Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #865943 > unrolled thread

Nature

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Nature The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-11 11:20 -0800
    Re: Nature The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-11 13:50 -0800
      Re: Nature whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-11 16:48 -0600
        Re: Nature The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-11 19:29 -0800
          Re: Nature whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-11 21:36 -0600
            Re: Nature The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-11 22:28 -0800
              Re: Nature whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-12 07:14 -0600
                Re: Nature The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-12 11:07 -0800
                  Re: Nature whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-12-12 14:36 -0600
                    Re: Nature The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-13 11:30 -0800
                      Re: Nature Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 15:47 -0800
                        Re: Nature The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-12-13 22:28 -0800
                          Re: Nature Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 22:48 -0800
                            Re: Nature James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 07:59 -0800
                              Re: Nature Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2022-12-14 08:07 -0800
                              Re: Nature Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 09:19 -0800
                  Re: Nature Sergi o <invalid@invalid.com> - 2022-12-12 14:52 -0600
        Re: Nature Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-12-15 03:28 -0800
          Re: Nature Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-12-30 21:42 -0800
        Re: Nature Augǝl <angel0000000001000000000000@mail.ee> - 2022-12-31 10:22 -0800
    Re: Nature Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 15:05 -0800
    Re: Nature Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 19:42 -0800
    Re: Nature Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 23:42 -0800
    Re: Nature Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 12:57 -0800
    Re: Nature Trolidan7 <Trolidan7@eternal-september.org> - 2022-12-12 15:09 -0800
    Re: Nature Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 15:50 -0800
    Re: Nature Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 22:20 -0800
    Re: Nature Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 18:37 -0800
    Re: Nature Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 00:39 -0800
    Re: Nature Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2023-01-02 23:13 -0800
    Re: Nature Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2023-02-17 22:34 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#865943 — Nature

Nature
spends
a lot of time
making sure
your 
science
your
physics
Your
Laws
match the universe.

It seems to work..
but it's just
an illusion.

A theory of everything?
Nature says, "No, that is not going to work."

"You better stick with a theory of Relativity." 

"...or something small like that."


Go ahead, make a theory of gravity.



"...or something small like that."






-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#865951

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> 
> On 2022-12-11 19:20:37 +0000, The Starmaker said:
> 
> > Nature
> > spends
> > a lot of time
> > making sure
> > your
> > science
> > your
> > physics
> > Your
> > Laws
> > match the universe.
> 
> You've missed the point. The laws of nature have always been there. The
> job of physicists (of whom I am not one) is to find them.

There are no places in the Universe where these Laws exist, excepy only
in the mind.









> >
> > It seems to work..
> > but it's just
> > an illusion.
> >
> > A theory of everything?
> > Nature says, "No, that is not going to work."
> >
> > "You better stick with a theory of Relativity."
> >
> > "...or something small like that."
> >
> >
> > Go ahead, make a theory of gravity.
> >
> >
> >
> > "...or something small like that."
> 
> --
> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly
> in England until 1987.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865958

On 12/11/2022 3:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>
>> On 2022-12-11 19:20:37 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>>
>>> Nature
>>> spends
>>> a lot of time
>>> making sure
>>> your
>>> science
>>> your
>>> physics
>>> Your
>>> Laws
>>> match the universe.
>>
>> You've missed the point. The laws of nature have always been there. The
>> job of physicists (of whom I am not one) is to find them.
> 
> There are no places in the Universe where these Laws exist, excepy only
> in the mind.

You are wrong. Predictability of/in natural events (the sun will rise
tomorrow) proves that laws of nature exist. Put the bong away.

You won't (another correct prediction of nature.)

[...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865978

whodat wrote:
> 
> On 12/11/2022 3:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2022-12-11 19:20:37 +0000, The Starmaker said:
> >>
> >>> Nature
> >>> spends
> >>> a lot of time
> >>> making sure
> >>> your
> >>> science
> >>> your
> >>> physics
> >>> Your
> >>> Laws
> >>> match the universe.
> >>
> >> You've missed the point. The laws of nature have always been there. The
> >> job of physicists (of whom I am not one) is to find them.
> >
> > There are no places in the Universe where these Laws exist, excepy only
> > in the mind.
> 
> You are wrong. Predictability of/in natural events (the sun will rise
> tomorrow) proves that laws of nature exist. Put the bong away.
> 
> You won't (another correct prediction of nature.)
> 
> [...]


The sun does not rise or sets.





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865979

On 12/11/2022 9:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> whodat wrote:
>>
>> On 12/11/2022 3:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2022-12-11 19:20:37 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>>>>
>>>>> Nature
>>>>> spends
>>>>> a lot of time
>>>>> making sure
>>>>> your
>>>>> science
>>>>> your
>>>>> physics
>>>>> Your
>>>>> Laws
>>>>> match the universe.
>>>>
>>>> You've missed the point. The laws of nature have always been there. The
>>>> job of physicists (of whom I am not one) is to find them.
>>>
>>> There are no places in the Universe where these Laws exist, excepy only
>>> in the mind.
>>
>> You are wrong. Predictability of/in natural events (the sun will rise
>> tomorrow) proves that laws of nature exist. Put the bong away.
>>
>> You won't (another correct prediction of nature.)
>>
>> [...]
> 
> 
> The sun does not rise or sets.

Do you always have to be an asshole?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#865998

whodat wrote:
> 
> On 12/11/2022 9:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > whodat wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/11/2022 3:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2022-12-11 19:20:37 +0000, The Starmaker said:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Nature
> >>>>> spends
> >>>>> a lot of time
> >>>>> making sure
> >>>>> your
> >>>>> science
> >>>>> your
> >>>>> physics
> >>>>> Your
> >>>>> Laws
> >>>>> match the universe.
> >>>>
> >>>> You've missed the point. The laws of nature have always been there. The
> >>>> job of physicists (of whom I am not one) is to find them.
> >>>
> >>> There are no places in the Universe where these Laws exist, excepy only
> >>> in the mind.
> >>
> >> You are wrong. Predictability of/in natural events (the sun will rise
> >> tomorrow) proves that laws of nature exist. Put the bong away.
> >>
> >> You won't (another correct prediction of nature.)
> >>
> >> [...]
> >
> >
> > The sun does not rise or sets.
> 
> Do you always have to be an asshole?


The fact is...The sun does not rise or sets. 


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866004

On 12/12/2022 12:28 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> whodat wrote:
>>
>> On 12/11/2022 9:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> whodat wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/11/2022 3:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-12-11 19:20:37 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nature
>>>>>>> spends
>>>>>>> a lot of time
>>>>>>> making sure
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> science
>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>> physics
>>>>>>> Your
>>>>>>> Laws
>>>>>>> match the universe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've missed the point. The laws of nature have always been there. The
>>>>>> job of physicists (of whom I am not one) is to find them.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no places in the Universe where these Laws exist, excepy only
>>>>> in the mind.
>>>>
>>>> You are wrong. Predictability of/in natural events (the sun will rise
>>>> tomorrow) proves that laws of nature exist. Put the bong away.
>>>>
>>>> You won't (another correct prediction of nature.)
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>>
>>> The sun does not rise or sets.
>>
>> Do you always have to be an asshole?
> 
> 
> The fact is...The sun does not rise or sets.

Wonderful, now you're knowingly defending being an asshole who
is incapable of having a discussion in normal parlance. What is
this need you have for one upmanship? Are you the Mook the local
whops keep beating up for being a chooch?

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/AO/sunrise.html

Of course the sun doesn't rise and set, it looks that way to
humans who inhabit the earth and it is described and discussed
that way by normal humans; but you want to be special; you
must enjoy being a putz. This has been going on as a human
practice as long as humans have been around. Want to find
something wrong with "humans being around" as well?

Sheesh! Get a life already.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866020

whodat wrote:
> 
> On 12/12/2022 12:28 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > whodat wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/11/2022 9:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> whodat wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/11/2022 3:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2022-12-11 19:20:37 +0000, The Starmaker said:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Nature
> >>>>>>> spends
> >>>>>>> a lot of time
> >>>>>>> making sure
> >>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>> science
> >>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>> physics
> >>>>>>> Your
> >>>>>>> Laws
> >>>>>>> match the universe.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You've missed the point. The laws of nature have always been there. The
> >>>>>> job of physicists (of whom I am not one) is to find them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There are no places in the Universe where these Laws exist, excepy only
> >>>>> in the mind.
> >>>>
> >>>> You are wrong. Predictability of/in natural events (the sun will rise
> >>>> tomorrow) proves that laws of nature exist. Put the bong away.
> >>>>
> >>>> You won't (another correct prediction of nature.)
> >>>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The sun does not rise or sets.
> >>
> >> Do you always have to be an asshole?
> >
> >
> > The fact is...The sun does not rise or sets.
> 
> Wonderful, now you're knowingly defending being an asshole who
> is incapable of having a discussion in normal parlance. What is
> this need you have for one upmanship? Are you the Mook the local
> whops keep beating up for being a chooch?
> 
> http://solar-center.stanford.edu/AO/sunrise.html
> 
> Of course the sun doesn't rise and set, it looks that way to
> humans who inhabit the earth and it is described and discussed
> that way by normal humans; 


Well, this is about what people 'perceive' Laws of Nature are..

when you wrote "the sun will rise", I was wondering what Laws of Nature
are there
with "the sun will rise"...was it Sunrise Laws?, Sunst Laws??, Sunshine
Laws? Sunny Laws?? I
didn't know of any. But,
you seem to be taking about...'people observations' from standing on the
earth and
looking at the sky...what law of nature is that one? Doesn't it DEPEND
on your zipcode? 

Like for example: zipcode 995??


Maybe, just maybe...you have no idea the definition of 'Laws of Nature'
mean.

Does the Law apply everywhere, or just from your window at the funny
farm where you live?






-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866035

On 12/12/2022 1:07 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> whodat wrote:
>>
>> On 12/12/2022 12:28 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> whodat wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/11/2022 9:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> whodat wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/11/2022 3:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-12-11 19:20:37 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nature
>>>>>>>>> spends
>>>>>>>>> a lot of time
>>>>>>>>> making sure
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> science
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> physics
>>>>>>>>> Your
>>>>>>>>> Laws
>>>>>>>>> match the universe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've missed the point. The laws of nature have always been there. The
>>>>>>>> job of physicists (of whom I am not one) is to find them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are no places in the Universe where these Laws exist, excepy only
>>>>>>> in the mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are wrong. Predictability of/in natural events (the sun will rise
>>>>>> tomorrow) proves that laws of nature exist. Put the bong away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You won't (another correct prediction of nature.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The sun does not rise or sets.
>>>>
>>>> Do you always have to be an asshole?
>>>
>>>
>>> The fact is...The sun does not rise or sets.
>>
>> Wonderful, now you're knowingly defending being an asshole who
>> is incapable of having a discussion in normal parlance. What is
>> this need you have for one upmanship? Are you the Mook the local
>> whops keep beating up for being a chooch?
>>
>> http://solar-center.stanford.edu/AO/sunrise.html
>>
>> Of course the sun doesn't rise and set, it looks that way to
>> humans who inhabit the earth and it is described and discussed
>> that way by normal humans;
> 
> 
> Well, this is about what people 'perceive' Laws of Nature are..
> 
> when you wrote "the sun will rise", I was wondering what Laws of Nature
> are there
> with "the sun will rise"...was it Sunrise Laws?, Sunst Laws??, Sunshine
> Laws? Sunny Laws?? I
> didn't know of any. But,
> you seem to be taking about...'people observations' from standing on the
> earth and
> looking at the sky...what law of nature is that one? Doesn't it DEPEND
> on your zipcode?
> 
> Like for example: zipcode 995??
> 
> 
> Maybe, just maybe...you have no idea the definition of 'Laws of Nature'
> mean.
> 
> Does the Law apply everywhere, or just from your window at the funny
> farm where you live?

ibid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866112

whodat wrote:
> 
> On 12/12/2022 1:07 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > whodat wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/12/2022 12:28 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> whodat wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 12/11/2022 9:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>> whodat wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 12/11/2022 3:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 2022-12-11 19:20:37 +0000, The Starmaker said:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Nature
> >>>>>>>>> spends
> >>>>>>>>> a lot of time
> >>>>>>>>> making sure
> >>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>> science
> >>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>> physics
> >>>>>>>>> Your
> >>>>>>>>> Laws
> >>>>>>>>> match the universe.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You've missed the point. The laws of nature have always been there. The
> >>>>>>>> job of physicists (of whom I am not one) is to find them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> There are no places in the Universe where these Laws exist, excepy only
> >>>>>>> in the mind.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are wrong. Predictability of/in natural events (the sun will rise
> >>>>>> tomorrow) proves that laws of nature exist. Put the bong away.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You won't (another correct prediction of nature.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The sun does not rise or sets.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you always have to be an asshole?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The fact is...The sun does not rise or sets.
> >>
> >> Wonderful, now you're knowingly defending being an asshole who
> >> is incapable of having a discussion in normal parlance. What is
> >> this need you have for one upmanship? Are you the Mook the local
> >> whops keep beating up for being a chooch?
> >>
> >> http://solar-center.stanford.edu/AO/sunrise.html
> >>
> >> Of course the sun doesn't rise and set, it looks that way to
> >> humans who inhabit the earth and it is described and discussed
> >> that way by normal humans;
> >
> >
> > Well, this is about what people 'perceive' Laws of Nature are..
> >
> > when you wrote "the sun will rise", I was wondering what Laws of Nature
> > are there
> > with "the sun will rise"...was it Sunrise Laws?, Sunst Laws??, Sunshine
> > Laws? Sunny Laws?? I
> > didn't know of any. But,
> > you seem to be taking about...'people observations' from standing on the
> > earth and
> > looking at the sky...what law of nature is that one? Doesn't it DEPEND
> > on your zipcode?
> >
> > Like for example: zipcode 995??
> >
> >
> > Maybe, just maybe...you have no idea the definition of 'Laws of Nature'
> > mean.
> >
> > Does the Law apply everywhere, or just from your window at the funny
> > farm where you live?
> 
> ibid.

In Alaska there are times they don't see a sunrise or a sunset. 





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866127

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 11:29:58 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:

> In Alaska there are times they don't see a sunrise or a sunset.

It is more correct to say that in Alaska above the Arctic Circle there are times they don't see a sunrise or a sunset. Below that latitude, it is no longer true.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866148

Paul Alsing wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 11:29:58 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > In Alaska there are times they don't see a sunrise or a sunset.
> 
> It is more correct to say that in Alaska above the Arctic Circle there are times they don't see a sunrise or a sunset. Below that latitude, it is no longer true.

Is that North of the North Pole?

And which way is south of the south pole?

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866149

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:27:34 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:
> Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > 
> > On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 11:29:58 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: 
> > 
> > > In Alaska there are times they don't see a sunrise or a sunset. 
> > 
> > It is more correct to say that in Alaska above the Arctic Circle there are times they don't see a sunrise or a sunset. Below that latitude, it is no longer true.
> Is that North of the North Pole? 
> 
> And which way is south of the south pole?

I really believe that if you actually had a functioning brain that you would take it out and play with it... 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866162

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:48:53 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:27:34 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: 
> > Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > > 
> > > On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 11:29:58 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: 
> > > 
> > > > In Alaska there are times they don't see a sunrise or a sunset. 
> > > 
> > > It is more correct to say that in Alaska above the Arctic Circle there are times they don't see a sunrise or a sunset. Below that latitude, it is no longer true. 
> > Is that North of the North Pole? 
> > 
> > And which way is south of the south pole?
> I really believe that if you actually had a functioning brain that you would take it out and play with it...

You argue like a 5 year old.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866165

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:48:53 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:27:34 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: 
>> > Paul Alsing wrote: 
>> > > 
>> > > On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 11:29:58 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: 
>> > > 
>> > > > In Alaska there are times they don't see a sunrise or a sunset. 
>> > > 
>> > > It is more correct to say that in Alaska above the Arctic Circle there are times they don't see a sunrise or a sunset. Below that latitude, it is no longer true. 
>> > Is that North of the North Pole? 
>> > 
>> > And which way is south of the south pole?
>> I really believe that if you actually had a functioning brain that you would take it out and play with it...
> 
> You argue like a 5 year old.

You write like a delusionally insane crackpot.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866167

On Wednesday, December 14, 2022 at 7:59:28 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:48:53 PM UTC-8, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 10:27:34 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: 
> > > Paul Alsing wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 at 11:29:58 AM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > > In Alaska there are times they don't see a sunrise or a sunset. 
> > > > 
> > > > It is more correct to say that in Alaska above the Arctic Circle there are times they don't see a sunrise or a sunset. Below that latitude, it is no longer true. 
> > > Is that North of the North Pole? 
> > > 
> > > And which way is south of the south pole? 
> > I really believe that if you actually had a functioning brain that you would take it out and play with it...

> You argue like a 5 year old.

Even if true, that still leaves me years ahead of you, Jimbo...

Did you ever find that evidence showing that the gaseous form of water cannot exist below its boiling point?  No? I didn't think so...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866040

On 12/12/2022 1:07 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> whodat wrote:
>>
>> On 12/12/2022 12:28 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> whodat wrote:
>>>>

>>>
>>>
>>> The fact is...The sun does not rise or sets.
>>
>> Wonderful, now you're knowingly defending being an asshole who
>> is incapable of having a discussion in normal parlance. What is
>> this need you have for one upmanship? Are you the Mook the local
>> whops keep beating up for being a chooch?
>>
>> http://solar-center.stanford.edu/AO/sunrise.html
>>
>> Of course the sun doesn't rise and set, it looks that way to
>> humans who inhabit the earth and it is described and discussed
>> that way by normal humans;
> 
> 
> Well, this is about what people 'perceive' Laws of Nature are..
> 
> when you wrote "the sun will rise", I was wondering what Laws of Nature
> are there
> with "the sun will rise"...was it Sunrise Laws?, Sunst Laws??, Sunshine
> Laws? Sunny Laws?? I
> didn't know of any. But,
> you seem to be taking about...'people observations' from standing on the
> earth and
> looking at the sky...what law of nature is that one? Doesn't it DEPEND
> on your zipcode?
> 
> Like for example: zipcode 995??
> 
> 
> Maybe, just maybe...you have no idea the definition of 'Laws of Nature'
> mean.
> 
> Does the Law apply everywhere, or just from your window at the funny
> farm where you live?
> 

your bong is calling you, that skunk in your bong is rat moldy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#866223

On 12/11/22 2:48 PM, whodat wrote:
> On 12/11/2022 3:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2022-12-11 19:20:37 +0000, The Starmaker said:
>>>
>>>> Nature
>>>> spends
>>>> a lot of time
>>>> making sure
>>>> your
>>>> science
>>>> your
>>>> physics
>>>> Your
>>>> Laws
>>>> match the universe.
>>>
>>> You've missed the point. The laws of nature have always been there. The
>>> job of physicists (of whom I am not one) is to find them.
>>
>> There are no places in the Universe where these Laws exist, excepy only
>> in the mind.
> 
> You are wrong. Predictability of/in natural events (the sun will rise
> tomorrow) proves that laws of nature exist. Put the bong away.

Different persons might have different definitions of what proof is.

They would have to see and perceive that the sun is rising in order
to verify to their mind that the sun exists and rises at some point
in time.  Or they might read about a sun rising somewhere if they
had the senses and ability to read some system of idea transfer
such as something like writing.

This perception could in theory be based upon their senses impinging
on the mind and the world of ideas that a mind might have.  Their senses
might enable them to perceive some system of idea transfer like speech
or writing.

Descartes once gave the idea that.

1. He thought.

2. Thoughts somehow proved his existence.

Now maybe he was wrong.

There could be some definitions of thought where he was not thinking.

There could be some definitions of proof where nothing was proved.

There could be some definitions of existence where he did not exist.

Nonetheless, if what he wrote was true, where would nature fit into this?



> You won't (another correct prediction of nature.)
> 
> [...]
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#867261

Starmaker shoots down GLONASS satellites and blacks out Moscow and Tehran.

Why Starmaker?? Is it because economic sanctions will pull your internet spam account and unplug you.

███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃ 
Radio Wave & Laser Rifle to shoot down GLONASS and BeiDou satellites 

Xi masses troops on Russian border to take back Outer Manchuria. If you do not know the history, Russia stole Outer Manchuria and Vladivostok from China. 

While Putin is too busy with his personal war, Xi thinks time is ripe to get back what belongs to China in the first place. OUTER MANCHURIA and especially Vladivostok. 

Xi gives the Chinese people a Christmas gift--- Outer Manchuria-- the beloved Old China

I am not positive we can take out GLONASS and BeiDou from ground based radio and microwaves and laser waves, even jamming. 

But I am certain that we can put a satellite in orbit that is a wrecking ramming satellite that does take out GLONASS and BeiDou. I am certain of this because several countries have robotic satellites that maintenance their fleet of satellites. And to this end, we need such a wrecking ball satellite immediately up there. 

[Note, graphics found in sci.physics when Nomen Nescio used to spam sci.physics with a fake FAQ.]



> ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ 
> I███████████████████]. 
> ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤... 
Satellite RIFLE to shoot down GLONASS, Iran,and BeiDou satellites. 
Hooray 

Hooray!! End the Ukraine war 

Easiest way to end the Ukraine invasion by Russia, start felling GLONASS satellites, fell them directly with radar laser pulses or jam them to fall. 

Now I thought GLONASS Russian satellites numbered in the thousands, for the Internet is lousy on this question of how many satellites, for recently BBC was vague with a estimate of 600 satellites, yet another web site said 42,000. But apparently only 24 are operational for GLONASS. And my take on this is that satellites are precarious vessels and easily for something to go wrong and be inoperative. All the better to look for flaws in engineering to down all 24 GLONASS Russian satellites. 

So, easy easy Achilles tendon in all of the Russian ICBM military strategy, for knock out the 24 and you in a sense, knock out the entire Russian ICBM arsenal, for they no longer have any navigation. 

And if the West is on its top shape and form in technology, we want the West Scientists to figure out how to intercept the Russian ICBM and cause it to fall upon Russia and explode upon Russia. 

Get the best electronics and electrical engineers of the West to figure out how to cause all Russian launched and Chinese launched ICBMs to explode on home territory. 

Caveat: if the West can do it, mind you, the Chinese and Russians will want to steal those secrets from the West and that should never be allowed--Ultimate Top Secret classification that not even a punk weirdo president like Trump cannot see, nor mention to him for he would likely sell it for a golf course in some foreign enemy country. 

Google search reveals 
24+ 
GLONASS (Globalnaya Navigazionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema, or Global Navigation Satellite System) is a global GNSS owned and operated by the Russian Federation. The fully operational system consists of 24+ satellites.Oct 19, 2021 

Other Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) - GPS.govhttps://www.gps.gov › systems › gnss 
About featured snippets 
• 
Feedback 
People also ask 
How many satellites are in the GLONASS? 
As of 15 October 2022, 143 GLONASS navigation satellites have been launched, of which 131 reached the correct orbit and 24 are currently operational. 

List of GLONASS satellites - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_GLONASS_sa... 
Search for: How many satellites are in the GLONASS? 
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo 
Archimedes Plutonium 
Nov 5, 2022, 11:02:21 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe 
███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃ 
Radio Wave--Laser Rifle felling BeiDou satellites 

From what I gather on internet, Russia has 24 satellites in operation while BeiDou China has 35. 
> ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ 
> I███████████████████]. 
> ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤... 
Radio Wave-- LASER RIFLE to shoot down the premier BeiDou satellite. 
Ending the dumb and stupid petty dictators launching rockets from North Korea. 

It is respectfully request help from engineers in Japan to help fell the BeiDou satellites that navigate the illegal North Korea launches. 


--- quoting Wikipedia --- 
The BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS; Chinese: 北斗卫星导航系统; pinyin: Běidǒu Wèixīng Dǎoháng Xìtǒng) is a Chinese satellite navigation system. It consists of two separate satellite constellations. The first BeiDou system, officially called the BeiDou Satellite Navigation Experimental System and also known as BeiDou-1, consisted of three satellites which, beginning in 2000, offered limited coverage and navigation services, mainly for users in China and neighboring regions. BeiDou-1 was decommissioned at the end of 2012. The second generation of the system, officially called the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) and also known as COMPASS or BeiDou-2, became operational in China in December 2011 with a partial constellation of 10 satellites in orbit. Since December 2012, it has been offering services to customers in the Asia-Pacific region. 

In 2015, China launched the third generation BeiDou system (BeiDou-3) for global coverage. The first BDS-3 satellite was launched on 30 March 2015. On 27 December 2018, BeiDou Navigation Satellite System started providing global services. The 35th and the final satellite of BDS-3 was launched into orbit on 23 June 2020. It was said in 2016 that BeiDou-3 will reach millimeter-level accuracy (with post-processing). On 23 June 2020, the final BeiDou satellite was successfully launched, the launch of the 55th satellite in the Beidou family. The third iteration of the Beidou Navigation Satellite System provides full global coverage for timing and navigation, offering an alternative to Russia's GLONASS, the European Galileo positioning system, and the US's GPS. 

According to China Daily, in 2015, fifteen years after the satellite system was launched, it was generating a turnover of $31.5 billion per annum for major companies such as China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation, AutoNavi Holdings Ltd., and China North Industries Group Corp. The industry has grown an average of over 20% in value annually to reach $64 billion in 2020 according to Xinhua citing data. 

Domestic industry reports forecast the satellite navigation service market output value, directly generated and driven by the Beidou system, will be worth 1 trillion yuan ($156.22 billion) by 2025, and $467 billion by 2035. 

Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 5, 2022, 11:20:20 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe 
███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃ 
Radio Wave--Laser Rifle felling Iran satellites 
> 
> From what I gather on internet, Russia has 24 satellites in operation while BeiDou China has 35, that would indicate Iran has but a few satellites. 
> > ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ 
> > I███████████████████]. 
> > ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤... 
> Radio Wave-- LASER RIFLE to shoot down the premier BeiDou satellite. 
> Ending the dumb and stupid petty dictator sending drones to Russia to down Ukraine power utility electric lines. 

How many of the Iran satellites are used in drones destroying Ukraine electric grid. We should immediately fell those satellites. 

--- quoting Wikipedia on Iran satellites --- 
On 22 April 2020, Iran successfully launched "Noor" (Farsi for "Light"), a military satellite, into a 426 x 444 km / 59.8° orbit. 

On 8 March 2022, Iran reportedly sent its second “Nour-2” military satellite into 500 km orbit.[55][56] 
The Khayyam, a high resolution imaging satellite, was successfully launched into orbit by a Russian Soyuz rocket on 9 August 2022 
Unlaunched satellites 
Nahid (1), satellite with folding solar panels. 
Toloo, is the first of a new generation of reconnaissance satellites being built by Iran Electronics Industries with SIGINT capabilities. It will be launched by a Simorgh. 
Nasir 1, Iran's indigenously designed satellite navigation system (SAT NAV) has been manufactured to find the precise locations of satellites moving in orbit. 

Zohreh, is a geosynchronous communication satellite which was originally proposed before the Revolution in the 1970s as part of a joint Indian-Iranian project of four Iranian satellites to be launched by the then upcoming NASA Space Shuttles. Iran had also negotiated with France to build and launch the satellites but the project never materialized. In 2005, Iran negotiated with Russia to build and launch the first Zohreh satellite under an agreement worth $132 million with the satellite launch date stipulated as 2007–2008. The new agreement had followed the earlier failed negotiations with Russia in 2003 when Russia cancelled the project under US pressures. 
Ekvator, a geosynchronous communications satellite built by ISS Reshetnev for Iran in a continuation of previous Russia-Iran space cooperation efforts. As of October 2022, Ekvator is expected to be launched on a Proton-M rocket in early 2024. 


Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 5, 2022, 11:38:31 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe 
███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃ 
Radio Wave--Laser Rifle felling North Korean satellites 
> 
> From what I gather on internet, Russia has 24 satellites in operation while BeiDou China has 35, that would indicate Iran has but a few satellites. And North Korea fewer yet. 


> > ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ 
> > I███████████████████]. 
> > ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤... 

Radio Wave-- LASER RIFLE to shoot down the 3 North Korean satellites. 


Ending the dumb and stupid petty dictator with his endless illegal missile launches. Launches that do nothing of good for anyone. Not even the idiot petty dictator. 

Internet search reveals 3 satellites for North Korea. I suspect though, that North Korea launches Chinese missiles and uses BeiDou satellites. 

Kwangmyongsong -4 

Kwangmyongsong -3 

Kwangmyongsong -2 

Knock all 3 satellites out with the radio-Laser Wave gun. And that will put an end to the petty dictators toys. 

Asking for help from Japan in assistance. 



Pennino, I am sending Chris Thomasson to your aid, for we are running out of time on ruining GLONASS, and Chris needs the money since Elon Musk is sending their best to possibly ruin BeiDou.

Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 18, 2022, 1:22:42 AM
to sci.math, sci.physics

Just hold onto your seats Jim Pennino, something you learned as air force pilot, for I am sending Chris to your aid. The hours are approaching rapidly and we need GLONASS either in the dark or best of all-- misfiring their missiles from Russia and striking Russian and Chinese cities. We want Kim Jong-un to see a Russian missile intended for Ukraine to level Pyongyang, all by a hacking into the Intel chips of GLONASS. 

The mass exodus at Twitter is that they wanted GLONASS to hack, not BeiDou. 

Andy Grove on the Charlie Rose show often pointed out the flaws of the Intel chips installed in GLONASS, but unfortunately I was not interested in that messaging, and apt to eat cookies and sip hot tea while Andy was going over the specifications. Besides I had no satellite manuals in the house at that time. 

> On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 11:35:47 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: 
> > On 11/17/2022 12:44 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > > A few mistakes in the zero part of the discussion-- zero is not the flip side of the coin with infinity. Zero is described as a appended number that really is different from the counting numbers-- as one guest said-- more of a concept than a number like the others. 
> > [...] 
> > 
> > The border of the Mandelbrot set has a finite fractal dimension of 2. 
> > Yet the border is infinity complex. There are infinite points inside of 
> > the set, and an infinity of points that are outside of the set. There is 
> > a border. 
> Hi, Chris, no I am not going to fire you like Elon Musk style. 
> 
> Instead, I want you to make a fractal of Intel chip that Jim Pennino and his pet psychiatrist Kibo Parry are working on. A fractal Intel chip that causes Russian missiles to land on Russian or Chinese territory, when fired. 
> 
> I have asked your Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to help you, for the Intel chips in GLONASS can get quite confusing with Andrew Grove's chips at Intel and the present day Pat Gelsinger. 
> 
> So what is the weakest point of the Intel chip in GLONASS satellites, and Chris is helping to solve that. 
> 
> Keep me informed Chris. 


> Jam all 24 GLONASS satellites of their Intel chips and you wipe out the ability of Russia's fleet of 6,000 ICBM missiles. 
> 
> > On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 11:26:19 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote: 
> > > Do you have the communications codes? 
> > > 
> > > I have a good phone that could send the data. 
> > Certainly the crackpot psychiatrist that attends you and the CIA psychiatrists lack the code. They cannot even understand Kindergarten logic. 
> > 
> > On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 4:01:09 PM UTC-6, Jim Pennino wrote: 
> > > Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: 
> > > >> 
> > > >> Most satellites are in lower orbit, they quickly fall and either burn up in atmosphere or some bits land on surface of Earth. They do not fall immediately, which is good, as when all 24 GLONASS are taken out, the Russian propagandists will take months and years to understand what happened. And be able to liar about what happened. 
> > > > 
> > > > StupidPlutonium, GNS satellites orbit at a high orbit, MUCH higher than 
> > > > LEO, just not as high as geosynchronous satellites. GPS orbit is 20,200 
> > > > km, GLONASS is 19,100 km. At such heights, debris will remain 
> > > > essentially forever, and the satellites won't crash for centuries, if ever. 
> > > StupidPlutonium, "GPS" receiver chipsets have long been GNSS chipsets 
> > > that deliver what they believe to be the best data from whatever 
> > > satellites they happen to see. 
> > > 
> > > StupidPlutonium, molesting a countries GNSS satellites would be viewed 
> > > as an act of war no different from attackiing a navel fleet or bombing a 
> > > city. 
> > 
> > StupidPennino aka Kibo Parry Moron, fail to understand that a malfunction in a satellite is not a act of war. 
> > 
> > So Pennino via Kibo Parry Moron elude to a Intel chip on GLONASS 24 satellites and all that is needed is to jamm those intel chips and we have 24 malfunctioning satellites, wiping out the navigation of all 6,000 Russian ICBM. 
> > 
> > But what AP likes to see is some brilliant hacker of USA or NATO to tell the ICBM to explode upon launch, so that as Russia launches ICBM, they, all 6,000 detonate upon Russia land. 
> > 
> > Something that Kibo, the moron of Rensselaer and CIA cannot understand with his 938 is 12% short of 945. 

Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 19, 2022, 3:11:46 AM
to sci.physics
Jim boy Pennino may accidentally save the entire world from nuclear war, caused by the insane Putin. Provided Jim can crack the code of Andy Grove's Intel chipset aboard GLONASS satellites. 

Jim, question, will you work on BeiDou next? We really need to send North Korea packing by ruining the 3 NK satellites along with all 36 BeiDou satellites. 

What is the secret to jamming those Intel chips? We can easily lock onto their communications signal. But can a laser scramble and thus fry the Intel chip processor, thus, a ruined satellite? 

And is this the reason Musk bought Twitter? He turns Twitter into a satellite toaster oven of enemies of NATO?? 

No one cares what airhead 1 posted to airhead 2 on Twitter. But behind the scenes, Twitter just felled 4 GLONASS satellites and 5 BeiDou and 1 North Korean satellite. Hooray, Jim, time to break out the champagne. 

Skoal!!! 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#867304

You!


whodat kirjutas Esmaspäev, 12. detsember 2022 kl 00:48:21 UTC+2:
> On 12/11/2022 3:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote: 
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote: 
> >> 
> >> On 2022-12-11 19:20:37 +0000, The Starmaker said: 
> >> 
> >>> Nature 
> >>> spends 
> >>> a lot of time 
> >>> making sure 
> >>> your 
> >>> science 
> >>> your 
> >>> physics 
> >>> Your 
> >>> Laws 
> >>> match the universe. 
> >> 
> >> You've missed the point. The laws of nature have always been there. The 
> >> job of physicists (of whom I am not one) is to find them. 
> > 
> > There are no places in the Universe where these Laws exist, excepy only 
> > in the mind.
> You are wrong. Predictability of/in natural events (the sun will rise 
> tomorrow) proves that laws of nature exist. Put the bong away. 
> 
> You won't (another correct prediction of nature.) 
> 
> [...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web