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

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #433190 > unrolled thread

I'm seriously disappointed

Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written

Contents

  I'm seriously disappointed Dan Tilque <dtilque@frontier.com> - 2016-02-12 22:11 -0800
    Re: I'm seriously disappointed "A.G.McDowell" <andrew-mcdowell@o2.co.uk> - 2016-02-13 11:40 +0000
      Re: I'm seriously disappointed Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> - 2016-02-13 13:28 +0000
        Re: I'm seriously disappointed "A.G.McDowell" <andrew-mcdowell@o2.co.uk> - 2016-02-13 18:51 +0000
        Re: I'm seriously disappointed Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 14:58 -0700
      Re: I'm seriously disappointed Stephen Allcroft <stephenallcroft@lycos.co.uk> - 2016-02-13 06:34 -0800
      Re: I'm seriously disappointed Lawrence Watt-Evans <lwe@sff.net> - 2016-02-13 11:54 -0500
        Re: I'm seriously disappointed "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 13:21 -0500
        Re: I'm seriously disappointed 103134.3516@compuserve.com - 2016-02-15 10:44 -0800
      Re: I'm seriously disappointed Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-13 11:51 -0800
        Re: I'm seriously disappointed "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2016-02-13 15:04 -0500
      Re: I'm seriously disappointed Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2016-02-14 07:30 -0800
    Re: I'm seriously disappointed Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2016-02-13 04:53 -0800
      Re: I'm seriously disappointed Dan Tilque <dtilque@frontier.com> - 2016-02-13 03:52 -0800
        Re: I'm seriously disappointed The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-14 23:41 -0800
    Re: I'm seriously disappointed "C. E. Gee" <thelastearthman@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 09:24 -0800
    Re: I'm seriously disappointed The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-14 14:45 -0800
      Re: I'm seriously disappointed The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-14 14:46 -0800
        Re: I'm seriously disappointed The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-14 16:28 -0800
          Re: I'm seriously disappointed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 00:43 -0500
            Re: I'm seriously disappointed The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-15 08:52 -0800
              Re: I'm seriously disappointed The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-15 23:09 -0800
                Re: I'm seriously disappointed "Notroll2016" <notroll2015@charter.net> - 2016-02-16 07:09 -0600
                Re: I'm seriously disappointed Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-16 12:52 -0800
                  Re: I'm seriously disappointed Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2016-02-16 17:08 -0700
                    Re: I'm seriously disappointed hamish.laws@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 18:31 -0800
                    Re: I'm seriously disappointed Dan Tilque <dtilque@frontier.com> - 2016-02-16 18:34 -0800
                      Re: I'm seriously disappointed Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 23:49 -0600
                        Re: I'm seriously disappointed hamish.laws@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 22:12 -0800
                        Re: I'm seriously disappointed Dan Tilque <dtilque@frontier.com> - 2016-02-17 00:56 -0800
                          Re: I'm seriously disappointed The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-17 09:39 -0800
                            Re: I'm seriously disappointed Dan Tilque <dtilque@frontier.com> - 2016-02-17 15:31 -0800
                              Re: I'm seriously disappointed Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 08:47 -0800
                                Re: I'm seriously disappointed Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-02-18 11:46 -0800
                                Re: I'm seriously disappointed Dan Tilque <dtilque@frontier.com> - 2016-02-18 20:00 -0800
                                  Re: I'm seriously disappointed Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 20:34 -0800
                                    Re: I'm seriously disappointed Dan Tilque <dtilque@frontier.com> - 2016-02-19 00:44 -0800
                          Re: I'm seriously disappointed Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 22:26 -0600
                            Re: I'm seriously disappointed Dan Tilque <dtilque@frontier.com> - 2016-02-17 15:18 -0800
                  Re: I'm seriously disappointed The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-02-16 22:33 -0800
                    Re: I'm seriously disappointed Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2016-02-18 08:55 +0800
                      Re: I'm seriously disappointed Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2016-02-17 19:04 -0800
                        Re: I'm seriously disappointed Robert Bannister <robban@clubtelco.com> - 2016-02-19 10:56 +0800
                      Re: I'm seriously disappointed benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 01:27 -0500
      Re: I'm seriously disappointed Dan Tilque <dtilque@frontier.com> - 2016-02-15 17:48 -0800
    Re: I'm seriously disappointed hamish.laws@gmail.com - 2016-02-18 19:20 -0800
      Re: I'm seriously disappointed Dan Tilque <dtilque@frontier.com> - 2016-02-19 00:39 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#433190 — I'm seriously disappointed

I haven't seen a single Starmaker post disparaging the gravitational 
wave discovery. Maybe he posted one but didn't crosspost to sf.written, 
which is where I see his posts. Even if that's the case, I'm still 
disappointed he didn't post it here.

Come on, man. I need my Starmaker fix!

-- 
Dan Tilque

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#433195

On 13/02/2016 06:11, Dan Tilque wrote:
> I haven't seen a single Starmaker post disparaging the gravitational
> wave discovery. Maybe he posted one but didn't crosspost to sf.written,
> which is where I see his posts. Even if that's the case, I'm still
> disappointed he didn't post it here.
>
> Come on, man. I need my Starmaker fix!
>
I can step in and give you a contrary view for you to shoot down - I 
think it's been over-hyped. Huge efforts have produced a tour-de-force 
of precision engineering, which can just about detect enough to show 
that gravitational waves do in fact exist, confirming something we 
thought we already knew. I'm not holding my breath for actual new 
information coming out of this any time soon, and I'd be more impressed 
if somebody was saying "but there's something not quite right we don't 
understand yet". (although The Economist magazine hopes that 
observations of gravitational waves might allow us to observe more 
extreme events where relativity as currently understood break down - so 
maybe I am too pessimistic.)

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

#433198

A.G.McDowell <andrew-mcdowell@o2.co.uk> wrote:
>I can step in and give you a contrary view for you to shoot down - I 
>think it's been over-hyped. Huge efforts have produced a tour-de-force 
>of precision engineering, which can just about detect enough to show 
>that gravitational waves do in fact exist, confirming something we 
>thought we already knew. I'm not holding my breath for actual new 
>information coming out of this any time soon, and I'd be more impressed 
>if somebody was saying "but there's something not quite right we don't 
>understand yet".

This is being worked on, scientists would in many way LOVE to detect
something unexpected because that would give them something to "tug"
on. Just because the first ever observation looks roughly standard
doesn't mean there isn't details or uncommon features to find with
more data.

The biggest disappointment with the Higgs detection was how "standard"
it was, though possible anomalies may now be showing up there finally
but it's still very tentive.

LIGO detected this event just weeks after starting up after their
major upgrade!, they're now doing further upgrades between each run
and I wouldn't rule out that there might be more events in the aLIGO
run 01 that they've not had time to analyse fully yet.

Also, Virgo (the other big gravitational wave detector) is just coming
up after their big upgrade which will give more "eyes".


>(although The Economist magazine hopes that observations of
>gravitational waves might allow us to observe more extreme events
>where relativity as currently understood break down - so maybe I am
>too pessimistic.)

That's one of the reasons why they're being studied.

If they HADN'T detected something at either LIGO or Virgo within a few
years after these upgrades, that alone might well have been a big clue
that something was off with the theories!

It's not always what you detect, sometimes what you DON'T detect is at
least as important.


Looking further down the line, the "LISA Pathfinder" satellite went up
in December 2015 to test a number of techologies. This is part of the
development plan for the eLISA gravity wave detector (using three
satellites).

eLISA IS currently scheduled for pretty far in the future (~2034) but
if SpaceX pushes launch prices down I wouldn't be surprised if that
moves forward. eLISA would be sensitive to a much wider range of
phenomenes due to much longer legs (1 million kilometer each).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_Laser_Interferometer_Space_Antenna

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

#433216

On 13/02/2016 13:28, Torbjorn Lindgren wrote:
> A.G.McDowell<andrew-mcdowell@o2.co.uk>  wrote:
>> I can step in and give you a contrary view for you to shoot down - I
>> think it's been over-hyped. Huge efforts have produced a tour-de-force
>> of precision engineering, which can just about detect enough to show
>> that gravitational waves do in fact exist, confirming something we
>> thought we already knew. I'm not holding my breath for actual new
>> information coming out of this any time soon, and I'd be more impressed
>> if somebody was saying "but there's something not quite right we don't
>> understand yet".
>
> This is being worked on, scientists would in many way LOVE to detect
> something unexpected because that would give them something to "tug"
> on. Just because the first ever observation looks roughly standard
> doesn't mean there isn't details or uncommon features to find with
> more data.
>
> The biggest disappointment with the Higgs detection was how "standard"
> it was, though possible anomalies may now be showing up there finally
> but it's still very tentive.
>
> LIGO detected this event just weeks after starting up after their
> major upgrade!, they're now doing further upgrades between each run
> and I wouldn't rule out that there might be more events in the aLIGO
> run 01 that they've not had time to analyse fully yet.
>
> Also, Virgo (the other big gravitational wave detector) is just coming
> up after their big upgrade which will give more "eyes".
>
>
>> (although The Economist magazine hopes that observations of
>> gravitational waves might allow us to observe more extreme events
>> where relativity as currently understood break down - so maybe I am
>> too pessimistic.)
>
> That's one of the reasons why they're being studied.
>
> If they HADN'T detected something at either LIGO or Virgo within a few
> years after these upgrades, that alone might well have been a big clue
> that something was off with the theories!
>
> It's not always what you detect, sometimes what you DON'T detect is at
> least as important.
>
>
Thanks - I should have spotted that point.

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

#433225

Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> wrote in
news:n9nb1i$10q$1@dont-email.me: 

> It's not always what you detect, sometimes what you DON'T detect
> is at least as important.
> 
Negative results are still results, and we often learn more from 
failures than from successes.

-- 
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

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

#433201

On Saturday, 13 February 2016 11:40:14 UTC, A.G.McDowell  wrote:
> On 13/02/2016 06:11, Dan Tilque wrote:

> I can step in and give you a contrary view for you to shoot down - I 
> think it's been over-hyped. 

e.g. BBC News channel "SECRET OF UNIVERSE FOUND"...

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

#433208

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:40:13 +0000, "A.G.McDowell"
<andrew-mcdowell@o2.co.uk> wrote:

>On 13/02/2016 06:11, Dan Tilque wrote:
>> I haven't seen a single Starmaker post disparaging the gravitational
>> wave discovery. Maybe he posted one but didn't crosspost to sf.written,
>> which is where I see his posts. Even if that's the case, I'm still
>> disappointed he didn't post it here.
>>
>> Come on, man. I need my Starmaker fix!
>>
>I can step in and give you a contrary view for you to shoot down - I 
>think it's been over-hyped. Huge efforts have produced a tour-de-force 
>of precision engineering, which can just about detect enough to show 
>that gravitational waves do in fact exist, confirming something we 
>thought we already knew. I'm not holding my breath for actual new 
>information coming out of this any time soon, and I'd be more impressed 
>if somebody was saying "but there's something not quite right we don't 
>understand yet".

That's almost exactly what my son the physicist said last night on
Skype.




-- 
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#433214

In article <osnubbt1hvjqbmkk4pg6c78emqi4vm75dg@reader80.eternal-
september.org>, lwe@sff.net says...
> 
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:40:13 +0000, "A.G.McDowell"
> <andrew-mcdowell@o2.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >On 13/02/2016 06:11, Dan Tilque wrote:
> >> I haven't seen a single Starmaker post disparaging the gravitational
> >> wave discovery. Maybe he posted one but didn't crosspost to sf.written,
> >> which is where I see his posts. Even if that's the case, I'm still
> >> disappointed he didn't post it here.
> >>
> >> Come on, man. I need my Starmaker fix!
> >>
> >I can step in and give you a contrary view for you to shoot down - I 
> >think it's been over-hyped. Huge efforts have produced a tour-de-force 
> >of precision engineering, which can just about detect enough to show 
> >that gravitational waves do in fact exist, confirming something we 
> >thought we already knew. I'm not holding my breath for actual new 
> >information coming out of this any time soon, and I'd be more impressed 
> >if somebody was saying "but there's something not quite right we don't 
> >understand yet".
> 
> That's almost exactly what my son the physicist said last night on
> Skype.

That's the thing in physics--our model predicts.  What we look for is a 
prediction that it makes that is clearly and unambiguously wrong.  
That's how progress is made and Nobels collected.

But to find the prediction that is wrong, we have to test all the 
predictions, and if it's a decent model then most of the time it's going 
to be right.

On the other hand, we now have another type of astronomical instrument--
how useful it will become it is far far too soon to tell.

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

#433307

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 11:54:17 AM UTC-5, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:40:13 +0000, "A.G.McDowell"
> <andrew-mcdowell@o2.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >On 13/02/2016 06:11, Dan Tilque wrote:
> >> I haven't seen a single Starmaker post disparaging the gravitational
> >> wave discovery. Maybe he posted one but didn't crosspost to sf.written,
> >> which is where I see his posts. Even if that's the case, I'm still
> >> disappointed he didn't post it here.
> >>
> >> Come on, man. I need my Starmaker fix!
> >>
> >I can step in and give you a contrary view for you to shoot down - I 
> >think it's been over-hyped. Huge efforts have produced a tour-de-force 
> >of precision engineering, which can just about detect enough to show 
> >that gravitational waves do in fact exist, confirming something we 
> >thought we already knew. I'm not holding my breath for actual new 
> >information coming out of this any time soon, and I'd be more impressed 
> >if somebody was saying "but there's something not quite right we don't 
> >understand yet".
> 
> That's almost exactly what my son the physicist said last night on
> Skype.

My favorite line so far from "Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen" (I am about 3/4ths of the way through it) is just a throw-away. Walking past a lab, the character (and I don't even remember who, but suspect it's Jole) hears 

[first voice, wailing ] "What have you done to my worms?"
[second voice] "Huh, that's weird. . ."

I sense a scientific breakthrough in the offing.

JimboCat
-- 
"I sometimes think quantum mechanics is caused by scientists catching God
in a contradiction, and God quickly hacking something together to hide
the fact that he's just making it up as he goes along." -- mcv.

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

#433220

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 4:40:14 AM UTC-7, A.G.McDowell wrote:

> I can step in and give you a contrary view for you to shoot down - I 
> think it's been over-hyped. Huge efforts have produced a tour-de-force 
> of precision engineering, which can just about detect enough to show 
> that gravitational waves do in fact exist, confirming something we 
> thought we already knew. I'm not holding my breath for actual new 
> information coming out of this any time soon, and I'd be more impressed 
> if somebody was saying "but there's something not quite right we don't 
> understand yet".

Well, people got excited when, after spending a lot of money, someone confirmed 
the prediction that the Moon was a place people could stand on, and where 
things would fall locally downwards if you dropped them.

Despite the fact that none of those things came as a surprise.

Of course, they also took rock samples that _did_ tell us lots of things we 
didn't already know about such matters as the origin of the Solar System.

So it _is_ true that actually observing gravitational waves isn't in itself 
_productive_ of new physics, but even so, it's still an important watershed 
moment; they have now become somewhat more "real" than when our best evidence 
for them was the indirect evidence of pulsar decays.

In the long run, of course, as has been noted, gravitational waves will be a 
new tool for observing the Universe.

John Savard

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

#433221

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:51:50 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
in<news:7c2a3b6a-2085-435c-bdc9-1d0fdda7230c@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 4:40:14 AM UTC-7,
> A.G.McDowell wrote:

>> I can step in and give you a contrary view for you to
>> shoot down - I think it's been over-hyped. Huge efforts
>> have produced a tour-de-force of precision engineering,
>> which can just about detect enough to show that
>> gravitational waves do in fact exist, confirming
>> something we thought we already knew. I'm not holding
>> my breath for actual new information coming out of this
>> any time soon, and I'd be more impressed if somebody
>> was saying "but there's something not quite right we
>> don't understand yet".

> Well, people got excited when, after spending a lot of
> money, someone confirmed the prediction that the Moon
> was a place people could stand on, and where things
> would fall locally downwards if you dropped them.

No.  The general excitement was over the fact that we were
actually able to get there, not the confirmation of that
prediction.

[...]

Brian
-- 
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties.  The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

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

#433248

On Saturday, 13 February 2016 11:40:14 UTC, A.G.McDowell  wrote:
> On 13/02/2016 06:11, Dan Tilque wrote:
> > I haven't seen a single Starmaker post disparaging the gravitational
> > wave discovery. Maybe he posted one but didn't crosspost to sf.written,
> > which is where I see his posts. Even if that's the case, I'm still
> > disappointed he didn't post it here.
> >
> > Come on, man. I need my Starmaker fix!
> >
> I can step in and give you a contrary view for you to shoot down - I 
> think it's been over-hyped. Huge efforts have produced a tour-de-force 
> of precision engineering, which can just about detect enough to show 
> that gravitational waves do in fact exist, confirming something we 
> thought we already knew. I'm not holding my breath for actual new 
> information coming out of this any time soon, and I'd be more impressed 
> if somebody was saying "but there's something not quite right we don't 
> understand yet". (although The Economist magazine hopes that 
> observations of gravitational waves might allow us to observe more 
> extreme events where relativity as currently understood break down - so 
> maybe I am too pessimistic.)

On BBC's "Science Hour" there were people talking about
testing theories and models of neutron stars and black holes
now that an instrument exists to /watch/ them interact.
And that the black hole observation has already been compared
to the models - and agrees with them, which is satisfying 
or not.

It's all in the Whoop just as the secrets of the ansible
are in the Dirac "Beep".

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

#433197

On Saturday, 13 February 2016 06:12:43 UTC, Dan Tilque  wrote:
> I haven't seen a single Starmaker post disparaging the gravitational 
> wave discovery. Maybe he posted one but didn't crosspost to sf.written, 
> which is where I see his posts. Even if that's the case, I'm still 
> disappointed he didn't post it here.
> 
> Come on, man. I need my Starmaker fix!

You missed it.  Title, "Whoop."
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.sf.written/iM5HXReyQ9Y>

There isn't the usual blank-verse commentary - if you don't 
count the subject line itself.

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

#433223

Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Saturday, 13 February 2016 06:12:43 UTC, Dan Tilque  wrote:
>> I haven't seen a single Starmaker post disparaging the gravitational 
>> wave discovery. ...
>>
>> Come on, man. I need my Starmaker fix!
> 
> You missed it.  Title, "Whoop."

Yes, I did miss that. Title was too vague.

> 
> There isn't the usual blank-verse commentary - if you don't 
> count the subject line itself.

Very anemic on his part. Come on man, if you're going to be an 
anti-science head-in-the-sand Luddite, put a little effort into it.

-- 
Dan Tilque

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

#433290

Dan Tilque wrote:
> 
> Robert Carnegie wrote:
> > On Saturday, 13 February 2016 06:12:43 UTC, Dan Tilque  wrote:
> >> I haven't seen a single Starmaker post disparaging the gravitational
> >> wave discovery. ...
> >>
> >> Come on, man. I need my Starmaker fix!
> >
> > You missed it.  Title, "Whoop."
> 
> Yes, I did miss that. Title was too vague.
> 
> >
> > There isn't the usual blank-verse commentary - if you don't
> > count the subject line itself.
> 
> Very anemic on his part. Come on man, if you're going to be an
> anti-science head-in-the-sand Luddite, put a little effort into it.
> 
> --
> Dan Tilque


Isn't  rec.arts.sf.written anti-science???? ...with a little effort into
it.

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

#433210

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 10:12:43 PM UTC-8, Dan Tilque wrote:
> I haven't seen a single Starmaker post disparaging the gravitational 
> wave discovery. Maybe he posted one but didn't crosspost to sf.written, 
> which is where I see his posts. Even if that's the case, I'm still 
> disappointed he didn't post it here.
> 
> Come on, man. I need my Starmaker fix!
> 
> -- 
> Dan Tilque


I obviously am not Starmaker.

However, back in 2013 I posted to my blog an allusion to an alternate theory, which I hope to explain in more detail this coming summer.

Anyway, you might want to take a look at what's been written so far.

NAMASTE     

C.E. Gee     aka Chuck

http://www.kinzuakid.blogspot.com/2013/07/gravity.html

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

#433268

Dan Tilque wrote:
> 
> I haven't seen a single Starmaker post disparaging the gravitational
> wave discovery. Maybe he posted one but didn't crosspost to sf.written,
> which is where I see his posts. Even if that's the case, I'm still
> disappointed he didn't post it here.
> 
> Come on, man. I need my Starmaker fix!
> 
> --
> Dan Tilque


In the year 2013 I mentioned "Electorgravity"...but America wasn't ready for it.


Gravity sometime acts like a wave, gravity somes acts like a particle.



I don't have time for 'Science' to catch up with me...


I don't disparage that which I already discovered..



The Starmaker



You like sf. did you read the story about the girl looking for her cat and finds a time machine in the basment?

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

#433269

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Dan Tilque wrote:
> >
> > I haven't seen a single Starmaker post disparaging the gravitational
> > wave discovery. Maybe he posted one but didn't crosspost to sf.written,
> > which is where I see his posts. Even if that's the case, I'm still
> > disappointed he didn't post it here.
> >
> > Come on, man. I need my Starmaker fix!
> >
> > --
> > Dan Tilque
> 
> In the year 2013 I mentioned "Electorgravity"...but America wasn't ready for it.
> 
> Gravity sometime acts like a wave, gravity somes acts like a particle.
> 
> I don't have time for 'Science' to catch up with me...
> 
> I don't disparage that which I already discovered..
> 
> The Starmaker
> 
> You like sf. did you read the story about the girl looking for her cat and finds a time machine in the basment?


electrogravity
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.arts.sf.written/12gvbjCbEQ0/myQHpiDOaQgJ

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

#433276

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Dan Tilque wrote:
> > >
> > > I haven't seen a single Starmaker post disparaging the gravitational
> > > wave discovery. Maybe he posted one but didn't crosspost to sf.written,
> > > which is where I see his posts. Even if that's the case, I'm still
> > > disappointed he didn't post it here.
> > >
> > > Come on, man. I need my Starmaker fix!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dan Tilque
> >
> > In the year 2013 I mentioned "Electorgravity"...but America wasn't ready for it.
> >
> > Gravity sometime acts like a wave, gravity somes acts like a particle.
> >
> > I don't have time for 'Science' to catch up with me...
> >
> > I don't disparage that which I already discovered..
> >
> > The Starmaker
> >
> > You like sf. did you read the story about the girl looking for her cat and finds a time machine in the basment?
> 
> electrogravity
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.arts.sf.written/12gvbjCbEQ0/myQHpiDOaQgJ



...most people don't understand the relationship between electricity and gravity.


both act like charges..like light waves..photons.

Light comes from gravity...not the sun.


The sun maunfactures light, but gets it source from gravity.

Gravity keep the speed of light from going faster than the speed of light.


If an apple hits you on the head, what controls the speed of the apple from the tree to your head? The same thing that controls the speed of light, right?

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

#433287

On 02/14/2016 07:28 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> Dan Tilque wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen a single Starmaker post disparaging the gravitational
>>>> wave discovery. Maybe he posted one but didn't crosspost to sf.written,
>>>> which is where I see his posts. Even if that's the case, I'm still
>>>> disappointed he didn't post it here.
>>>>
>>>> Come on, man. I need my Starmaker fix!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dan Tilque
>>>
>>> In the year 2013 I mentioned "Electorgravity"...but America wasn't ready for it.
>>>
>>> Gravity sometime acts like a wave, gravity somes acts like a particle.
>>>
>>> I don't have time for 'Science' to catch up with me...
>>>
>>> I don't disparage that which I already discovered..
>>>
>>> The Starmaker
>>>
>>> You like sf. did you read the story about the girl looking for her cat and finds a time machine in the basment?
>>
>> electrogravity
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.arts.sf.written/12gvbjCbEQ0/myQHpiDOaQgJ
>
>
>
> ...most people don't understand the relationship between electricity and gravity.
>
>
> both act like charges..like light waves..photons.
>
> Light comes from gravity...not the sun.
>
>
> The sun maunfactures light, but gets it source from gravity.
>
> Gravity keep the speed of light from going faster than the speed of light.
>
>
> If an apple hits you on the head, what controls the speed of the apple from the tree to your head? The same thing that controls the speed of light, right?
>

Starfaker you are seriously an idiot. Have you been stealing "theories" 
from Glazier again?

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written

csiph-web