremism. The US
> supports Isreal - OK I agree with that. Unfortunately it has also
> fanned the flames of religious extremism.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...s/CHO109C.html
>
> Murky isn't it? Note that CIA involvment preceeded the Soviet
> invasion. I have some more. In 1999 the US bombed the Serbs to hell.
> Ostensable reason the atrocities being committed by Serb forces in
> Kosovo. The truth of the matter was that a nasty war was being waged
> on both sides with the CIA supporting OBL's KLA.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/cpa_blackto...ciakltimuk.htm
>
> In fact now the CIA is now alarmed at the links between Bosnia, Kosovo
> and militant Islam
>
> http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/ips072505.htm
>
> It did fan it originally. Quite honestly I don't know what the Central
> Stupidity Agency is playing at. It seems very like the sourcerer's
> apprentice. The stick fought in Afghanistan and Kosovo and can't now
> be put away.
>
> Israel never fanned or fed the beast. That was the role of the CIA
> (CSA). You seem to want Israel removed now - it would make far more
> sense to sink Langley and all its staff in the Mediterranean.
>
> There are ways in which religious extremism can be fought, fanning it
> or giving in to it are not options. What do you suppose an Arab
> Palestine would be like, after gorging itself on Israel? Do you think
> they would stop there?
>
> 9/11 was caused directly by the Soviet defeat and to some extent the
> Serb defeat. It was radical Islam emboldened by the victories they had
> obtained with US arms.
>
> The Palestinians are not only threatening Israel with destruction they
> are also persecuting the Arab Christians. Do you want to kill those
> too?
>
> I find you hard to make out. On relativity and Science you do not have
> a leg to stand on. Are you simply ignorant or a disinformer. I think
> you are a disinformer. If you were ignorant you wwould have attempted
> explanations of some sort to my questions.
>
> - Ian Parker

Thanks for all the off-topic feed back, of which I'll try to
eventually answer. However, for the moment, it's yourself and those
of your infomercial spewing kind that are the ones pretending there's
nothing faith-based getting in the way of the truth, not me.

My theory is that for the most part we've been lied to about ETs, and
worse of all we've been continually lied to by our own kind (somewhat
like Christ getting put on a stick by his own kind). The best of our
world history has been skewed in order to suit the motives and
collective swarm mindset of those in charge of our private parts,
including those of yours. In other words, of what we often think we
know is a lie.

Observationology simply isn't a dead science, in fact it's pretty much
the one and only science of interpretation that counts unless you're
into braillology. Deductive science of dot and pixel connecting is
exactly what it is, and as such it gives us an honest future of hope
that's most likely to transpire unless we allow our faith-based swarm
mindset to take control, in which case we get nothing but more of the
same old faith-based crapolla and WWIII to look forward to.

I'll have to get back to you on those other points that you folks of
naysayism like to keep forcing upon us.

Those nifty 36 look/pixel radar images of Venus are not the hocus-
pocus of any NASA/Apollo missions, and I do believe there's lots of
other physics and the best available science that's telling us we have
those ETs onboard Venus.

You folks should have always known, that ETs being smarter than us
doesn't mean they have space travel or even RF/microwave technology
nailed.

Surviving for perhaps as long or longer than us is more than enough to
qualify such ETs as being intelligent.

Just because they may not look like us or think like us is also not
the least bit of any count against their likely superior survival
intelligence. Just because they take the fullest advantage of their
toasty environment is not a sign of lacking intelligence. However,
because your swarm mindset is obstructive and/or stuck in naysayism
mode is a good sign of your having no intelligence whatsoever.

Of course, those interplanetary or especially interstellar worthy ETs
are likely going to be a whole lot smarter than us, and in more ways
advanced in their DNA or whatever else makes them tick. And, just
because they're smarter and/or technologically advanced isn't
necessarily a bad thing for us having new goals and redirection,
instead of all the ongoing collateral damage and carnage of the
innocent that buys us nothing but future grief.

I'd thought we'd learned from Hitler and of his swarm of Zion friends
that bulluism doesn't work. I guess we haven't quite figured that one
out.
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 27, 6:42 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 Jun, 13:03, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Too bad the very same Zion swarm mindset of opposing all that's
> > possible wasn't getting applied when they were pulling out all the
> > stops on behalf of sucking up to Hitler.
>
> > Way to go, Ian Parker (let us kill all the Jews and anyone else that
> > comes along, just so that Ian Parker's Zion swarm can have it their
> > way).
>
> I am not going to argue the toss on Relativity. Nobody has proposed
> any alternative theories.
>
> 1) Why does the mu meson last so long?
> 2) What is the energy source of quasars?
>
> No answer - no alternative theory.
>
> Why should one race of people be killed? Under the United Nations
> charter every country has the right of self defense. I think you
> should devote your energies to combating Arab extremism. The US
> supports Isreal - OK I agree with that. Unfortunately it has also
> fanned the flames of religious extremism.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...s/CHO109C.html
>
> Murky isn't it? Note that CIA involvment preceeded the Soviet
> invasion. I have some more. In 1999 the US bombed the Serbs to hell.
> Ostensable reason the atrocities being committed by Serb forces in
> Kosovo. The truth of the matter was that a nasty war was being waged
> on both sides with the CIA supporting OBL's KLA.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/cpa_blackto...ciakltimuk.htm
>
> In fact now the CIA is now alarmed at the links between Bosnia, Kosovo
> and militant Islam
>
> http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/ips072505.htm
>
> It did fan it originally. Quite honestly I don't know what the Central
> Stupidity Agency is playing at. It seems very like the sourcerer's
> apprentice. The stick fought in Afghanistan and Kosovo and can't now
> be put away.
>
> Israel never fanned or fed the beast. That was the role of the CIA
> (CSA). You seem to want Israel removed now - it would make far more
> sense to sink Langley and all its staff in the Mediterranean.
>
> There are ways in which religious extremism can be fought, fanning it
> or giving in to it are not options. What do you suppose an Arab
> Palestine would be like, after gorging itself on Israel? Do you think
> they would stop there?
>
> 9/11 was caused directly by the Soviet defeat and to some extent the
> Serb defeat. It was radical Islam emboldened by the victories they had
> obtained with US arms.
>
> The Palestinians are not only threatening Israel with destruction they
> are also persecuting the Arab Christians. Do you want to kill those
> too?
>
> I find you hard to make out. On relativity and Science you do not have
> a leg to stand on. Are you simply ignorant or a disinformer. I think
> you are a disinformer. If you were ignorant you wwould have attempted
> explanations of some sort to my questions.
>
> - Ian Parker

"Ian Parker" <ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182951767.083587.15820@n60g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
: On 27 Jun, 13:03, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
:
: > Too bad the very same Zion swarm mindset of opposing all that's
: > possible wasn't getting applied when they were pulling out all the
: > stops on behalf of sucking up to Hitler.
: >
: > Way to go, Ian Parker (let us kill all the Jews and anyone else that
: > comes along, just so that Ian Parker's Zion swarm can have it their
: > way).
:
: I am not going to argue the toss on Relativity. Nobody has proposed
: any alternative theories.

IDIOT! No alternative theory is needed.

:
: 1) Why does the mu meson last so long?

It lasts 2.2 usec because it does. Why is grass green, moron?

2) What is the energy source of quasars?

You don't even know what a quasar is, moron.

:
: No answer - no alternative theory.
:

Empirical data doesn't need a theory, moron.

: Why should one race of people be killed?

Non physics. Take it out of sci groups.
[crap deleted]

"Ian Parker" <ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182951767.083587.15820@n60g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
: On 27 Jun, 13:03, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
:
: > Too bad the very same Zion swarm mindset of opposing all that's
: > possible wasn't getting applied when they were pulling out all the
: > stops on behalf of sucking up to Hitler.
: >
: > Way to go, Ian Parker (let us kill all the Jews and anyone else that
: > comes along, just so that Ian Parker's Zion swarm can have it their
: > way).
:
: I am not going to argue the toss on Relativity. Nobody has proposed
: any alternative theories.

IDIOT! No alternative theory is needed.

:
: 1) Why does the mu meson last so long?

It lasts 2.2 usec because it does. Why is grass green, moron?

2) What is the energy source of quasars?

You don't even know what a quasar is, moron.

:
: No answer - no alternative theory.
:

Empirical data doesn't need a theory, moron.

: Why should one race of people be killed?

Non physics. Take it out of sci groups.
[crap deleted]

On Jun 27, 9:00 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> : Why should one race of people be killed?
>
> Non physics. Take it out of sci groups.
> [crap deleted]

But Ian's faith-based mindset is a terrestrial limited swarm
intelligence that's all about anti-physics, anti-truth and anti-
whatever rocks his good ship LOLLIPOP or doesn't worship Einstein.

There is simply no exception to their Zion status quo rule of me, me!,
me!!, or else!!!
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 27, 9:00 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> "Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> : Why should one race of people be killed?
>
> Non physics. Take it out of sci groups.
> [crap deleted]

But Ian's faith-based mindset is a terrestrial limited swarm
intelligence that's all about anti-physics, anti-truth and anti-
whatever rocks his good ship LOLLIPOP or doesn't worship Einstein.

There is simply no exception to their Zion status quo rule of me, me!,
me!!, or else!!!
-
Brad Guth

: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
: "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
: the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- Albert Einstein.

Androcles doesn't know what "moves relatively" means in this context.

Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
: "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
: the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- Albert Einstein.

Androcles doesn't know what "moves relatively" means in this context.

Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

:: Androcles doesn't know what "moves relatively" means in this context.

: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
: Tell us all [...] what "moves relatively" means and what c-v means

I think most folks reading already know. But OK, for about the
twentieth time, the context is a "stationary" system of coordinates, a
"moving" system of coordinates, a point moving with velocity "v" in the
stationary system and at rest in the moving system, and a ray of light.
The distance between the point and the ray of light in the stationary
system changes. The rate at which that distance changes is c-v. The
distance between the point and the ray of light in the moving system
also changes. The rate at which *this* distance changes (between the
same two objects) is c.

The velocity of the ray of light in the stationary system is c, and the
velocity of the ray of light in the moving system is c. The fact that the
velocity of the ray of light in both systems is c is why Einstein used the
circumlocution "moves relatively when measured in the stationary system"
to indicate he was talking about a distance between two moving objects,
and not the velocity of the ray of light in the moving system.

And of course, since a rate of change in distance has units of velocity,
he called it a "velocity". This seems to have confused Androcles,
but not much of anybody else.

I predict Androcles will now foam at the mouth and say many insulting things.

Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

:: Androcles doesn't know what "moves relatively" means in this context.

: "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
: Tell us all [...] what "moves relatively" means and what c-v means

I think most folks reading already know. But OK, for about the
twentieth time, the context is a "stationary" system of coordinates, a
"moving" system of coordinates, a point moving with velocity "v" in the
stationary system and at rest in the moving system, and a ray of light.
The distance between the point and the ray of light in the stationary
system changes. The rate at which that distance changes is c-v. The
distance between the point and the ray of light in the moving system
also changes. The rate at which *this* distance changes (between the
same two objects) is c.

The velocity of the ray of light in the stationary system is c, and the
velocity of the ray of light in the moving system is c. The fact that the
velocity of the ray of light in both systems is c is why Einstein used the
circumlocution "moves relatively when measured in the stationary system"
to indicate he was talking about a distance between two moving objects,
and not the velocity of the ray of light in the moving system.

And of course, since a rate of change in distance has units of velocity,
he called it a "velocity". This seems to have confused Androcles,
but not much of anybody else.

I predict Androcles will now foam at the mouth and say many insulting things.

Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

"Nick Mason" <noemail@nospam> wrote in news:K8SdnZOnqblEyR_bRVnysAA@bt.com:

> Nick Mason wrote:
>>
>> wwer werj w ws wrh lwerh w;q wer
>
> Please ignore the gibberish, the damn cat came in out of rain and was
> walking all over they keyboard dripping everywhere. Between him and me
> trying to keep the keyboard dry we managed to send that!
>
> Sorry.
>

Oh, I dunno, compared to Chomko's and McCall's eternal lovers' spat, it was
refreshing. Compliments to your cat. Wonder what he'd type after a little
catnip turned him on?

"Nick Mason" <noemail@nospam> wrote in news:K8SdnZOnqblEyR_bRVnysAA@bt.com:

> Nick Mason wrote:
>>
>> wwer werj w ws wrh lwerh w;q wer
>
> Please ignore the gibberish, the damn cat came in out of rain and was
> walking all over they keyboard dripping everywhere. Between him and me
> trying to keep the keyboard dry we managed to send that!
>
> Sorry.
>

Oh, I dunno, compared to Chomko's and McCall's eternal lovers' spat, it was
refreshing. Compliments to your cat. Wonder what he'd type after a little
catnip turned him on?

Liberalhere <liberalhere@lyahoo.com> wrote:

:"Nick Mason" <noemail@nospam> wrote in news:K8SdnZOnqblEyR_bRVnysAA@bt.com:
:
:> Nick Mason wrote:
:>>
:>> wwer werj w ws wrh lwerh w;q wer
:>
:> Please ignore the gibberish, the damn cat came in out of rain and was
:> walking all over they keyboard dripping everywhere. Between him and me
:> trying to keep the keyboard dry we managed to send that!
:>
:> Sorry.
:>
:
:Oh, I dunno, compared to Chomko's and McCall's eternal lovers' spat, it was
:refreshing. Compliments to your cat. Wonder what he'd type after a little
:catnip turned him on?
:

Like Eric, only smarter...

--
"Oooo, scary! Y'know, there are a lot scarier things
in the world than you ... and I'm one of them."

-- Buffy the vampire

Liberalhere <liberalhere@lyahoo.com> wrote:

:"Nick Mason" <noemail@nospam> wrote in news:K8SdnZOnqblEyR_bRVnysAA@bt.com:
:
:> Nick Mason wrote:
:>>
:>> wwer werj w ws wrh lwerh w;q wer
:>
:> Please ignore the gibberish, the damn cat came in out of rain and was
:> walking all over they keyboard dripping everywhere. Between him and me
:> trying to keep the keyboard dry we managed to send that!
:>
:> Sorry.
:>
:
:Oh, I dunno, compared to Chomko's and McCall's eternal lovers' spat, it was
:refreshing. Compliments to your cat. Wonder what he'd type after a little
:catnip turned him on?
:

Like Eric, only smarter...

--
"Oooo, scary! Y'know, there are a lot scarier things
in the world than you ... and I'm one of them."

-- Buffy the vampire

I think all of this FTL stuff, which isn't necessary for Earth being
populated or otherwise terraformed via ETs, as a somewhat unrelated
subtopic is merely orchestrated as another primary topic diversion or
ruse. Sorry about all that.

Unlike American, Androcles and a few of those others that would much
rather worship Einstein no matter what, whereas I can't hardly say
exactly how photons interact with other photons, but a typical laser
beam does seem to align atoms for the benefit of getting those photons
from point to point.

Therefore, my therory or deductive conjecture is that photons do
require a few atoms, say at least one atom/m3 should be more than
sufficient, although perhaps even as few as one interstellar atom/km3
is all that it takes, since such an absolute void of merely 1 atom/km3
would allow that extremely cold (near absolute 0 K) atom to become
rather large.

Obviously a black hole event horizion seems as though it's offering
few if any atoms/m3.

Atoms performing as photon packet nodes is what sort of makes sense.
Too bad that physics and the best available science so often doesn't
make any sense.
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 19, 8:14 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> having accommodated intelligent life?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

I think all of this FTL stuff, which isn't necessary for Earth being
populated or otherwise terraformed via ETs, as a somewhat unrelated
subtopic is merely orchestrated as another primary topic diversion or
ruse. Sorry about all that.

Unlike American, Androcles and a few of those others that would much
rather worship Einstein no matter what, whereas I can't hardly say
exactly how photons interact with other photons, but a typical laser
beam does seem to align atoms for the benefit of getting those photons
from point to point.

Therefore, my therory or deductive conjecture is that photons do
require a few atoms, say at least one atom/m3 should be more than
sufficient, although perhaps even as few as one interstellar atom/km3
is all that it takes, since such an absolute void of merely 1 atom/km3
would allow that extremely cold (near absolute 0 K) atom to become
rather large.

Obviously a black hole event horizion seems as though it's offering
few if any atoms/m3.

Atoms performing as photon packet nodes is what sort of makes sense.
Too bad that physics and the best available science so often doesn't
make any sense.
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 19, 8:14 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life?
>
> What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited?
>
> What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for
> having accommodated intelligent life?
> -
> "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
> -
> Brad Guth

On 27 Jun, 17:00, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> :
> : 1) Why does the mu meson last so long?
>
> It lasts 2.2 usec because it does. Why is grass green, moron?

IN IT'S FRAME OF REFERENCE. It lasts a lot longer in ours. 20km =
about 667 usec in ours.
>
> 2) What is the energy source of quasars?
>
> You don't even know what a quasar is, moron.
>
It is an abnormal galaxy which emits large amounts of energy. The
energy emitting region is < a light month across because of the way in
which energy flux varies.

Orthodox explanation is that matter falls into a spinning black hole.
Because of gravitational retarded potential (gravitational waves) some
of this matter is accelerated to close to c. This high speed jet is
what gives off the energy. I have not yet heard anything better. If
you can produce something better please write a paper. A Nobel prize
awaits!

Gravitational waves do represent one of the lesser known tests of GR.
It is in fact possible to build a non GR theory which fits for weak
fields.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...776f93 96fcec

I pointed out that G waves were not predicted, someone else mentioned
strong gravitational fields. In fact with Maxwell's equations the
Earth would only last 100 million years before going into the Sun. The
Earth has in fact been in existence for 4.55 billion.

I cannot let anti semitism go. Some time ago Stephen Hawking advocated
establishing colonies in space "to safeguard humanity". I said, I
think justifiably, that this was a load of nonsense and it was far far
better to safeguard Earth. I was castigated for this by certain people
and I got the bit between my teeth I'm afraid. I felt they were
spreading disinformation. This disinformation I felt should be nailed.
Again justifiably in my view.

One important fact did emerge. If you have a siege colony, that is to
say a colony that requires no input from Earth, we would have
constructed a full Von Neumann machine. Thus what Hawkins says for the
immediate future is a pipedream. In the further private individuals
will be able to set up colonies at low cost, and at that point it will
be therefore a non question.

- Ian Parker

On 27 Jun, 17:00, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
>
> :
> : 1) Why does the mu meson last so long?
>
> It lasts 2.2 usec because it does. Why is grass green, moron?

IN IT'S FRAME OF REFERENCE. It lasts a lot longer in ours. 20km =
about 667 usec in ours.
>
> 2) What is the energy source of quasars?
>
> You don't even know what a quasar is, moron.
>
It is an abnormal galaxy which emits large amounts of energy. The
energy emitting region is < a light month across because of the way in
which energy flux varies.

Orthodox explanation is that matter falls into a spinning black hole.
Because of gravitational retarded potential (gravitational waves) some
of this matter is accelerated to close to c. This high speed jet is
what gives off the energy. I have not yet heard anything better. If
you can produce something better please write a paper. A Nobel prize
awaits!

Gravitational waves do represent one of the lesser known tests of GR.
It is in fact possible to build a non GR theory which fits for weak
fields.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...776f93 96fcec

I pointed out that G waves were not predicted, someone else mentioned
strong gravitational fields. In fact with Maxwell's equations the
Earth would only last 100 million years before going into the Sun. The
Earth has in fact been in existence for 4.55 billion.

I cannot let anti semitism go. Some time ago Stephen Hawking advocated
establishing colonies in space "to safeguard humanity". I said, I
think justifiably, that this was a load of nonsense and it was far far
better to safeguard Earth. I was castigated for this by certain people
and I got the bit between my teeth I'm afraid. I felt they were
spreading disinformation. This disinformation I felt should be nailed.
Again justifiably in my view.

One important fact did emerge. If you have a siege colony, that is to
say a colony that requires no input from Earth, we would have
constructed a full Von Neumann machine. Thus what Hawkins says for the
immediate future is a pipedream. In the further private individuals
will be able to set up colonies at low cost, and at that point it will
be therefore a non question.

- Ian Parker

Scientists do not have Gods. At least they should not. relativity must
stand or fall by its own merits. As I have stated other theories
explain SOME of the facts. Not all.

Let me clear up Mercury. Leverrier carried on the tradition stated by
Laplace in Méchanique Céleste and calculated orbits based on
perturbation. The Earth , the Moon, Venus. Most of the non elliptical
movement of Mercury is indeed due to these causes. Leverrier
calculated them. He did a good job and got the right answers for all
the planets and asteroids. This anomoly remained for Mercury. It is
not explicable by any classical theory. Now of course the advent of
computers makes calculations like this very much faster and more
accurate. We have orbits much more accurate now than in the time of
Leverrier.

BTW - About the more political stuff. I posted on laser determination
of the orbits of Earth striking asteroids. Nobody took any notice.
They were much more interested in spreading disinformation and
denigrating myself. In fact we can do in minutes what would have taken
lifetimes for Laplace and Leverrier.

If you are saying the NASA models are concocted, that NASA has
conspired to falsify Mercury's orbital data, then this is yet another
conspiracy theory. 9/11 explosive charges, Neil Armstrong never
llanded on the Moon etc. Now NASA is falsifing its program data.

A Nobel prize was won for measuring the approach of 2 neutron stars to
one and other. They gave off gravitational waves in their orbit. I am
convinced that there is a graviton of spin 2 (this is the Elementary
Particle view). Maxwell's Equations refer to electric and magnetic
fields which are vectors. The gravity in gravitational waves is a
TENSOR of the second order. A spin of 2 (or 5 planes of polarization,
incuding gravitational pull in the direction of motion) drops out of
the tensor equations. As I said a spin of 2 is needed to explain the
age of the Earth.

As I say Einstein was not a God. He was wrong on many points. Despite
the fact that he had helped to develop Quantum Theory he never fully
accepted it. Relativity must stand or fall by its own merit. As I have
said a theory of equal merit would be hard to find.

BTW - One other point about Einstein. He was a lifetime pacifist. He
was also a Zionist believing in a home for the Jews in the Middle
East. Towards the end of his life he modified his stance on pacifism
seeing the intransigent nature of the Arabs. He was never anti Arab.
If they had told him they wanted to develop agriculture in arid lands
together, he would have joined up with them.

He was offered the Presidency of Israel which he turned down.

- Ian Parker

Scientists do not have Gods. At least they should not. relativity must
stand or fall by its own merits. As I have stated other theories
explain SOME of the facts. Not all.

Let me clear up Mercury. Leverrier carried on the tradition stated by
Laplace in Méchanique Céleste and calculated orbits based on
perturbation. The Earth , the Moon, Venus. Most of the non elliptical
movement of Mercury is indeed due to these causes. Leverrier
calculated them. He did a good job and got the right answers for all
the planets and asteroids. This anomoly remained for Mercury. It is
not explicable by any classical theory. Now of course the advent of
computers makes calculations like this very much faster and more
accurate. We have orbits much more accurate now than in the time of
Leverrier.

BTW - About the more political stuff. I posted on laser determination
of the orbits of Earth striking asteroids. Nobody took any notice.
They were much more interested in spreading disinformation and
denigrating myself. In fact we can do in minutes what would have taken
lifetimes for Laplace and Leverrier.

If you are saying the NASA models are concocted, that NASA has
conspired to falsify Mercury's orbital data, then this is yet another
conspiracy theory. 9/11 explosive charges, Neil Armstrong never
llanded on the Moon etc. Now NASA is falsifing its program data.

A Nobel prize was won for measuring the approach of 2 neutron stars to
one and other. They gave off gravitational waves in their orbit. I am
convinced that there is a graviton of spin 2 (this is the Elementary
Particle view). Maxwell's Equations refer to electric and magnetic
fields which are vectors. The gravity in gravitational waves is a
TENSOR of the second order. A spin of 2 (or 5 planes of polarization,
incuding gravitational pull in the direction of motion) drops out of
the tensor equations. As I said a spin of 2 is needed to explain the
age of the Earth.

As I say Einstein was not a God. He was wrong on many points. Despite
the fact that he had helped to develop Quantum Theory he never fully
accepted it. Relativity must stand or fall by its own merit. As I have
said a theory of equal merit would be hard to find.

BTW - One other point about Einstein. He was a lifetime pacifist. He
was also a Zionist believing in a home for the Jews in the Middle
East. Towards the end of his life he modified his stance on pacifism
seeing the intransigent nature of the Arabs. He was never anti Arab.
If they had told him they wanted to develop agriculture in arid lands
together, he would have joined up with them.

He was offered the Presidency of Israel which he turned down.

- Ian Parker

On Jun 28, 5:26 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Scientists do not have Gods. At least they should not. relativity must
> stand or fall by its own merits. As I have stated other theories
> explain SOME of the facts. Not all.
>
> Let me clear up Mercury. Leverrier carried on the tradition stated by
> Laplace in Méchanique Céleste and calculated orbits based on
> perturbation. The Earth , the Moon, Venus. Most of the non elliptical
> movement of Mercury is indeed due to these causes. Leverrier
> calculated them. He did a good job and got the right answers for all
> the planets and asteroids. This anomoly remained for Mercury. It is
> not explicable by any classical theory. Now of course the advent of
> computers makes calculations like this very much faster and more
> accurate. We have orbits much more accurate now than in the time of
> Leverrier.
>
> BTW - About the more political stuff. I posted on laser determination
> of the orbits of Earth striking asteroids. Nobody took any notice.
> They were much more interested in spreading disinformation and
> denigrating myself. In fact we can do in minutes what would have taken
> lifetimes for Laplace and Leverrier.
>
> If you are saying the NASA models are concocted, that NASA has
> conspired to falsify Mercury's orbital data, then this is yet another
> conspiracy theory. 9/11 explosive charges, Neil Armstrong never
> llanded on the Moon etc. Now NASA is falsifing its program data.
>
> A Nobel prize was won for measuring the approach of 2 neutron stars to
> one and other. They gave off gravitational waves in their orbit. I am
> convinced that there is a graviton of spin 2 (this is the Elementary
> Particle view). Maxwell's Equations refer to electric and magnetic
> fields which are vectors. The gravity in gravitational waves is a
> TENSOR of the second order. A spin of 2 (or 5 planes of polarization,
> incuding gravitational pull in the direction of motion) drops out of
> the tensor equations. As I said a spin of 2 is needed to explain the
> age of the Earth.
>
> As I say Einstein was not a God. He was wrong on many points. Despite
> the fact that he had helped to develop Quantum Theory he never fully
> accepted it. Relativity must stand or fall by its own merit. As I have
> said a theory of equal merit would be hard to find.
>
> BTW - One other point about Einstein. He was a lifetime pacifist. He
> was also a Zionist believing in a home for the Jews in the Middle
> East. Towards the end of his life he modified his stance on pacifism
> seeing the intransigent nature of the Arabs. He was never anti Arab.
> If they had told him they wanted to develop agriculture in arid lands
> together, he would have joined up with them.
>
> He was offered the Presidency of Israel which he turned down.
>
> - Ian Parker

Our beloved Einstein was also a puppet, and like a good little Zionist
puppet he pretty much did exactly what he was given and/or told to do,
of which didn't allow for anything ET or ETI related, no matters what
the physics or best available science had to say.

Stuffing an ET Gray up his butt wouldn't have altered his anti-ET and
thus bigoted mindset, being the very same outcome as the Zion swarm
that he was part of.

Either you are a team player, or you are not. Einstein was for the
most part a team player.
-
Brad Guth

On Jun 28, 5:26 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Scientists do not have Gods. At least they should not. relativity must
> stand or fall by its own merits. As I have stated other theories
> explain SOME of the facts. Not all.
>
> Let me clear up Mercury. Leverrier carried on the tradition stated by
> Laplace in Méchanique Céleste and calculated orbits based on
> perturbation. The Earth , the Moon, Venus. Most of the non elliptical
> movement of Mercury is indeed due to these causes. Leverrier
> calculated them. He did a good job and got the right answers for all
> the planets and asteroids. This anomoly remained for Mercury. It is
> not explicable by any classical theory. Now of course the advent of
> computers makes calculations like this very much faster and more
> accurate. We have orbits much more accurate now than in the time of
> Leverrier.
>
> BTW - About the more political stuff. I posted on laser determination
> of the orbits of Earth striking asteroids. Nobody took any notice.
> They were much more interested in spreading disinformation and
> denigrating myself. In fact we can do in minutes what would have taken
> lifetimes for Laplace and Leverrier.
>
> If you are saying the NASA models are concocted, that NASA has
> conspired to falsify Mercury's orbital data, then this is yet another
> conspiracy theory. 9/11 explosive charges, Neil Armstrong never
> llanded on the Moon etc. Now NASA is falsifing its program data.
>
> A Nobel prize was won for measuring the approach of 2 neutron stars to
> one and other. They gave off gravitational waves in their orbit. I am
> convinced that there is a graviton of spin 2 (this is the Elementary
> Particle view). Maxwell's Equations refer to electric and magnetic
> fields which are vectors. The gravity in gravitational waves is a
> TENSOR of the second order. A spin of 2 (or 5 planes of polarization,
> incuding gravitational pull in the direction of motion) drops out of
> the tensor equations. As I said a spin of 2 is needed to explain the
> age of the Earth.
>
> As I say Einstein was not a God. He was wrong on many points. Despite
> the fact that he had helped to develop Quantum Theory he never fully
> accepted it. Relativity must stand or fall by its own merit. As I have
> said a theory of equal merit would be hard to find.
>
> BTW - One other point about Einstein. He was a lifetime pacifist. He
> was also a Zionist believing in a home for the Jews in the Middle
> East. Towards the end of his life he modified his stance on pacifism
> seeing the intransigent nature of the Arabs. He was never anti Arab.
> If they had told him they wanted to develop agriculture in arid lands
> together, he would have joined up with them.
>
> He was offered the Presidency of Israel which he turned down.
>
> - Ian Parker

Our beloved Einstein was also a puppet, and like a good little Zionist
puppet he pretty much did exactly what he was given and/or told to do,
of which didn't allow for anything ET or ETI related, no matters what
the physics or best available science had to say.

Stuffing an ET Gray up his butt wouldn't have altered his anti-ET and
thus bigoted mindset, being the very same outcome as the Zion swarm
that he was part of.

Either you are a team player, or you are not. Einstein was for the
most part a team player.
-
Brad Guth

On 23 Jun, 16:26, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oops, sorry about all that: Google error / Server Error
> "The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your
> request."
>
> It seems whenever I've posted to various topics (mostly those of my
> own) that we get our Usenet land into deep crapolla with the lords and
> rusemasters of those Old Testament thumping Zions and of their brown-
> nosed Atheist minions in charge of all that's GOOGLE/NOVA.
>
Oh, oh, so it is not only Zionism you are against, it is Google too.
Oh dear, so the fact that you can access any information weakens CIA/
establishment control. Oh I see it all now. I got all these references
on Latin America without having to do that much research.

http://www.geocities.com/ciameddling/
http://www.krysstal.com/display_acts...ncountry=-Cuba

http://www.soaw.org/article.php?id=98
Have to read the original. I know a bit of Spanish.

Oh I see now. You can't nobble Google so you want to destroy it. I see
that the demise of Radio Reloj will be of just as great significance
up north.

How many Jews work for Google? Can't say I have ever thought about it.
Probably the proportion of Jews in the general graduate population.

I feel that having the world's information in one place will greatly
speed up scientific research and human progress in general. That is if
it is used properly and no one group gains control. If the military or
the CIA get control - heaven help us!

- Ian Parker

On 23 Jun, 16:26, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oops, sorry about all that: Google error / Server Error
> "The server encountered a temporary error and could not complete your
> request."
>
> It seems whenever I've posted to various topics (mostly those of my
> own) that we get our Usenet land into deep crapolla with the lords and
> rusemasters of those Old Testament thumping Zions and of their brown-
> nosed Atheist minions in charge of all that's GOOGLE/NOVA.
>
Oh, oh, so it is not only Zionism you are against, it is Google too.
Oh dear, so the fact that you can access any information weakens CIA/
establishment control. Oh I see it all now. I got all these references
on Latin America without having to do that much research.

http://www.geocities.com/ciameddling/
http://www.krysstal.com/display_acts...ncountry=-Cuba

http://www.soaw.org/article.php?id=98
Have to read the original. I know a bit of Spanish.

Oh I see now. You can't nobble Google so you want to destroy it. I see
that the demise of Radio Reloj will be of just as great significance
up north.

How many Jews work for Google? Can't say I have ever thought about it.
Probably the proportion of Jews in the general graduate population.

I feel that having the world's information in one place will greatly
speed up scientific research and human progress in general. That is if
it is used properly and no one group gains control. If the military or
the CIA get control - heaven help us!

- Ian Parker

On 23 Jun, 23:32, "Chris.B" <chri...@mail.dk> wrote:
> This Zionist nonsense is typical of the irrationality of almost every
> post Mr/Ms Guth utters. If Israel had a scrap of intelligence it
> would use the Arabs for modestly well paid factory fodder. Thereby
> lifting the whole region out of their inherited poverty. End of Middle
> East problem.
>
They have in fact! Problem is suicide bombers and the fact that the
frontier is periodically closed. The problem with humanity is
stupidity and irrationality, it is, on the whole, not with
Machiavellian geniuses. The problem is that the Arabs are too stupid
to take a good thing when they see it.

>
> Perhaps AI will leapfrog average human intelligence and be used for
> something other than battle planning and strategy?
>
AI is used for lots of things. One of its main uses is Internet
searches. Brad Guth shows himself in his true colors when he advocates
doing away with Google.

> The clearest evidence for the lack of ET amongst us is that they have
> failed to curb our excesses, inequality, bigotry and brutality.
>
> Unless "They" are forbidden direct intervention, one can only assume
> they enjoy holidaying amongst backward savages. Attired as we are only
> in the thin veneer of technological civilisation. (I use the latter
> term loosely)
>
If direct intervention is forbidden there will be faries at the bottom
of my garden (who go away as soon as I approach). As an ET with our
own emergent technological capability will be capable of remaining
hidden, ET therefore ceases to be a scientific question.

> It would take only a few dollars on the price of vehicle fuel for some
> countries to descend into total anarchy. Never to rise from the ashes
> again.

I recall Iran has just started rationing gasolene. If the US were to
remove its threats there is a good chance Ahmadinebad would fall.

One can have endless speculation on what ET would do. ET (if he
exists) is certainly on the Web. ET/AI is reading this. If you are on
the Web there are ways of subtly altering things to help humanity. We
can ask what about free will etc. It starts to become a rather
theological discussion.

There is one thing that is abundantly clear. That is that no one has
ever seen ET, directly or indirectly. All talk about Little Green Men
and the Greys are simply nonsense. To me the most important question
is who started the rumors and who is feeding them. ET flying saucers
are likewise nonsense.

- Ian Parker

On 23 Jun, 23:32, "Chris.B" <chri...@mail.dk> wrote:
> This Zionist nonsense is typical of the irrationality of almost every
> post Mr/Ms Guth utters. If Israel had a scrap of intelligence it
> would use the Arabs for modestly well paid factory fodder. Thereby
> lifting the whole region out of their inherited poverty. End of Middle
> East problem.
>
They have in fact! Problem is suicide bombers and the fact that the
frontier is periodically closed. The problem with humanity is
stupidity and irrationality, it is, on the whole, not with
Machiavellian geniuses. The problem is that the Arabs are too stupid
to take a good thing when they see it.

>
> Perhaps AI will leapfrog average human intelligence and be used for
> something other than battle planning and strategy?
>
AI is used for lots of things. One of its main uses is Internet
searches. Brad Guth shows himself in his true colors when he advocates
doing away with Google.

> The clearest evidence for the lack of ET amongst us is that they have
> failed to curb our excesses, inequality, bigotry and brutality.
>
> Unless "They" are forbidden direct intervention, one can only assume
> they enjoy holidaying amongst backward savages. Attired as we are only
> in the thin veneer of technological civilisation. (I use the latter
> term loosely)
>
If direct intervention is forbidden there will be faries at the bottom
of my garden (who go away as soon as I approach). As an ET with our
own emergent technological capability will be capable of remaining
hidden, ET therefore ceases to be a scientific question.

> It would take only a few dollars on the price of vehicle fuel for some
> countries to descend into total anarchy. Never to rise from the ashes
> again.

I recall Iran has just started rationing gasolene. If the US were to
remove its threats there is a good chance Ahmadinebad would fall.

One can have endless speculation on what ET would do. ET (if he
exists) is certainly on the Web. ET/AI is reading this. If you are on
the Web there are ways of subtly altering things to help humanity. We
can ask what about free will etc. It starts to become a rather
theological discussion.

There is one thing that is abundantly clear. That is that no one has
ever seen ET, directly or indirectly. All talk about Little Green Men
and the Greys are simply nonsense. To me the most important question
is who started the rumors and who is feeding them. ET flying saucers
are likewise nonsense.

- Ian Parker

On Jun 22, 10:57 am, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:48:49 -0700, in a place far, far away, Ian
> Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> The knowledge of Zion naysayism on a stick isn't hardly worth our
> >> >> >> infomercial crapolla that's flowing up hill, at least not to any ET
> >> >> >> worth their salt. If you have interplanetary and/or much less
> >> >> >> interstellar capability, as such Earth is pretty much worth nothing
> >> >> >> except trouble.
> >> >> >> -
> >> >> >I must say I find you extremely difficult to understand.
>
> >> >> That's because he's even more crazy than you are. It's a waste of
> >> >> time to discourse with him.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >You have not made a contribution. You have simply called names.
>
> >> I have simply spoken truth. Neither I, or any other sane person, has
> >> any interest in reading Brad Guth's posts, or anyone else's responses
> >> to them.
>
> >The question of UFO and ETs is a question that loads and loads of
> >people have asked from time to time. Now we have a definitive
> >conclusion.
>
> Which is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that Brad Guth is
> nuts, and that we should stop encouraging him by responding to his
> insanity, and hope that he some day gets help.

Do you really care? I seriously doubt that you do. You talk a good
game but the evidence points more at your personality flaws than
anything Guth states. What do you care if people respond to Brad or
not? You seem to have a lot of energy on the fact that some people
take him seriously. Maybe if you worked on you rather than worrying
about Brad and others the world would be a better place? Surely you
can't change Brad, however...

Eric

On Jun 28, 12:50 am, Liberalhere <liberalh...@lyahoo.com> wrote:
> "Nick Mason" <noemail@nospam> wrote innews:K8SdnZOnqblEyR_bRVnysAA@bt.com:
>
> > Nick Mason wrote:
>
> >> wwer werj w ws wrh lwerh w;q wer
>
> > Please ignore the gibberish, the damn cat came in out of rain and was
> > walking all over they keyboard dripping everywhere. Between him and me
> > trying to keep the keyboard dry we managed to send that!
>
> > Sorry.
>
> Oh, I dunno, compared to Chomko's and McCall's eternal lovers' spat, it was
> refreshing. Compliments to your cat. Wonder what he'd type after a little
> catnip turned him on?

First you rail on about McCall and me and then you are trying to pick
up Mason's cat...

Eric

On Jun 28, 12:50 am, Liberalhere <liberalh...@lyahoo.com> wrote:
> "Nick Mason" <noemail@nospam> wrote innews:K8SdnZOnqblEyR_bRVnysAA@bt.com:
>
> > Nick Mason wrote:
>
> >> wwer werj w ws wrh lwerh w;q wer
>
> > Please ignore the gibberish, the damn cat came in out of rain and was
> > walking all over they keyboard dripping everywhere. Between him and me
> > trying to keep the keyboard dry we managed to send that!
>
> > Sorry.
>
> Oh, I dunno, compared to Chomko's and McCall's eternal lovers' spat, it was
> refreshing. Compliments to your cat. Wonder what he'd type after a little
> catnip turned him on?

First you rail on about McCall and me and then you are trying to pick
up Mason's cat...

Eric

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:38:19 -0000, in a place far, far away, Eric
Chomko <pne.chomko@comcast.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

>> >The question of UFO and ETs is a question that loads and loads of
>> >people have asked from time to time. Now we have a definitive
>> >conclusion.
>>
>> Which is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that Brad Guth is
>> nuts, and that we should stop encouraging him by responding to his
>> insanity, and hope that he some day gets help.
>
>Do you really care?

Yes.

>I seriously doubt that you do.

Who cares what you seriously doubt? You're an idiot.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:38:19 -0000, in a place far, far away, Eric
Chomko <pne.chomko@comcast.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

>> >The question of UFO and ETs is a question that loads and loads of
>> >people have asked from time to time. Now we have a definitive
>> >conclusion.
>>
>> Which is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that Brad Guth is
>> nuts, and that we should stop encouraging him by responding to his
>> insanity, and hope that he some day gets help.
>
>Do you really care?

Yes.

>I seriously doubt that you do.

Who cares what you seriously doubt? You're an idiot.

On Jun 28, 3:51 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:38:19 -0000, in a place far, far away, Eric
> Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> >The question of UFO and ETs is a question that loads and loads of
> >> >people have asked from time to time. Now we have a definitive
> >> >conclusion.
>
> >> Which is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that Brad Guth is
> >> nuts, and that we should stop encouraging him by responding to his
> >> insanity, and hope that he some day gets help.
>
> >Do you really care?
>
> Yes.
>
> >I seriously doubt that you do.
>
> Who cares what you seriously doubt? You're an idiot.

And you're a jerk with character flaws. Let Brad post. If you don't
like it then don't post. But trying to stop everyone from responding
to his posts is just plain dumb on your part.

Did I say that you are a jerk? Oh yes, the first line...

On Jun 28, 3:51 pm, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:38:19 -0000, in a place far, far away, Eric
> Chomko <pne.cho...@comcast.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> >The question of UFO and ETs is a question that loads and loads of
> >> >people have asked from time to time. Now we have a definitive
> >> >conclusion.
>
> >> Which is completely irrelevant to my point, which is that Brad Guth is
> >> nuts, and that we should stop encouraging him by responding to his
> >> insanity, and hope that he some day gets help.
>
> >Do you really care?
>
> Yes.
>
> >I seriously doubt that you do.
>
> Who cares what you seriously doubt? You're an idiot.

And you're a jerk with character flaws. Let Brad post. If you don't
like it then don't post. But trying to stop everyone from responding
to his posts is just plain dumb on your part.

Did I say that you are a jerk? Oh yes, the first line...

	#101
Ian Parker	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) You have got to rely on what people tell you. I presume that the papers that are published are honest. It true that a Professor in South Korea - I forget his name falsified his results and has now been disgraced. Are you telling me that all the results in Physics have all been falsified. Really! The attidude in Science contrasts sharply with what is practiced in Government. http://www.democracynow.org/article....=thread&tid=25 John Rendon has been rumbled but he is still held in high esteem. What a contrast! BTW - You have not answered my questions. 1) How does the mu meson last so long? 2) What powers quasars? I want answers. - Ian Parker

	#102
Ian Parker	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) You have got to rely on what people tell you. I presume that the papers that are published are honest. It true that a Professor in South Korea - I forget his name falsified his results and has now been disgraced. Are you telling me that all the results in Physics have all been falsified. Really! The attidude in Science contrasts sharply with what is practiced in Government. http://www.democracynow.org/article....=thread&tid=25 John Rendon has been rumbled but he is still held in high esteem. What a contrast! BTW - You have not answered my questions. 1) How does the mu meson last so long? 2) What powers quasars? I want answers. - Ian Parker

	#103
Paul F. Dietz	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) Androcles wrote: > "Predicts" - a word used by any fortune-teller or charlatan. I'm not > interested in your ability to read horoscopes or predict the future, I'm > interested in science. Science is about prediction. It's those predictions that are what makes a theory testable -- you try to see if the predictions actually come true. Paul

	#104
Ian Parker	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) On 25 Jun, 15:24, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > BTW, I do believe that an established laser beam of photons that > essentially aligns atoms can help channel or transport other photons > to the head of the train, which is thereby capable of allowing those > photons to exceed the speed of light. A conduit or waveguide of FTL > moving photons has been common place for as long as such radar > waveguides have existed. Of two opposing or arriving laser beams is a > differential velocity of 2X 'c'. A quantum photon (FM photon) is > simply the holy grail of what makes us and everything we can detect > what we are. Atoms serve the needs of photons, much like batteries > and wire serves the needs of electrons. Our DNA is nnothing without > photons. > Do you understand the difference between phase velocity and group velocity? The group velocity is the speed at which information travels. In an ionized gas the phase velocicity exceeds c, the group velocity, the velocity of information transfer, does not. - Ian Parker

	#105
Ian Parker	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) On 25 Jun, 15:24, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > BTW, I do believe that an established laser beam of photons that > essentially aligns atoms can help channel or transport other photons > to the head of the train, which is thereby capable of allowing those > photons to exceed the speed of light. A conduit or waveguide of FTL > moving photons has been common place for as long as such radar > waveguides have existed. Of two opposing or arriving laser beams is a > differential velocity of 2X 'c'. A quantum photon (FM photon) is > simply the holy grail of what makes us and everything we can detect > what we are. Atoms serve the needs of photons, much like batteries > and wire serves the needs of electrons. Our DNA is nnothing without > photons. > Do you understand the difference between phase velocity and group velocity? The group velocity is the speed at which information travels. In an ionized gas the phase velocicity exceeds c, the group velocity, the velocity of information transfer, does not. - Ian Parker

	#106
BradGuth	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) On Jun 25, 8:33 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 Jun, 15:24, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > BTW, I do believe that an established laser beam of photons that > > essentially aligns atoms can help channel or transport other photons > > to the head of the train, which is thereby capable of allowing those > > photons to exceed the speed of light. A conduit or waveguide of FTL > > moving photons has been common place for as long as such radar > > waveguides have existed. Of two opposing or arriving laser beams is a > > differential velocity of 2X 'c'. A quantum photon (FM photon) is > > simply the holy grail of what makes us and everything we can detect > > what we are. Atoms serve the needs of photons, much like batteries > > and wire serves the needs of electrons. Our DNA is nnothing without > > photons. > > Do you understand the difference between phase velocity and group > velocity? The group velocity is the speed at which information > travels. In an ionized gas the phase velocicity exceeds c, the group > velocity, the velocity of information transfer, does not. > > - Ian Parker If our universe is the photon waveguide, then what? A quantum/FM photon eliminates most all forms of communication limitations. I believe that a set of spinning and somewhat AI photon aligned atoms can hand off as many quantum/FM photons as necessary, thus the speed or velocity of transfering data/packets at FTL is technically doable. Of course, if you believe as I don't that a photon can't have or otherwise represent any mass, then there's no limitation as to it's velocity. However, since a photon is more than likely of something greater than zero mass is why the speed of 'c' is about as good as it gets. The phase velocity depends on how large of waveguide you've got to work with. How about a photon waveguide of one or more light years per dimention? Seems that anything contained within the light year waveguide is going to benefit from the ongoing phase velocity that's taking place. In other words, with a quantum/FM photon there's little if any need of a group velocity, as each photon becomes worthy of hauling more binary information than 01. How about a packet density of 1024 bits per quantum string like photon? - Brad Guth

	#107
BradGuth	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) On Jun 25, 8:33 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 Jun, 15:24, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > BTW, I do believe that an established laser beam of photons that > > essentially aligns atoms can help channel or transport other photons > > to the head of the train, which is thereby capable of allowing those > > photons to exceed the speed of light. A conduit or waveguide of FTL > > moving photons has been common place for as long as such radar > > waveguides have existed. Of two opposing or arriving laser beams is a > > differential velocity of 2X 'c'. A quantum photon (FM photon) is > > simply the holy grail of what makes us and everything we can detect > > what we are. Atoms serve the needs of photons, much like batteries > > and wire serves the needs of electrons. Our DNA is nnothing without > > photons. > > Do you understand the difference between phase velocity and group > velocity? The group velocity is the speed at which information > travels. In an ionized gas the phase velocicity exceeds c, the group > velocity, the velocity of information transfer, does not. > > - Ian Parker If our universe is the photon waveguide, then what? A quantum/FM photon eliminates most all forms of communication limitations. I believe that a set of spinning and somewhat AI photon aligned atoms can hand off as many quantum/FM photons as necessary, thus the speed or velocity of transfering data/packets at FTL is technically doable. Of course, if you believe as I don't that a photon can't have or otherwise represent any mass, then there's no limitation as to it's velocity. However, since a photon is more than likely of something greater than zero mass is why the speed of 'c' is about as good as it gets. The phase velocity depends on how large of waveguide you've got to work with. How about a photon waveguide of one or more light years per dimention? Seems that anything contained within the light year waveguide is going to benefit from the ongoing phase velocity that's taking place. In other words, with a quantum/FM photon there's little if any need of a group velocity, as each photon becomes worthy of hauling more binary information than 01. How about a packet density of 1024 bits per quantum string like photon? - Brad Guth

	#108
Ian Parker	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) Lets clear up a few misconceptions. If you have an ionised medium the phase velocity is >c. The group velocity is not. The result assumes an infinite medium. If you switch on a magnetron attached to a waveguide how long is it before the effects are felt at the other end of the waveguide. It is the group velocity. Same applies to an ionised medium. In an ionised medium there is a slight difference between the "swiich on velocity" shock speed and the group speed. It is small, both are well below c. The difference is in fact a second order effect. The form of modulation makes absolutely no difference. When I first met the topic as an undergraduate, we were taught to visualize a "group" and group velocity in terms of the Fourier Transform of the waveform. Each Fourier component travels at a different wave vecocity. You have not answered my two question, one on the mu meson, the other on quasars. To me a failure to answer these removes your arguments and that of Androcles from the scientific sphere. If you do not accept thhe explanations offered in terms of Relativity Special and General respectively you wiill have to furnish another explanation that we can all look at and study. To say all the scientists whose results back up Relativity are all frauds is just too far fetched for serious comment. In fact I could probably claim, with a lot more justification, that psychology was a load of bunkum and all the results were rigged. Certainly the field results are extremely disappointing. The Cubans at the Bay of Pigs hated Battista and the CIA more than they hated Castro (despite psy ops). There is a civil war going on in Iraq, despite all the nonsense we were told about democracy (and the psy ops). As there are no alternative scientific explanation I can only conclude that there is an ulterior explanation. Einstein was a jew. That is why you are arguing against it. - Ian Parker

	#109
Ian Parker	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) Lets clear up a few misconceptions. If you have an ionised medium the phase velocity is >c. The group velocity is not. The result assumes an infinite medium. If you switch on a magnetron attached to a waveguide how long is it before the effects are felt at the other end of the waveguide. It is the group velocity. Same applies to an ionised medium. In an ionised medium there is a slight difference between the "swiich on velocity" shock speed and the group speed. It is small, both are well below c. The difference is in fact a second order effect. The form of modulation makes absolutely no difference. When I first met the topic as an undergraduate, we were taught to visualize a "group" and group velocity in terms of the Fourier Transform of the waveform. Each Fourier component travels at a different wave vecocity. You have not answered my two question, one on the mu meson, the other on quasars. To me a failure to answer these removes your arguments and that of Androcles from the scientific sphere. If you do not accept thhe explanations offered in terms of Relativity Special and General respectively you wiill have to furnish another explanation that we can all look at and study. To say all the scientists whose results back up Relativity are all frauds is just too far fetched for serious comment. In fact I could probably claim, with a lot more justification, that psychology was a load of bunkum and all the results were rigged. Certainly the field results are extremely disappointing. The Cubans at the Bay of Pigs hated Battista and the CIA more than they hated Castro (despite psy ops). There is a civil war going on in Iraq, despite all the nonsense we were told about democracy (and the psy ops). As there are no alternative scientific explanation I can only conclude that there is an ulterior explanation. Einstein was a jew. That is why you are arguing against it. - Ian Parker

	#110
BradGuth	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) Odd, it seems this one didn't take, even though I was given the usual GOOGLE/Usenet message that it was taken into the usenet collective. On Jun 26, 3:14 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lets clear up a few misconceptions. If you have an ionised medium the > phase velocity is >c. The group velocity is not. The result assumes an > infinite medium. Your God (Einstein) took from others and proceeded to assume all sorts of things. So, what's your point? I assume that photons can ride the phase velocity backs of those carrier waveguide FTL moving photons, but instead of their going back and forth (side to side or around and around within the photon waveguide) these secondary photons would simply go directly towards the target they're pointed at, jumping off each aligned atom that's spinning and aligned on behalf of the established waveguide. Once my quantum/FM photons start arriving at the intended target, as such the amount of data or quantum binary packets of data throughput is nearly unliminted, except by the available receiving technology. > > If you switch on a magnetron attached to a waveguide how long is it > before the effects are felt at the other end of the waveguide. It is > the group velocity. Same applies to an ionised medium. In an ionised > medium there is a slight difference between the "swiich on velocity" > shock speed and the group speed. It is small, both are well below c. > The difference is in fact a second order effect. Those are merely the carrier photons, and not the intended communication photons. I agree that the carrier wave or given laser beam of photons will be arriving at not greater than c, which btw is still a good thousand fold faster than any physical probe. > > The form of modulation makes absolutely no difference. When I first > met the topic as an undergraduate, we were taught to visualize a > "group" and group velocity in terms of the Fourier Transform of the > waveform. Each Fourier component travels at a different wave vecocity. Box status quo thinking has been one of your pesky faults, isn't it. You have absolutely no idea what a quantum/FM binary photon is, do you. Each individual quantum string like photon can easly represent a 1024 bit word, as limited only by our existing technology. > > You have not answered my two question, one on the mu meson, the other > on quasars. To me a failure to answer these removes your arguments and > that of Androcles from the scientific sphere. If you do not accept > thhe explanations offered in terms of Relativity Special and General > respectively you wiill have to furnish another explanation that we can > all look at and study. mu meson? quasars? These items have what to do with ETs being smarter than us, and especially a whole lot smarter than yourself? I'll try to share my dyslexic thoughts in a way that's more entertaining to the naysay collective, although I'll keep insisting that FTL communications (similar to phase velocity) is doable once the laser conduit or photon waveguide is established (somewhat how those FM waves of phonons are speeded up once the telephone line is established, or terribly slowed down if there's a diamond obstructed pathway). > > To say all the scientists whose results back up Relativity are all > frauds is just too far fetched for serious comment. In fact I could > probably claim, with a lot more justification, that psychology was a > load of bunkum and all the results were rigged. A well proven naysayer is not a fraud, as such mainstream box limited naysayers do in fact exist (yourself being a perfectly good example). > > Certainly the field results are extremely disappointing. The Cubans at > the Bay of Pigs hated Battista and the CIA more than they hated Castro > (despite psy ops). There is a civil war going on in Iraq, despite all > the nonsense we were told about democracy (and the psy ops). What exactly doesn't our faith-based government of Zion puppets lie to us about? > > As there are no alternative scientific explanation I can only conclude > that there is an ulterior explanation. Einstein was a jew. That is why > you are arguing against it. > > - Ian Parker But you silly folks don't seem to like any such "ulterior explanation". Apparently Einstein wasn't even a very good Jew, certainly not nearly as good of a Zion bigot and a rusemaster of a naysayer like yourself. Thinking outside the box (as long as it was kept terrestrial) was a good part of what made Einstein worth keeping. Much like Van Allen was created out of thin air, sort of speak, whereas the likes of Einstein was allowed to take the lead point because, at the time those Zions had none better. In many ways, even Hitler got as far as he did because of smart Jews. (Jews have never been totally dumb and dumber, have they, although they do have a tendency of putting their own kind on a stick in order to prove a point). However, your Einstein also never agreed to the BB fiasco. At least I'll accept the mother of all black holes doing it's imploding thing, as having created at least two opposing universes. Of course that original black hole had to exist/coexist within something much larger and much older. I too (like Einstein) don't believe in God farts. - Brad Guth

	#111
BradGuth	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) Odd, it seems this one didn't take, even though I was given the usual GOOGLE/Usenet message that it was taken into the usenet collective. On Jun 26, 3:14 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote: > Lets clear up a few misconceptions. If you have an ionised medium the > phase velocity is >c. The group velocity is not. The result assumes an > infinite medium. Your God (Einstein) took from others and proceeded to assume all sorts of things. So, what's your point? I assume that photons can ride the phase velocity backs of those carrier waveguide FTL moving photons, but instead of their going back and forth (side to side or around and around within the photon waveguide) these secondary photons would simply go directly towards the target they're pointed at, jumping off each aligned atom that's spinning and aligned on behalf of the established waveguide. Once my quantum/FM photons start arriving at the intended target, as such the amount of data or quantum binary packets of data throughput is nearly unliminted, except by the available receiving technology. > > If you switch on a magnetron attached to a waveguide how long is it > before the effects are felt at the other end of the waveguide. It is > the group velocity. Same applies to an ionised medium. In an ionised > medium there is a slight difference between the "swiich on velocity" > shock speed and the group speed. It is small, both are well below c. > The difference is in fact a second order effect. Those are merely the carrier photons, and not the intended communication photons. I agree that the carrier wave or given laser beam of photons will be arriving at not greater than c, which btw is still a good thousand fold faster than any physical probe. > > The form of modulation makes absolutely no difference. When I first > met the topic as an undergraduate, we were taught to visualize a > "group" and group velocity in terms of the Fourier Transform of the > waveform. Each Fourier component travels at a different wave vecocity. Box status quo thinking has been one of your pesky faults, isn't it. You have absolutely no idea what a quantum/FM binary photon is, do you. Each individual quantum string like photon can easly represent a 1024 bit word, as limited only by our existing technology. > > You have not answered my two question, one on the mu meson, the other > on quasars. To me a failure to answer these removes your arguments and > that of Androcles from the scientific sphere. If you do not accept > thhe explanations offered in terms of Relativity Special and General > respectively you wiill have to furnish another explanation that we can > all look at and study. mu meson? quasars? These items have what to do with ETs being smarter than us, and especially a whole lot smarter than yourself? I'll try to share my dyslexic thoughts in a way that's more entertaining to the naysay collective, although I'll keep insisting that FTL communications (similar to phase velocity) is doable once the laser conduit or photon waveguide is established (somewhat how those FM waves of phonons are speeded up once the telephone line is established, or terribly slowed down if there's a diamond obstructed pathway). > > To say all the scientists whose results back up Relativity are all > frauds is just too far fetched for serious comment. In fact I could > probably claim, with a lot more justification, that psychology was a > load of bunkum and all the results were rigged. A well proven naysayer is not a fraud, as such mainstream box limited naysayers do in fact exist (yourself being a perfectly good example). > > Certainly the field results are extremely disappointing. The Cubans at > the Bay of Pigs hated Battista and the CIA more than they hated Castro > (despite psy ops). There is a civil war going on in Iraq, despite all > the nonsense we were told about democracy (and the psy ops). What exactly doesn't our faith-based government of Zion puppets lie to us about? > > As there are no alternative scientific explanation I can only conclude > that there is an ulterior explanation. Einstein was a jew. That is why > you are arguing against it. > > - Ian Parker But you silly folks don't seem to like any such "ulterior explanation". Apparently Einstein wasn't even a very good Jew, certainly not nearly as good of a Zion bigot and a rusemaster of a naysayer like yourself. Thinking outside the box (as long as it was kept terrestrial) was a good part of what made Einstein worth keeping. Much like Van Allen was created out of thin air, sort of speak, whereas the likes of Einstein was allowed to take the lead point because, at the time those Zions had none better. In many ways, even Hitler got as far as he did because of smart Jews. (Jews have never been totally dumb and dumber, have they, although they do have a tendency of putting their own kind on a stick in order to prove a point). However, your Einstein also never agreed to the BB fiasco. At least I'll accept the mother of all black holes doing it's imploding thing, as having created at least two opposing universes. Of course that original black hole had to exist/coexist within something much larger and much older. I too (like Einstein) don't believe in God farts. - Brad Guth

	#112
Nick Mason	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) Nick Mason wrote: > > wwer werj w ws wrh lwerh w;q wer Please ignore the gibberish, the damn cat came in out of rain and was walking all over they keyboard dripping everywhere. Between him and me trying to keep the keyboard dry we managed to send that! Sorry. -- Regards Nick

	#113
Nick Mason	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) Nick Mason wrote: > > wwer werj w ws wrh lwerh w;q wer Please ignore the gibberish, the damn cat came in out of rain and was walking all over they keyboard dripping everywhere. Between him and me trying to keep the keyboard dry we managed to send that! Sorry. -- Regards Nick

	#114
BradGuth	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) You folks should know, ETs being smarter than us doesn't mean they have space travel or even RF/microwave technology nailed. Surviving for perhaps as long or longer than us is more than enough to qualify such ETs as being intelligent. Just because they may not look like us or think like us is also not the least bit of any count against their likely superior survival intelligence. Of course, those interplanetary or especially interstellar worthy ETs are likely going to be a whole lot smarter than us, and in more ways advanced in their DNA or whatever else makes them tick. And, just because they're smarter and/or technologically advanced isn't necessarily a bad thing for us having new goals and redirection, instead of all the ongoing collateral damage and carnage of the innocent that buys us nothing but future grief. I'd thought we'd learned from Hitler and of his swarm of Zion friends that bulluism doesn't work. I guess we haven't quite figured that one out. - Brad Guth On Jun 19, 8:14 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life? > > What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited? > > What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for > having accommodated intelligent life? > - > "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell > - > Brad Guth

	#115
BradGuth	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) You folks should know, ETs being smarter than us doesn't mean they have space travel or even RF/microwave technology nailed. Surviving for perhaps as long or longer than us is more than enough to qualify such ETs as being intelligent. Just because they may not look like us or think like us is also not the least bit of any count against their likely superior survival intelligence. Of course, those interplanetary or especially interstellar worthy ETs are likely going to be a whole lot smarter than us, and in more ways advanced in their DNA or whatever else makes them tick. And, just because they're smarter and/or technologically advanced isn't necessarily a bad thing for us having new goals and redirection, instead of all the ongoing collateral damage and carnage of the innocent that buys us nothing but future grief. I'd thought we'd learned from Hitler and of his swarm of Zion friends that bulluism doesn't work. I guess we haven't quite figured that one out. - Brad Guth On Jun 19, 8:14 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Which laws of physics forbids other intelligent life? > > What sort of evolution is strictly terrestrial limited? > > What sort of planet/moon extremes are totally insurmountable for > having accommodated intelligent life? > - > "whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell > - > Brad Guth

	#116
Ian Parker	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) On 27 Jun, 13:03, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Too bad the very same Zion swarm mindset of opposing all that's > possible wasn't getting applied when they were pulling out all the > stops on behalf of sucking up to Hitler. > > Way to go, Ian Parker (let us kill all the Jews and anyone else that > comes along, just so that Ian Parker's Zion swarm can have it their > way). I am not going to argue the toss on Relativity. Nobody has proposed any alternative theories. 1) Why does the mu meson last so long? 2) What is the energy source of quasars? No answer - no alternative theory. Why should one race of people be killed? Under the United Nations charter every country has the right of self defense. I think you should devote your energies to combating Arab extremism. The US supports Isreal - OK I agree with that. Unfortunately it has also fanned the flames of religious extremism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html Murky isn't it? Note that CIA involvment preceeded the Soviet invasion. I have some more. In 1999 the US bombed the Serbs to hell. Ostensable reason the atrocities being committed by Serb forces in Kosovo. The truth of the matter was that a nasty war was being waged on both sides with the CIA supporting OBL's KLA. http://www.geocities.com/cpa_blackto...ciakltimuk.htm In fact now the CIA is now alarmed at the links between Bosnia, Kosovo and militant Islam http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/ips072505.htm It did fan it originally. Quite honestly I don't know what the Central Stupidity Agency is playing at. It seems very like the sourcerer's apprentice. The stick fought in Afghanistan and Kosovo and can't now be put away. Israel never fanned or fed the beast. That was the role of the CIA (CSA). You seem to want Israel removed now - it would make far more sense to sink Langley and all its staff in the Mediterranean. There are ways in which religious extremism can be fought, fanning it or giving in to it are not options. What do you suppose an Arab Palestine would be like, after gorging itself on Israel? Do you think they would stop there? 9/11 was caused directly by the Soviet defeat and to some extent the Serb defeat. It was radical Islam emboldened by the victories they had obtained with US arms. The Palestinians are not only threatening Israel with destruction they are also persecuting the Arab Christians. Do you want to kill those too? I find you hard to make out. On relativity and Science you do not have a leg to stand on. Are you simply ignorant or a disinformer. I think you are a disinformer. If you were ignorant you wwould have attempted explanations of some sort to my questions. - Ian Parker

	#117
Ian Parker	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) On 27 Jun, 13:03, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > Too bad the very same Zion swarm mindset of opposing all that's > possible wasn't getting applied when they were pulling out all the > stops on behalf of sucking up to Hitler. > > Way to go, Ian Parker (let us kill all the Jews and anyone else that > comes along, just so that Ian Parker's Zion swarm can have it their > way). I am not going to argue the toss on Relativity. Nobody has proposed any alternative theories. 1) Why does the mu meson last so long? 2) What is the energy source of quasars? No answer - no alternative theory. Why should one race of people be killed? Under the United Nations charter every country has the right of self defense. I think you should devote your energies to combating Arab extremism. The US supports Isreal - OK I agree with that. Unfortunately it has also fanned the flames of religious extremism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html Murky isn't it? Note that CIA involvment preceeded the Soviet invasion. I have some more. In 1999 the US bombed the Serbs to hell. Ostensable reason the atrocities being committed by Serb forces in Kosovo. The truth of the matter was that a nasty war was being waged on both sides with the CIA supporting OBL's KLA. http://www.geocities.com/cpa_blackto...ciakltimuk.htm In fact now the CIA is now alarmed at the links between Bosnia, Kosovo and militant Islam http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/ips072505.htm It did fan it originally. Quite honestly I don't know what the Central Stupidity Agency is playing at. It seems very like the sourcerer's apprentice. The stick fought in Afghanistan and Kosovo and can't now be put away. Israel never fanned or fed the beast. That was the role of the CIA (CSA). You seem to want Israel removed now - it would make far more sense to sink Langley and all its staff in the Mediterranean. There are ways in which religious extremism can be fought, fanning it or giving in to it are not options. What do you suppose an Arab Palestine would be like, after gorging itself on Israel? Do you think they would stop there? 9/11 was caused directly by the Soviet defeat and to some extent the Serb defeat. It was radical Islam emboldened by the victories they had obtained with US arms. The Palestinians are not only threatening Israel with destruction they are also persecuting the Arab Christians. Do you want to kill those too? I find you hard to make out. On relativity and Science you do not have a leg to stand on. Are you simply ignorant or a disinformer. I think you are a disinformer. If you were ignorant you wwould have attempted explanations of some sort to my questions. - Ian Parker

	#118
BradGuth	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) Thanks for all the off-topic feed back, of which I'll try to eventually answer. However, for the moment, it's yourself and those of your infomercial spewing kind that are the ones pretending there's nothing faith-based getting in the way of the truth, not me. My theory is that for the most part we've been lied to about ETs, and worse of all we've been continually lied to by our own kind (somewhat like Christ getting put on a stick by his own kind). The best of our world history has been skewed in order to suit the motives and collective swarm mindset of those in charge of our private parts, including those of yours. In other words, of what we often think we know is a lie. Observationology simply isn't a dead science, in fact it's pretty much the one and only science of interpretation that counts unless you're into braillology. Deductive science of dot and pixel connecting is exactly what it is, and as such it gives us an honest future of hope that's most likely to transpire unless we allow our faith-based swarm mindset to take control, in which case we get nothing but more of the same old faith-based crapolla and WWIII to look forward to. I'll have to get back to you on those other points that you folks of naysayism like to keep forcing upon us. Those nifty 36 look/pixel radar images of Venus are not the hocus- pocus of any NASA/Apollo missions, and I do believe there's lots of other physics and the best available science that's telling us we have those ETs onboard Venus. You folks should have always known, that ETs being smarter than us doesn't mean they have space travel or even RF/microwave technology nailed. Surviving for perhaps as long or longer than us is more than enough to qualify such ETs as being intelligent. Just because they may not look like us or think like us is also not the least bit of any count against their likely superior survival intelligence. Just because they take the fullest advantage of their toasty environment is not a sign of lacking intelligence. However, because your swarm mindset is obstructive and/or stuck in naysayism mode is a good sign of your having no intelligence whatsoever. Of course, those interplanetary or especially interstellar worthy ETs are likely going to be a whole lot smarter than us, and in more ways advanced in their DNA or whatever else makes them tick. And, just because they're smarter and/or technologically advanced isn't necessarily a bad thing for us having new goals and redirection, instead of all the ongoing collateral damage and carnage of the innocent that buys us nothing but future grief. I'd thought we'd learned from Hitler and of his swarm of Zion friends that bulluism doesn't work. I guess we haven't quite figured that one out. - Brad Guth On Jun 27, 6:42 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 Jun, 13:03, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Too bad the very same Zion swarm mindset of opposing all that's > > possible wasn't getting applied when they were pulling out all the > > stops on behalf of sucking up to Hitler. > > > Way to go, Ian Parker (let us kill all the Jews and anyone else that > > comes along, just so that Ian Parker's Zion swarm can have it their > > way). > > I am not going to argue the toss on Relativity. Nobody has proposed > any alternative theories. > > 1) Why does the mu meson last so long? > 2) What is the energy source of quasars? > > No answer - no alternative theory. > > Why should one race of people be killed? Under the United Nations > charter every country has the right of self defense. I think you > should devote your energies to combating Arab extremism. The US > supports Isreal - OK I agree with that. Unfortunately it has also > fanned the flames of religious extremism. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...s/CHO109C.html > > Murky isn't it? Note that CIA involvment preceeded the Soviet > invasion. I have some more. In 1999 the US bombed the Serbs to hell. > Ostensable reason the atrocities being committed by Serb forces in > Kosovo. The truth of the matter was that a nasty war was being waged > on both sides with the CIA supporting OBL's KLA. > > http://www.geocities.com/cpa_blackto...ciakltimuk.htm > > In fact now the CIA is now alarmed at the links between Bosnia, Kosovo > and militant Islam > > http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/ips072505.htm > > It did fan it originally. Quite honestly I don't know what the Central > Stupidity Agency is playing at. It seems very like the sourcerer's > apprentice. The stick fought in Afghanistan and Kosovo and can't now > be put away. > > Israel never fanned or fed the beast. That was the role of the CIA > (CSA). You seem to want Israel removed now - it would make far more > sense to sink Langley and all its staff in the Mediterranean. > > There are ways in which religious extremism can be fought, fanning it > or giving in to it are not options. What do you suppose an Arab > Palestine would be like, after gorging itself on Israel? Do you think > they would stop there? > > 9/11 was caused directly by the Soviet defeat and to some extent the > Serb defeat. It was radical Islam emboldened by the victories they had > obtained with US arms. > > The Palestinians are not only threatening Israel with destruction they > are also persecuting the Arab Christians. Do you want to kill those > too? > > I find you hard to make out. On relativity and Science you do not have > a leg to stand on. Are you simply ignorant or a disinformer. I think > you are a disinformer. If you were ignorant you wwould have attempted > explanations of some sort to my questions. > > - Ian Parker

	#119
BradGuth	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) Thanks for all the off-topic feed back, of which I'll try to eventually answer. However, for the moment, it's yourself and those of your infomercial spewing kind that are the ones pretending there's nothing faith-based getting in the way of the truth, not me. My theory is that for the most part we've been lied to about ETs, and worse of all we've been continually lied to by our own kind (somewhat like Christ getting put on a stick by his own kind). The best of our world history has been skewed in order to suit the motives and collective swarm mindset of those in charge of our private parts, including those of yours. In other words, of what we often think we know is a lie. Observationology simply isn't a dead science, in fact it's pretty much the one and only science of interpretation that counts unless you're into braillology. Deductive science of dot and pixel connecting is exactly what it is, and as such it gives us an honest future of hope that's most likely to transpire unless we allow our faith-based swarm mindset to take control, in which case we get nothing but more of the same old faith-based crapolla and WWIII to look forward to. I'll have to get back to you on those other points that you folks of naysayism like to keep forcing upon us. Those nifty 36 look/pixel radar images of Venus are not the hocus- pocus of any NASA/Apollo missions, and I do believe there's lots of other physics and the best available science that's telling us we have those ETs onboard Venus. You folks should have always known, that ETs being smarter than us doesn't mean they have space travel or even RF/microwave technology nailed. Surviving for perhaps as long or longer than us is more than enough to qualify such ETs as being intelligent. Just because they may not look like us or think like us is also not the least bit of any count against their likely superior survival intelligence. Just because they take the fullest advantage of their toasty environment is not a sign of lacking intelligence. However, because your swarm mindset is obstructive and/or stuck in naysayism mode is a good sign of your having no intelligence whatsoever. Of course, those interplanetary or especially interstellar worthy ETs are likely going to be a whole lot smarter than us, and in more ways advanced in their DNA or whatever else makes them tick. And, just because they're smarter and/or technologically advanced isn't necessarily a bad thing for us having new goals and redirection, instead of all the ongoing collateral damage and carnage of the innocent that buys us nothing but future grief. I'd thought we'd learned from Hitler and of his swarm of Zion friends that bulluism doesn't work. I guess we haven't quite figured that one out. - Brad Guth On Jun 27, 6:42 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27 Jun, 13:03, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Too bad the very same Zion swarm mindset of opposing all that's > > possible wasn't getting applied when they were pulling out all the > > stops on behalf of sucking up to Hitler. > > > Way to go, Ian Parker (let us kill all the Jews and anyone else that > > comes along, just so that Ian Parker's Zion swarm can have it their > > way). > > I am not going to argue the toss on Relativity. Nobody has proposed > any alternative theories. > > 1) Why does the mu meson last so long? > 2) What is the energy source of quasars? > > No answer - no alternative theory. > > Why should one race of people be killed? Under the United Nations > charter every country has the right of self defense. I think you > should devote your energies to combating Arab extremism. The US > supports Isreal - OK I agree with that. Unfortunately it has also > fanned the flames of religious extremism. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_...s/CHO109C.html > > Murky isn't it? Note that CIA involvment preceeded the Soviet > invasion. I have some more. In 1999 the US bombed the Serbs to hell. > Ostensable reason the atrocities being committed by Serb forces in > Kosovo. The truth of the matter was that a nasty war was being waged > on both sides with the CIA supporting OBL's KLA. > > http://www.geocities.com/cpa_blackto...ciakltimuk.htm > > In fact now the CIA is now alarmed at the links between Bosnia, Kosovo > and militant Islam > > http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/ips072505.htm > > It did fan it originally. Quite honestly I don't know what the Central > Stupidity Agency is playing at. It seems very like the sourcerer's > apprentice. The stick fought in Afghanistan and Kosovo and can't now > be put away. > > Israel never fanned or fed the beast. That was the role of the CIA > (CSA). You seem to want Israel removed now - it would make far more > sense to sink Langley and all its staff in the Mediterranean. > > There are ways in which religious extremism can be fought, fanning it > or giving in to it are not options. What do you suppose an Arab > Palestine would be like, after gorging itself on Israel? Do you think > they would stop there? > > 9/11 was caused directly by the Soviet defeat and to some extent the > Serb defeat. It was radical Islam emboldened by the victories they had > obtained with US arms. > > The Palestinians are not only threatening Israel with destruction they > are also persecuting the Arab Christians. Do you want to kill those > too? > > I find you hard to make out. On relativity and Science you do not have > a leg to stand on. Are you simply ignorant or a disinformer. I think > you are a disinformer. If you were ignorant you wwould have attempted > explanations of some sort to my questions. > > - Ian Parker

	#120
Androcles	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) "Ian Parker" <ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1182951767.083587.15820@n60g2000hse.googlegro ups.com... : On 27 Jun, 13:03, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: : : > Too bad the very same Zion swarm mindset of opposing all that's : > possible wasn't getting applied when they were pulling out all the : > stops on behalf of sucking up to Hitler. : > : > Way to go, Ian Parker (let us kill all the Jews and anyone else that : > comes along, just so that Ian Parker's Zion swarm can have it their : > way). : : I am not going to argue the toss on Relativity. Nobody has proposed : any alternative theories. IDIOT! No alternative theory is needed. : : 1) Why does the mu meson last so long? It lasts 2.2 usec because it does. Why is grass green, moron? 2) What is the energy source of quasars? You don't even know what a quasar is, moron. : : No answer - no alternative theory. : Empirical data doesn't need a theory, moron. : Why should one race of people be killed? Non physics. Take it out of sci groups. [crap deleted]

	#121
Androcles	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) "Ian Parker" <ianparker2@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1182951767.083587.15820@n60g2000hse.googlegro ups.com... : On 27 Jun, 13:03, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote: : : > Too bad the very same Zion swarm mindset of opposing all that's : > possible wasn't getting applied when they were pulling out all the : > stops on behalf of sucking up to Hitler. : > : > Way to go, Ian Parker (let us kill all the Jews and anyone else that : > comes along, just so that Ian Parker's Zion swarm can have it their : > way). : : I am not going to argue the toss on Relativity. Nobody has proposed : any alternative theories. IDIOT! No alternative theory is needed. : : 1) Why does the mu meson last so long? It lasts 2.2 usec because it does. Why is grass green, moron? 2) What is the energy source of quasars? You don't even know what a quasar is, moron. : : No answer - no alternative theory. : Empirical data doesn't need a theory, moron. : Why should one race of people be killed? Non physics. Take it out of sci groups. [crap deleted]

	#122
BradGuth	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) On Jun 27, 9:00 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote in message > : Why should one race of people be killed? > > Non physics. Take it out of sci groups. > [crap deleted] But Ian's faith-based mindset is a terrestrial limited swarm intelligence that's all about anti-physics, anti-truth and anti- whatever rocks his good ship LOLLIPOP or doesn't worship Einstein. There is simply no exception to their Zion status quo rule of me, me!, me!!, or else!!! - Brad Guth

	#123
BradGuth	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) On Jun 27, 9:00 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote: > "Ian Parker" <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote in message > : Why should one race of people be killed? > > Non physics. Take it out of sci groups. > [crap deleted] But Ian's faith-based mindset is a terrestrial limited swarm intelligence that's all about anti-physics, anti-truth and anti- whatever rocks his good ship LOLLIPOP or doesn't worship Einstein. There is simply no exception to their Zion status quo rule of me, me!, me!!, or else!!! - Brad Guth

	#124
Wayne Throop	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) : "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> : "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in : the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- Albert Einstein. Androcles doesn't know what "moves relatively" means in this context. Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

	#125
Wayne Throop	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) : "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> : "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in : the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" -- Albert Einstein. Androcles doesn't know what "moves relatively" means in this context. Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

	#126
Wayne Throop	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) :: Androcles doesn't know what "moves relatively" means in this context. : "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> : Tell us all [...] what "moves relatively" means and what c-v means I think most folks reading already know. But OK, for about the twentieth time, the context is a "stationary" system of coordinates, a "moving" system of coordinates, a point moving with velocity "v" in the stationary system and at rest in the moving system, and a ray of light. The distance between the point and the ray of light in the stationary system changes. The rate at which that distance changes is c-v. The distance between the point and the ray of light in the moving system also changes. The rate at which this distance changes (between the same two objects) is c. The velocity of the ray of light in the stationary system is c, and the velocity of the ray of light in the moving system is c. The fact that the velocity of the ray of light in both systems is c is why Einstein used the circumlocution "moves relatively when measured in the stationary system" to indicate he was talking about a distance between two moving objects, and not the velocity of the ray of light in the moving system. And of course, since a rate of change in distance has units of velocity, he called it a "velocity". This seems to have confused Androcles, but not much of anybody else. I predict Androcles will now foam at the mouth and say many insulting things. Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

	#127
Wayne Throop	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) :: Androcles doesn't know what "moves relatively" means in this context. : "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics> : Tell us all [...] what "moves relatively" means and what c-v means I think most folks reading already know. But OK, for about the twentieth time, the context is a "stationary" system of coordinates, a "moving" system of coordinates, a point moving with velocity "v" in the stationary system and at rest in the moving system, and a ray of light. The distance between the point and the ray of light in the stationary system changes. The rate at which that distance changes is c-v. The distance between the point and the ray of light in the moving system also changes. The rate at which this distance changes (between the same two objects) is c. The velocity of the ray of light in the stationary system is c, and the velocity of the ray of light in the moving system is c. The fact that the velocity of the ray of light in both systems is c is why Einstein used the circumlocution "moves relatively when measured in the stationary system" to indicate he was talking about a distance between two moving objects, and not the velocity of the ray of light in the moving system. And of course, since a rate of change in distance has units of velocity, he called it a "velocity". This seems to have confused Androcles, but not much of anybody else. I predict Androcles will now foam at the mouth and say many insulting things. Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

	#128
Liberalhere	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) "Nick Mason" <noemail@nospam> wrote in news:K8SdnZOnqblEyR_bRVnysAA@bt.com: > Nick Mason wrote: >> >> wwer werj w ws wrh lwerh w;q wer > > Please ignore the gibberish, the damn cat came in out of rain and was > walking all over they keyboard dripping everywhere. Between him and me > trying to keep the keyboard dry we managed to send that! > > Sorry. > Oh, I dunno, compared to Chomko's and McCall's eternal lovers' spat, it was refreshing. Compliments to your cat. Wonder what he'd type after a little catnip turned him on?

	#129
Liberalhere	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) "Nick Mason" <noemail@nospam> wrote in news:K8SdnZOnqblEyR_bRVnysAA@bt.com: > Nick Mason wrote: >> >> wwer werj w ws wrh lwerh w;q wer > > Please ignore the gibberish, the damn cat came in out of rain and was > walking all over they keyboard dripping everywhere. Between him and me > trying to keep the keyboard dry we managed to send that! > > Sorry. > Oh, I dunno, compared to Chomko's and McCall's eternal lovers' spat, it was refreshing. Compliments to your cat. Wonder what he'd type after a little catnip turned him on?

	#130
Fred J. McCall	Re: What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less) Liberalhere <liberalhere@lyahoo.com> wrote: :"Nick Mason" <noemail@nospam> wrote in news:K8SdnZOnqblEyR_bRVnysAA@bt.com: : :> Nick Mason wrote: :>> :>> wwer werj w ws wrh lwerh w;q wer :> :> Please ignore the gibberish, the damn cat came in out of rain and was :> walking all over they keyboard dripping everywhere. Between him and me :> trying to keep the keyboard dry we managed to send that! :> :> Sorry. :> : :Oh, I dunno, compared to Chomko's and McCall's eternal lovers' spat, it was :refreshing. Compliments to your cat. Wonder what he'd type after a little :catnip turned him on? : Like Eric, only smarter... -- "Oooo, scary! Y'know, there are a lot scarier things in the world than you ... and I'm one of them." -- Buffy the vampire