Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #590116 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-20 12:16 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-15 11:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 93 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 12:16 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 13:52 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 16:47 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:08 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-20 20:34 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 05:58 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 17:57 -0700
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-21 02:52 -0400
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 09:04 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 11:34 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 10:00 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 12:09 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-22 02:05 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 07:50 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 10:03 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 08:07 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 10:53 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 09:03 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-23 04:52 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 14:48 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 15:43 -0400
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-21 02:56 -0400
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 09:19 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 11:37 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 10:01 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 12:11 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 11:33 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-22 01:55 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 09:01 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 09:15 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 09:37 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 12:18 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 10:50 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:42 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:44 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:52 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:57 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 14:14 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 14:32 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 13:00 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 17:02 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 15:30 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:49 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 09:31 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 11:39 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 16:53 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 15:13 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 14:19 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:58 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 13:08 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 15:56 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 14:14 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 17:01 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 12:15 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 10:48 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:36 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:37 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:51 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-23 05:09 -0400
Electric field (was: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-25 07:43 +0200
Re: Electric field (was: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed) mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 23:12 -0700
Re: Electric field Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:26 -0500
Re: Electric field mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 13:08 -0700
Re: Electric field Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-25 18:43 +0200
Re: Electric field mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 12:16 -0700
Re: Electric field Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-25 22:27 +0200
Re: Electric field mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 18:02 -0700
Re: Electric field Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 07:14 +0200
Re: Electric field Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 15:51 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 09:36 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 17:59 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 17:37 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:44 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 12:57 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-08-10 16:38 -0700
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-11 04:30 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:03 +0200
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-12 05:48 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 14:01 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 09:16 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 12:40 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:30 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 23:11 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 15:47 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:28 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:23 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:27 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:17 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:53 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:23 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:24 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:28 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:38 -0700
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 23:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Electric field (was: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed) |
| Message-ID | <ca9f8a54-d3be-4c9d-82be-7a74b9cf3472@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590655 |
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 10:43:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Michael J. Strickland wrote: > > > On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:19:07 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:56:13 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland > >>wrote: > >>> Not many, if any, phenomenon propagate instantaneously since that > >>> usually requires infinite power. > >> > >> There is no propagation of the [electric field]. It is a nonlocal > >> phenomenon caused by nature correcting violations to some conservation > >> principle. The electrostatic field must remain symmetrical around its > >> source in order to obey Coulomb's inverse square law. The electrostatic > >> field around a charged particle are caused by photons emanating from it. > >> In order for the field to remain symmetrical, the photons must move in > >> unison with the particle regardless of how far apart they are. Again, > >> it's a nonlocal phenomenon. > > > > That field around the stationary charge "caused by photons" propagates > > at v = c (as do photons). > > Nonsense. By *definition*, an electro*static*, or put more simply, > electric, field does _not_ propagate; it is just there, it is *static*. > What *does* propagate are *changes* in that field, and *they* propagate at > the same speed that light propagates in the medium that the electric field > is permeating (short: at the speed of light), which for all media other > than vacuum is *slower* than c, and *only for vacuum* is c. The fact is that changes in the electrostatic field do not propagate at c even if the so-called "virtual" photons do. Experiments have shown that particles react to where a moving electrostatic charge actually is as opposed to where it was if the changes in the field propagated at c. How is that possible? It's because the field is nonlocal. The charged particle and its emitted photons continually maintain a perfectly symmetrical (spherical) electrostatic field regardless of the movement of the source or how far the photons are from the source. A nonspherical field would break a symmetry conservation principle and result in a lopsided or imbalanced universe. Of course, gutless and lying relativists will never accept the experimental results because Einstein said there was no such thing as spooky action at a distance. So what do the assholes do to perpetuate their crackpot theory and prove Einstein right? They invented a cockamamie hypothesis according to which the charged particle broadcasts information about its position and speed out into space. This way, a receiving particle can, by some unexplained magic, extrapolate the actual position of the moving charged particle. The only problem is that the moving charged particle cannot possibly know anything about its position and speed. This crap contradicts the very model that they are trying to defend. Not to mention that it cannot be falsified. It's pseudoscience through and through. It's dishonest and it's criminal. Not everybody is fooled by the criminals in the physics community and no amount of mathematical smoke and mirrors can sweep this crap under the rug. LIGO is a fraud for this reason. The fraudsters should be thrown in jail. It's not nice to steal from the people. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 08:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Electric field |
| Message-ID | <nn541d$gs5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590656 |
On 7/25/2016 1:12 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > The fact is that changes in the electrostatic field do not propagate at c even > if the so-called "virtual" photons do. Experiments have shown that particles react > to where a moving electrostatic charge actually is as opposed to where it was if > the changes in the field propagated at c. Cite these results. > How is that possible? It's because the > field is nonlocal. The charged particle and its emitted photons continually maintain > a perfectly symmetrical (spherical) electrostatic field regardless of the movement > of the source or how far the photons are from the source. A nonspherical field would > break a symmetry conservation principle and result in a lopsided or imbalanced universe. Retarded potentials. Imbalanced universe is real. > > Of course, gutless and lying relativists will never accept the experimental results > because Einstein said there was no such thing as spooky action at a distance. Um. Correction. This "spooky action at a distance" was demonstrated by Alain Aspect et al., and scores of experimental results since then, thereby proving Einstein wrong about quantum mechanics. This has been known for over five decades. You could do with some catching up. > So what do the assholes do to perpetuate their crackpot theory and prove Einstein > right? They invented a cockamamie hypothesis according to which the charged particle > broadcasts information about its position and speed out into space. This way, a > receiving particle can, by some unexplained magic, extrapolate the actual position > of the moving charged particle. First of all, the receiving particle does no such extrapolation of where the moving charged particle is. It just reacts to the field where the receiving particle is. The business about unexplained magic is purely on you. It IS explained -- thoroughly -- in many books in electrodynamics. You decline to read them, saying that they don't suit you. Thus you conclude that what is in fact well explained is not explained at all. Because you are an ass. > The only problem is that the moving charged particle > cannot possibly know anything about its position and speed. Nor does it need to. > This crap contradicts > the very model that they are trying to defend. Not to mention that it cannot be > falsified. It's pseudoscience through and through. It's dishonest and it's criminal. > Not everybody is fooled by the criminals in the physics community and no amount of > mathematical smoke and mirrors can sweep this crap under the rug. > > LIGO is a fraud for this reason. The fraudsters should be thrown in jail. It's > not nice to steal from the people. Your option is to elect different representatives that handle your tax dollars. > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 13:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Electric field |
| Message-ID | <a15ca8fc-0406-43fd-aff7-da280fda1c8d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590675 |
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 6:26:09 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/25/2016 1:12 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > The fact is that changes in the electrostatic field do not propagate at c even > > if the so-called "virtual" photons do. Experiments have shown that particles react > > to where a moving electrostatic charge actually is as opposed to where it was if > > the changes in the field propagated at c. > > Cite these results. > > > How is that possible? It's because the > > field is nonlocal. The charged particle and its emitted photons continually maintain > > a perfectly symmetrical (spherical) electrostatic field regardless of the movement > > of the source or how far the photons are from the source. A nonspherical field would > > break a symmetry conservation principle and result in a lopsided or imbalanced universe. > > Retarded potentials. Imbalanced universe is real. > > > > > Of course, gutless and lying relativists will never accept the experimental results > > because Einstein said there was no such thing as spooky action at a distance. > > Um. Correction. This "spooky action at a distance" was demonstrated by > Alain Aspect et al., and scores of experimental results since then, > thereby proving Einstein wrong about quantum mechanics. This has been > known for over five decades. You could do with some catching up. > > > So what do the assholes do to perpetuate their crackpot theory and prove Einstein > > right? They invented a cockamamie hypothesis according to which the charged particle > > broadcasts information about its position and speed out into space. This way, a > > receiving particle can, by some unexplained magic, extrapolate the actual position > > of the moving charged particle. > > First of all, the receiving particle does no such extrapolation of where > the moving charged particle is. It just reacts to the field where the > receiving particle is. > > The business about unexplained magic is purely on you. It IS explained > -- thoroughly -- in many books in electrodynamics. You decline to read > them, saying that they don't suit you. Thus you conclude that what is in > fact well explained is not explained at all. Because you are an ass. > > > The only problem is that the moving charged particle > > cannot possibly know anything about its position and speed. > > Nor does it need to. > > > This crap contradicts > > the very model that they are trying to defend. Not to mention that it cannot be > > falsified. It's pseudoscience through and through. It's dishonest and it's criminal. > > Not everybody is fooled by the criminals in the physics community and no amount of > > mathematical smoke and mirrors can sweep this crap under the rug. > > > > LIGO is a fraud for this reason. The fraudsters should be thrown in jail. It's > > not nice to steal from the people. > > Your option is to elect different representatives that handle your tax > dollars. > > > > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Fuck you. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 18:43 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Electric field |
| Message-ID | <1707249.usQuhbGJ8B@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #590656 |
mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 10:43:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > wrote: >> Michael J. Strickland wrote: >> > That field around the stationary charge "caused by photons" propagates >> > at v = c (as do photons). >> >> Nonsense. By *definition*, an electro*static*, or put more simply, >> electric, field does _not_ propagate; it is just there, it is *static*. >> What *does* propagate are *changes* in that field, and *they* propagate >> at the same speed that light propagates in the medium that the electric >> field is permeating (short: at the speed of light), which for all media >> other than vacuum is *slower* than c, and *only for vacuum* is c. > > The fact is that changes in the electrostatic field do not propagate at c > even if the so-called "virtual" photons do. As for vacuum, you are wrong. As for other media, the propagation speed of changes is less than c, but equal to the speed of light in that medium. > Experiments have shown that particles react to where a moving > electrostatic charge actually is as opposed to where it was if the changes > in the field propagated at c. Cite evidence. > How is that possible? Maybe errors in experiment setup or in measurements. It happens to the best of us (recently, professional scientists in Italy claimed to have found a particle that moves faster than c; it turned out that the experiment setup was not completely OK, which modified the measurements). > It's because the field is nonlocal. Do you even know what that term means? > The charged particle and its emitted photons continually maintain a > perfectly symmetrical (spherical) electrostatic field regardless of the > movement of the source No. > or how far the photons are from the source. > A nonspherical field would break a symmetry conservation principle and > result in a lopsided or imbalanced universe. Not even wrong. > Of course, gutless and lying relativists […] This is where I stop reading. Get well soon. > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... “hanson”, yes? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 12:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Electric field |
| Message-ID | <fa41b4c7-c11b-4cc7-bb66-9b48e39de034@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590692 |
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 9:43:47 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 10:43:08 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > > wrote: > >> Michael J. Strickland wrote: > >> > That field around the stationary charge "caused by photons" propagates > >> > at v = c (as do photons). > >> > >> Nonsense. By *definition*, an electro*static*, or put more simply, > >> electric, field does _not_ propagate; it is just there, it is *static*. > >> What *does* propagate are *changes* in that field, and *they* propagate > >> at the same speed that light propagates in the medium that the electric > >> field is permeating (short: at the speed of light), which for all media > >> other than vacuum is *slower* than c, and *only for vacuum* is c. > > > > The fact is that changes in the electrostatic field do not propagate at c > > even if the so-called "virtual" photons do. > > As for vacuum, you are wrong. As for other media, the propagation speed of > changes is less than c, but equal to the speed of light in that medium. Your opinion don't mean shit to me. I AM right. > > Experiments have shown that particles react to where a moving > > electrostatic charge actually is as opposed to where it was if the changes > > in the field propagated at c. > > Cite evidence. For one, here's what relativist Steven Carlip wrote about it. He is comparing gravity to the electrostatic force: Link: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html [begin quote] In the simple newtonian model, gravity propagates instantaneously: the force exerted by a massive object points directly toward that object's present position. For example, even though the Sun is 500 light seconds from the Earth, newtonian gravity describes a force on Earth directed towards the Sun's position "now," not its position 500 seconds ago. Putting a "light travel delay" (technically called "retardation") into newtonian gravity would make orbits unstable, leading to predictions that clearly contradict Solar System observations. In general relativity, on the other hand, gravity propagates at the speed of light; that is, the motion of a massive object creates a distortion in the curvature of spacetime that moves outward at light speed. This might seem to contradict the Solar System observations described above, but remember that general relativity is conceptually very different from newtonian gravity, so a direct comparison is not so simple. Strictly speaking, gravity is not a "force" in general relativity, and a description in terms of speed and direction can be tricky. For weak fields, though, one can describe the theory in a sort of newtonian language. In that case, one finds that the "force" in GR is not quite central—it does not point directly towards the source of the gravitational field—and that it depends on velocity as well as position. The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the newtonian result. This cancellation may seem less strange if one notes that a similar effect occurs in electromagnetism. ***If a charged particle is moving at a constant velocity, it exerts a force that points toward its present position, not its retarded position***, even though electromagnetic interactions certainly move at the speed of light. [end quote] Emphasis added. Carlip refers to the Feynman Lectures as evidence. But Carlip, being a relativist cannot accept the experimental results at face value since they contradict Big Brother Einstein. He has to introduce "subtleties" (i.e., unfalsifiable lies) to force-fit the observation into his chicken shit Einsteinian model: [begin quote] Here, as in general relativity, subtleties in the nature of the interaction "conspire" to disguise the effect of propagation delay. [...] For a good reference to the electromagnetic case, see : R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Chapter II-21 (Addison-Wesley, 1989). [end quote] > > How is that possible? > > Maybe errors in experiment setup or in measurements. It happens to the best > of us (recently, professional scientists in Italy claimed to have found a > particle that moves faster than c; it turned out that the experiment setup > was not completely OK, which modified the measurements). You don't know what you are talking about. > > It's because the field is nonlocal. > > Do you even know what that term means? Fuck you. I ain't your dog. I'm teaching you something that you did not know. Don't act like you're the teacher here. You should at least be grateful. > > The charged particle and its emitted photons continually maintain a > > perfectly symmetrical (spherical) electrostatic field regardless of the > > movement of the source > > No. Fuck you again. I ain't your dog. > > or how far the photons are from the source. > > A nonspherical field would break a symmetry conservation principle and > > result in a lopsided or imbalanced universe. > > Not even wrong. Eat shit. > > Of course, gutless and lying relativists […] > > This is where I stop reading. Get well soon. > > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > “hanson”, yes? Fuck you and the mule you sleep with, asshole. I ain't nobody's dog. Don't even bother to reply because all you will get from me from now on is "fuck you" and "eat your own shit". ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 22:27 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Electric field |
| Message-ID | <2238304.Lt9SDvczpP@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #590717 |
mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > For a good reference to the electromagnetic case, see > > : R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on > : Physics, Chapter II-21 (Addison-Wesley, 1989). > [end quote] It is very interesting that you would cite Feynman since his main contribution to physics is to help to establish quantum electrodynamics (QED), a *relativistic* quantum field theory. IOW, he is one of those "gutless and lying relativists" you were talking about earlier. >> > How is that possible? >> >> Maybe errors in experiment setup or in measurements. It happens to the >> best of us (recently, professional scientists in Italy claimed to have >> found a particle that moves faster than c; it turned out that the >> experiment setup was not completely OK, which modified the measurements). > > You don't know what you are talking about. Evidently now, you don’t. As for the experiment I am referring to: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly> >> > It's because the field is nonlocal. >> Do you even know what that term means? > > Fuck you. I ain't your dog. […] True. Because if I had a dog, it would have much better manners than you. Then again, I have come to expect anti-social behavior from pseudonymous Googlodytes. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 18:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Electric field |
| Message-ID | <8f1f11de-c4c0-44c3-a812-4a41cf3eb9b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590730 |
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 1:37:06 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > > For a good reference to the electromagnetic case, see > > > > : R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on > > : Physics, Chapter II-21 (Addison-Wesley, 1989). > > [end quote] > > It is very interesting that you would cite Feynman since his main > contribution to physics is to help to establish quantum electrodynamics > (QED), a *relativistic* quantum field theory. IOW, he is one of those > "gutless and lying relativists" you were talking about earlier. > > >> > How is that possible? > >> > >> Maybe errors in experiment setup or in measurements. It happens to the > >> best of us (recently, professional scientists in Italy claimed to have > >> found a particle that moves faster than c; it turned out that the > >> experiment setup was not completely OK, which modified the measurements). > > > > You don't know what you are talking about. > > Evidently now, you don’t. > > As for the experiment I am referring to: > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly> > > >> > It's because the field is nonlocal. > >> Do you even know what that term means? > > > > Fuck you. I ain't your dog. […] > > True. Because if I had a dog, it would have much better manners than you. > > Then again, I have come to expect anti-social behavior from pseudonymous > Googlodytes. > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail. Your momma. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-26 07:14 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Electric field |
| Message-ID | <3108680.R56niFO833@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #590755 |
mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > Your momma. How old are you, 6? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 15:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Electric field |
| Message-ID | <nn5u3t$1rkg$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590717 |
On 7/25/2016 2:16 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> Experiments have shown that particles react to where a moving >>> > > electrostatic charge actually is as opposed to where it was if the changes >>> > > in the field propagated at c. >> > >> > Cite evidence. > For one, here's what relativist Steven Carlip wrote about it. He is comparing gravity to the electrostatic force: > > Link: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html You have confused soundbites with experimental evidence. What's been asked for is citations to experimental evidence in support of your claims. In return you have offered a soundbite from a web page. Where's the experimental evidence? Ain't got any? Then you got nothin'. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 09:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <14d36577-3802-4576-91b7-ae9237e7fb69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590116 |
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:16:49 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that reason.Einstein said it was at c.He had no reason to think that.I have a reason to think its force is always there,and I have two good reasons as I type this for this thinking.Might think of more ways to back up this claim too.Treb I know will help. TreBert Think of a fish born at the bottom of the ocean,and always under the great pressure of water. He knows he can never go to its surface(he is a blow fish) It does not take a lape's of time for this pressure to get to him (no speed its always there.) Gravity has this same effect.Think about it. Trebert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 17:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b1f13421-4be6-4d1c-8976-1952dc352c9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590116 |
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:16:49 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that reason.Einstein said it was at c.He had no reason to think that.I have a reason to think its force is always there,and I have two good reasons as I type this for this thinking.Might think of more ways to back up this claim too.Treb I know will help. TreBert The kicker we live in a time when the force of gravity is good for life.Reason is Earth size.Next reason medium size stars are in.Still other planets could have just microbes,slim,and mushrooms the highest life form,and that would hardly be worth the time and money.Its a given if a class III humankind landed in NYC today they would say "other than bagels this trip was a bad idea."TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 17:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5793e396$0$28845$c3e8da3$88b277c5@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #590410 |
On 7/22/2016 8:59 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:16:49 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: >> No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that reason.Einstein said it was at c.He had no reason to think that.I have a reason to think its force is always there,and I have two good reasons as I type this for this thinking.Might think of more ways to back up this claim too.Treb I know will help. TreBert > > The kicker we live in a time when the force of gravity is good for life.Reason is Earth size.Next reason medium size stars are in.Still other planets could have just microbes,slim,and mushrooms the highest life form,and that would hardly be worth the time and money.Its a given if a class III humankind landed in NYC today they would say "other than bagels this trip was a bad idea."TreBert > especially after all the Noo Yawkers beat them up, took all their valuables and stung them up from the nearest lamp post. In NYC all the microbes are full sized.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 10:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fd20b3bf-1cb2-4f9f-8b9f-9ea8ed185b06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590116 |
On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:16:49 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that reason.Einstein said it was at c.He had no reason to think that.I have a reason to think its force is always there,and I have two good reasons as I type this for this thinking.Might think of more ways to back up this claim too.Treb I know will help. TreBert Gravity force on us is like the pressure of water on an octopus.Its always there.All is created into it.That is a given Trebert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 12:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf6efea1-8241-4792-bc74-7181b333bae2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590949 |
On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:44:07 AM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:16:49 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > > No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that reason.Einstein said it was at c.He had no reason to think that.I have a reason to think its force is always there,and I have two good reasons as I type this for this thinking.Might think of more ways to back up this claim too.Treb I know will help. TreBert > > Gravity force on us is like the pressure of water on an octopus.Its always there.All is created into it.That is a given Trebert Gravity makes space look like a three treed mill and size, weight move at one speed to the center. TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 16:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <noge0j$luv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #592680 |
<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> "reber g=emc^2" Cretin Glazier wrote that "Glazier had no reason to think two good reasons for this thinking. Might think of more ways to back up this claim too. Treb I know will help",... and Treb, the voice in shitso-schizo-Glazier's head, said: "Its always there.That is a given. Gravity makes space look like a three treed mill and size, weight move at one speed to the center" which can be seen as soon as... > <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> the sanctimonious Full-Swine Glazier often posted: "god and religion is hocus pocus" and now that Glazier is doing his final twitching he trembles and prays: "Open Mind of God. Best to go with God, and be nice" > hanson wrote: But Glazier you Swine, it is YOU that is NOT nice, and things have not gotten any better because YOU came back after you wrote: > Full Swine & Cretin Glazier wrote: > "Why am I not loved by all?" > "I might leave if things do not get better"..because... > <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Glazier whose G=EMC^2 is short for "Glazier Exhibits Micro Cephalic Cretinism", (Zika & or by his genetic ashkeNazi marker) defines Bert, reber Trebert, or Treb as the loud mouth, the misogynic Peeping Tom (lifts & looks under the shirts of girls) the Jewish Jailbird, the Liar, Hatemonger, schizoid mental cripple, Pervert Face- Shitter, criminal Graveyard vandal, Bigot, Racist, War-monger & Communist :B::ert Glazier who introduces himself with/as.... > :B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex & :B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how everything works,.." :B:: "My Grandfathers had tails". -- Trebert :B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert. :B:: "I'm a non-bible(torra) Jew. I'm the only Jew that :B:: got 2 form letters from two Popes". Bert :B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__. > :B:: "I'll be sitting on Benj's, Saul Levi's & HVAC's face :B:: to take a shit & say: "Open your mouth wide". :B:: "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And laugh". :B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__. > :B:: "I'm M&M's Clueless Fuck-faced turd".Bert. :B:: I'm "Siegman Fraud", "Bert, the Bowel Movement". :B:: "I gave G=EMC^2 (wrong & stolen) to the world" :B:: "Israel will drop its first H-bomb 'David' ". TreBert :B:: __"I'm glad when war breaks out"__ Bert :B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__. > :B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and :B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them. ".... :B:: cuz "I was mixing sulfur, carbon & iron together :B:: to make gun powder" ... & "while I was in custody :B:: of Osceola Sheriff Bob Hansel, for thieving, his :B:: deputies beat the shit out of me. So I bought a :B:: 357 magnum for death threats by Sheriff Bob. :B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__. > about which .... Glazier's ex-tutor Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > "Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup." "Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__." "Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!." > "Glazier, your science is far worse than the man's on the street." "Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage." "Glazier, your brain is entangled with a used garbage can." > "reber, take your 'you know it all thinking' to your grave" . "reber, your horseshit gets old. Say hi to Allah for me.: "reber, you don't believe in science." > Moderator General "HVAC" <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> "Harlow Campbell" succinctly added & wrote: > "Bert, your opinion doesn't count" "a trained cockroach is smarter than Bert" "Bert, you are a clueless cocksucker".... "Bert you are senile, dazed & confused" "Bert, you are Fucked in the head. > "Bert is a racist. (And he's stupid too)" "TreBert, you are one stupid cocksucker". "Bert, Seriously. You are the stupidest cocksucking moron who ever came down the Mass Pike." "Bert, does your stupidity know no bounds?" > "Bert, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human fucking being". "Bert you are an idiot." "Bert, are the stupidest cocksucker on the planet." "Spin THIS, Glazier, you fucking idiot." "Bert get some spelling lessons, you feeble-minded fuck". > "Bert, you should be arrested" "Bert, I will call the police and tell them that your van seems to be a center for drug activity in the Wal-Mart parking lot"... .... .... about which.... > Aviator Jim Pennino jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Glazier, you are a spamming piece of shit... Your Cocaine usage explains a lot of your posts. You know nothing about government nor physics. You are drunk again. Give up and kill yourself. > Astrophysicist "Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote: > GLAZIER YOU ARE A LAMEbrain PIECE OF SHIT! Saul Levy > Rocket Scientist Virdy "Mahipal" <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote: > I know, you reber are an idiot. Glazier, you are babbling desperately. Is it sympathy or pity you're grasping for? Stop it, either way. > benj" Benjamin Franklin Jacoby <nobody@gmail.com> who recently nymshifted to "B Gates" <nobodyxx@gmail>, wrote: > One only has to read Glazier's posts to see when Bert was lobotomized. But Herb found poster "Double-A" who likes to be like Glazier, but "Alkie-Alkie" is another kook who is as dumb as Bert is... and promote that shitting into a bucket in a car is an achievement that is a laudable accomplishment... and both being Communists they demand entitlement to goods and services that were created by hardworking people while they themselves drink, party and frolic!... ... still waiting "to be loved by all"... > hanson wrote: So Glazier, given your Jewish Superiority complex and your IQ of 122 and you knowing how how everything works, ... how come ended up shitting into a bucket in a 25 year old Minnie Mouse van that you use as your residence on Wal-Mart's Parking Lot? ..... .... What went wrong, Glazier? > "What are they gonna say when Swine Glazier dies? Are they gonna say he was a kind man? He was a wise man? He had plans? He has wisdom? .... BULLSHIT, MAN!"... <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAixFYnDh4> [D] BULLSHIT,... because Swine Glazier DOES have plans which Glazier, the Full-Swine, announced and posted at the ripe age of eighty (80) when Glazier became a criminal Graveyard Vandal who wrote: > (1) On 25Mar2008 Swine Glazier wrote in: https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh when it seeps down on your face. -- Bert. > Glazier's geriatric decay worsened, along with Glazier's chronic alcoholism and Glazier, the Olde Kacker, became a Coprophile IOW Glazier became a filthy Face Shitter at his age of 86, which Glazier proudly announced & posted... > (2) On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, Jew-Swine Glazier said to "benj" <nobody@gmail.com>: Reality is you always post under me for you are an ass kisser. For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser. <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert. ... after which... > Glazier, the Criminal Graveyard Vandal & Face Shitter got even worse over the next year and at Glazier's age of 87, Glazier widened his piggish Face-shitting habit, as seen when Glazier threatened... > (3) On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, as Swine Glazier wrote: Harlow HVAC, Mr.HVAC@gmail.com, Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net & Jacoby Benj, <nobody@gmail.com>: "I'll be sitting on your face to take a shit & say: "Open wide". <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> after... > (4) The Criminal Swine Glazier refused to stop his practices & rejected to be taken down, because Glazier at his age of 87+, Swine Glazier labeled himself as "Siegman Fraud" which is synonym with "Bowel- movement, actually saying that __ "Glazier is a piece of shit"__. who, to boot, also announced that Glazier is a Transvestite who dons female dresses and a Sarah Palin mask, saying that he has "nice legs"... > hanson wrote: Now Glazier, since you are a curse and an embarrassment, day-in and day-out, to every Jew everywhere, has it dawned on you sorry, geriatric Transie-Swine, that as soon as you have been "put away and under" Google will remove ALL YOUR posts from the USENET and the only thing that will remain and show your legacy, is because: > Glazier the Swine fortunately posted: .... "hanson made me famous".... > hanson wrote So, Glazier you Swine, you should be grateful to me & not wish me ill like you did above, in your sick hate mongering, since it is only because of hanson, that Web searches show for: > --- Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin ---- 27'833 hits & rising --- reber g=emc^2 Face-shitter & Vandal ---- 27'953 hits & rising > which is why the mental cripple <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier> badly needs to be administered to with <http://tinyurl.com/G-EMC2-Recall-Therapy> ... > Now Glazier, you filthy Swine, "you will never be loved by all" but incredibly, Glazier, you do have groupies who love you, and haved become, voluntarily, your personal slaves of you, Faceshitter Glazier, who demonstrate their worship & their devotion to their master Glazier, by lying under & literally shit-eating Glazier's turds: <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> such as: > =1= Sefton "john" <johnsefton288@gmail.com> the delusional vegetarian loud-mouth from Canuckistan's town of Regina is under the influence of his Lysergic- and Solanine contaminated diet and so Sefton lays himself with gusto under Face-shitter Glazier's Sphincter and enjoys eating <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> and Sefton is impressed also with the Hate-mongering of > =2= <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> is Iran's Glazier. The Freak Muslime Mehram Maleki HATES Western culture & the USA, hates Xtians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, even Sunnis. Yet Maldrecki lays himself freely UNDER the Sphincter of Face shitter Jew Glazier who bragged <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> to have _"PFM"_= "Poop For Maleki", which the gay, Iranian Muslime, Maldrecki, consumed until he turned black & posted his <http://tinyurl.com/Maleki-Mehram-Selfie> > Then the 88 Year old Glazier announced that "Glazier is a Transvestite who dons female dresses & a Sarah Palin mask, saying that he has "nice legs"... which so impressed Maldrecki that Maleki showed his devotion and solidarity by going LGBT & had a Sex change operation, whose result she posted in <http://tinyurl.com/Maleki-the-TG-Girl>. > =3= "AA" <double-a3@hush.com> is __Glazier's "Ass Angel"__, aka "Abner Afterduft", the "Alcoholic Addict" who struts with his "AmoebA" brain, posted and yearns to be like Glazier, & AA doubles as Anon Yidd. Mouse", <nobody@home.invalid> who does NOT mind that Full-swine Glazier is a Face shitter & a criminal Grave yard vandal, Glazier who never recanted nor apologized for the overt threats Glazier made.... .... > ...aux contraire, "Yidd Mouse", cum "AA", the Kike, comes to the defense & aid of Full Swine Glazier's criminality, & worse, the Jewish Pig "Anon Yidd Mouse" cum "AA", curses folks that point at Glazier's behavior, which makes Yidd Mouse to be an "AA" example of the lurid "Closeness" which the eminent Jewish Scholar Harold Wallace Rosenthal ||R:|| describes in his epic <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT> wherein it says: ||R:|| We Jews have a solidarity & a closeness to ||R:|| fellow Jews like none other in the world. ||R:|| We Jews are always 'as one' when it counts. > ||R:|| It's no secret that we Jews do not respect ||R:|| you gentiles. All of you are our enemies. ||R:|| Our Jewish beliefs are entirely different from yours. ||R:|| Our Talmud/Nedarim/Kol Nidre = "all vows" allows ||R:|| us Jews to lie, subvert and cheat you, the Goyim > =4= Strangely, the Austrian Hitleryouth Halbmutt Wabnigger, <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> sides with Glazier too, but said: ____ "Jews are a residue of failed evolution" _______ > =5= Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>, the "Rectal Vacuumist (Seattle) is a criminal Child-support dead-beat who greedily sucks turds out of Glazier's sphincter, especially when they are Methamphetamine preloaded as seen when Jeff-Relf.Me <@.>::JR:: wrote: ::JR:: I no longer want sex anymore. I masturbate. I've found that ::JR:: all these erections & masturbations can irratate my prostate. ::JR:: My problem mostly happens a few hours before I want to ::JR:: wake up, so I can't take Sudafed. ::JR:: Ejaculation is a mind-altering drug, no better than heroin ::JR:: or meth. So I've recently vowed to not masturbate... ::JR:: I use my left hand to smoke, masturbate and to type ... ::JR:: Does that make me smart ? -- I'd rather masturbate. ::JR:: She likes to squirt meth up her rear ( it makes her cum). ::JR:: but pussy is the last thing I want. ::::::: (cuz Relf is apparently interested now, with his "mouth wide ::::::: open", to let Swine Glazier shit into Relf's "kisser") ::JR:: My dreams, however, have been semi-erotic as of late..." > =6= ... and even earlier, ironically, signed up was kike "Bodaisky", <root@localhost.localdomain> who lied and claimed to be "Bo Dai" from China, but was in fact "Fagie Bodaisky", who lives off the tips he gets from being a rest-room attendant in a NY Bath house for gay Jews. > =7= "Andrew Vecsey" posting as <trudi.schwander@gmail.com> is another stinky & filthy AshkeNAZI, a twatt to boot, who enjoys spending her time under Glazier's Sphincter like the ones above. Like those pigs s/he does NOT mind that Jew Glazier is bragging to be a Face shitter and a criminal Grave yard vandal, but s/he objects and groans when that is pointed out & comes runnning to defend and side with Full-Swine Glazier, just like seen in =3= & <http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT> > =8= The Wal-Mart Greeter "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> Mark L. Fergerson is another stupid & despicably filthy pig that enjoys spending his time under Glazier's Sphincter like the 7 ones above. Like those 7 other pigs, the Wal-Mart Greeter Ferkel does NOT mind that Jew Glazier is bragging to be a Face shitter and a criminal Grave yard vandal, but says that Glazier's criminal behavior, like Glazier's looking up/under the skirts of girls, is "not abusive" & insists that "Us old-timers gotta stick together." > This bizarre perversion is well documented as seen here in: <http://tinyurl.com/magnum-opus-the-rectal-jew> <https://theendofzion.com/the-fecal-fixation-of-the-chosen-ones/> <https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=jewish+coprophilia>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 04:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <bksnqbpl9j0f0jmlk5utup80o8q522es96@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #592680 |
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:57:53 -0700 (PDT), "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:44:07 AM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:16:49 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: >> > No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that reason.Einstein said it was at c.He had no reason to think that.I have a reason to think its force is always there,and I have two good reasons as I type this for this thinking.Might think of more ways to back up this claim too.Treb I know will help. TreBert I've thought of an experiment to test the speed of gravity. When Venus transits the sun, we can assume the sun is a fixed background and the light travel time from Venus is about 140 seconds so the reduced gravitational force at the earth's surface from Venus should occur about 140 seconds before we observe the actual alignment if gravity is instantaneous but in sync with the apparent alignment if it propagates at the speed of light. Venus (in perfect alignment) should reduce earth's measured surface gravity (at noon) by -1.841e-7 Newtons (or 0.184 micro Newtons). I have heard of force gauges that measure micro Newtons and they could be used to detect this delta. This measurement would not depend on general relativity (GR) although there might be a GR correction for it. Jupiter's gravity provides about twice this reduction in earth's surface gravity at 3.210e-7 Newtons (or 0.320 micro Newtons) but it aligns less often. Its signal should show about a 43 minute lag from apparent alignment/zenith to actual. The moon provides 33.2 micro Newtons reduction (largest) but its light travel time is only about 1.28 seconds so it might be harder to see the "signal' build as it moves toward its zenith with all the noise out there from everything else moving around. These lags should be detectable if gravity is instantaneous but not if it moves at the speed of light. I might expect some tiny lag because these are very low frequency "gravity waves" versus optical frequency EM waves (light) and wave velocity in a non-perfect vacuum (like space) is frequency dependent. Personally, I believe Einstein used the speed of light for gravity because he thought gravity was possibly a residual EM force (as I believe the strong nuclear force and gravity may both be). Mike --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 15:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <noht3d$89l$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #592744 |
On 11.08.2016 10:30, Michael J. Strickland wrote: > On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:57:53 -0700 (PDT), "reber g=emc^2" > <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:44:07 AM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:16:49 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: >>>> No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that reason.Einstein said it was at c.He had no reason to think that.I have a reason to think its force is always there,and I have two good reasons as I type this for this thinking.Might think of more ways to back up this claim too.Treb I know will help. TreBert > > I've thought of an experiment to test the speed of gravity. When Venus > transits the sun, we can assume the sun is a fixed background and the > light travel time from Venus is about 140 seconds so the reduced > gravitational force at the earth's surface from Venus should occur > about 140 seconds before we observe the actual alignment if gravity is > instantaneous but in sync with the apparent alignment if it propagates > at the speed of light. > > Venus (in perfect alignment) should reduce earth's measured surface > gravity (at noon) by -1.841e-7 Newtons (or 0.184 micro Newtons). I Why? bartekltg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 05:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <st5rqbp2u9mr7uqabugj7ip7isladq05su@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #592754 |
On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:03:40 +0200, bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> wrote: >On 11.08.2016 10:30, Michael J. Strickland wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:57:53 -0700 (PDT), "reber g=emc^2" >> <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:44:07 AM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: >>>> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:16:49 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: >>>>> No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that reason.Einstein said it was at c.He had no reason to think that.I have a reason to think its force is always there,and I have two good reasons as I type this for this thinking.Might think of more ways to back up this claim too.Treb I know will help. TreBert >> >> I've thought of an experiment to test the speed of gravity. When Venus >> transits the sun, we can assume the sun is a fixed background and the >> light travel time from Venus is about 140 seconds so the reduced >> gravitational force at the earth's surface from Venus should occur >> about 140 seconds before we observe the actual alignment if gravity is >> instantaneous but in sync with the apparent alignment if it propagates >> at the speed of light. >> >> Venus (in perfect alignment) should reduce earth's measured surface >> gravity (at noon) by -1.841e-7 Newtons (or 0.184 micro Newtons). I > >Why? Why is the earth's gravity reduced when Venus is aligned with us? Venus's gravity pulling us off the surface of the earth reaches its maximum when it is most nearly overhead at its zenith (highpoint in the sky). This gravity reduces the amount of the downward pull of earth's gravity on us. This is the reason ocean (and land) tidal bulges are maximum when the moon is most nearly aligned with us at its zenith. We could use the moon but it only gives us a 1.28 second delta between the time it reaches its zenith and its gravitational effect on us maximizes. I just did the math (again) last night and the numbers may be off but the effect, while miniscule, should be measurable these days. Mike --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 14:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nokdr1$dof$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #592886 |
On 12.08.2016 11:48, Michael J. Strickland wrote: > On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:03:40 +0200, bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 11.08.2016 10:30, Michael J. Strickland wrote: >>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:57:53 -0700 (PDT), "reber g=emc^2" >>> <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:44:07 AM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:16:49 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: >>>>>> No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that reason.Einstein said it was at c.He had no reason to think that.I have a reason to think its force is always there,and I have two good reasons as I type this for this thinking.Might think of more ways to back up this claim too.Treb I know will help. TreBert >>> >>> I've thought of an experiment to test the speed of gravity. When Venus >>> transits the sun, we can assume the sun is a fixed background and the >>> light travel time from Venus is about 140 seconds so the reduced >>> gravitational force at the earth's surface from Venus should occur >>> about 140 seconds before we observe the actual alignment if gravity is >>> instantaneous but in sync with the apparent alignment if it propagates >>> at the speed of light. >>> >>> Venus (in perfect alignment) should reduce earth's measured surface >>> gravity (at noon) by -1.841e-7 Newtons (or 0.184 micro Newtons). I >> >> Why? > > Why is the earth's gravity reduced when Venus is aligned with us? Yes. More precisely, why you expect a big difference between the two situation: gravity is instant and gravity propagate as light. > Venus's gravity pulling us off the surface of the earth reaches its > maximum when it is most nearly overhead at its zenith (highpoint in > the sky). This gravity reduces the amount of the downward pull of > earth's gravity on us. Agree. > This is the reason ocean (and land) tidal bulges are maximum when the > moon is most nearly aligned with us at its zenith. We could use the > moon but it only gives us a 1.28 second delta between the time it > reaches its zenith and its gravitational effect on us maximizes. > I just did the math (again) last night and the numbers may be off but > the effect, while miniscule, should be measurable these days. OK. I was afraid you have in mind "shielding" or some other undetected effects. You want to observe gravitational acceleration during Venus transit and check, if the extreme of the force is shifted relative to the centre of transit (when Sun and Venus are pulling together)? Is sound quite difficult (other celestial bodies effect us too, during two minutes Earth will rotate, so Zenith is not the best reference point), but on the first look doable... But on the closer look I see three major problems with this:/ - "trigonometry". We do not have to compare "there is gravitational Influenfe from Venus" to "there is not" but "Venus is Here" to "Venus is where is should be in 140s". Sun's angular diameter is ~32arc minutes, transit took 6.5hours, so 140seconds give us displacement of 0.19 arc minutes or 5.6 *10^-5 radians. Venus do not "appear". Is slightly moves. The whole Venus influence is http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=grawitation+constant+*+Venus++mass++%2F+(AU-Venus+orbital+radius+)%5E2 1.9 *10^-7 N/kg (you have wrote 1.841e-7, so it is the same) And chenge in the force is: 1.9 *10^-7 = 1.9 *10^-7 N/kg we get only 1 *10 ^ -11 N/kg (or m/s^2) I not sure we can measure this. But this is perpendicular (to the line Earth-Sun) force. If you want to measure drop in the force in zenith direction, it drop like cos(alpha) ~= 1- alpha^2/2 3 *10^-16 Newtons/kg. It will do not work. Still, we can try to attack the 'perpendicular' part of the change in force, and do some tricks to get rid of influence of other bodies. Then there is the second problem: -"free-falling". Earth is not fixed in spaces. It flies like gravity tells it. The same gravity we want to measure. If you are on very small planet, or (better) a spaceship, and you flight on low Earth orbit, gravitational force acting on you and your ship is still almost like on earth 8.95 m/s^2 on 300km orbit. But you and your instruments do not detect anything. Earth gravitation is compensated by inertial forces. (this is the whole idea of space stations;-)) (I do not try to say hare that acceleration and gravitation is the same. Only that we can detect the difference:) The same works with Earth when it travel in other bodies' gravitation. In the centre of Earth (luckily to our example it is both geometric centre and centre of mass) you will not detect influence of other bodies. Sun acts 0.00593m/s^2 on you, but also on the Earth as a whole, and Earth is accelerating 0.00593m/s^2, so in your room in Earth core there is no effect. Accelerometers displays 0. Tides are "second order" effects. On an ocean closer to the Moon(or Sun), Moon acts with stronger force. The difference between this force and mean acceleration of whole planet is a net force that cause tides. So our detectors do not feel G * Venus mass / distance^2 = 1.9 *10^-7 N/kg If feels G * Venus mass / (distance-earth radius)^2 - G * Venus mass / distance^2 = 2 (G Venus mass) earth radius / distance^3 + O (lesser terms) http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=gravitation+constant+*+Venus++mass++%2F+(AU-Venus+orbital+radius+)%5E3+*+2+earth+radius 5.8 *10^-11. 3250 times less. From every results from the first "problem" we have to cut three and a half of digits. It will do not work:( We do not have means to measure that weak changes in forces. - The last problem is more theoretical. We want compare two hipotesis, graviti is instant and it is slow (like c). But we do not compare it to every possible theory with slow gravity. We do not even compare it to the better ones! We construct something like 'fuid gravity' Laplace considered... and proved it have to be instant:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Laplace But this mean nothing. We know that slow gravitation do not work like Laplace assumed. We should take for example general relativity and use it as a model of 'slow gravity' case. Ant there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Infeld%E2%80%93Hoffmann_equations all but one parts of the force act in tke lines between _current_ positions of the bodies. So like in the instant gravity. The last term describe force acting in the line of acceleration of the second body, not the velocity. So even if you can perform that experiment, and get results, still instant gravitiation and GR give us almost the same predictions. WOW, it was long. TLDR: -Venus do not appears suddenly. Is only slightly moves. The force change during the 140s period is not 1.9 *10^-7 but this number multiply by (in the best scenerio) sinus of quite small angle. -Earth is not fixed in space. If something attract us (an accelerometer) it attract whole Earth (and base of the accelerometer is fixed to it). Accelerometer (and water in tides) on the surface do not feel GM/r^2 (relatively to Earth) it feels 2GM earth_radius /r^3 (r=distance, M = Venus mass. ) That is 5.8 *10^-11 (and this have to be multiply by sinus of mentioned before small angle) -To get prediction of how delayed gravity works you have used very simple toy theory. Theory that we know do not works. If we get better one (General Relativity) this sort of differences between both models disappear. This kind of experiment can't distinct between GR and instant Newtonian gravity. bartekltg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-12 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bb7b2045-b492-4e76-89e2-4f7d2d5170c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592893 |
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 5:01:40 AM UTC-7, bartekltg wrote: > On 12.08.2016 11:48, Michael J. Strickland wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Aug 2016 15:03:40 +0200, bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> On 11.08.2016 10:30, Michael J. Strickland wrote: > >>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 12:57:53 -0700 (PDT), "reber g=emc^2" > >>> <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 10:44:07 AM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 12:16:49 PM UTC-7, reber g=emc^2 wrote: > >>>>>> No lab is trying to measure the speed of gravity for that reason.Einstein said it was at c.He had no reason to think that.I have a reason to think its force is always there,and I have two good reasons as I type this for this thinking.Might think of more ways to back up this claim too.Treb I know will help. TreBert > >>> > >>> I've thought of an experiment to test the speed of gravity. When Venus > >>> transits the sun, we can assume the sun is a fixed background and the > >>> light travel time from Venus is about 140 seconds so the reduced > >>> gravitational force at the earth's surface from Venus should occur > >>> about 140 seconds before we observe the actual alignment if gravity is > >>> instantaneous but in sync with the apparent alignment if it propagates > >>> at the speed of light. > >>> > >>> Venus (in perfect alignment) should reduce earth's measured surface > >>> gravity (at noon) by -1.841e-7 Newtons (or 0.184 micro Newtons). I > >> > >> Why? > > > > Why is the earth's gravity reduced when Venus is aligned with us? > > Yes. More precisely, why you expect a big difference between > the two situation: > gravity is instant and gravity propagate as light. > > > > Venus's gravity pulling us off the surface of the earth reaches its > > maximum when it is most nearly overhead at its zenith (highpoint in > > the sky). This gravity reduces the amount of the downward pull of > > earth's gravity on us. > > Agree. > > > This is the reason ocean (and land) tidal bulges are maximum when the > > moon is most nearly aligned with us at its zenith. We could use the > > moon but it only gives us a 1.28 second delta between the time it > > reaches its zenith and its gravitational effect on us maximizes. > > > I just did the math (again) last night and the numbers may be off but > > the effect, while miniscule, should be measurable these days. > > OK. I was afraid you have in mind "shielding" or some other > undetected effects. > > You want to observe gravitational acceleration during Venus transit > and check, if the extreme of the force is shifted relative to the > centre of transit (when Sun and Venus are pulling together)? > Is sound quite difficult (other celestial bodies effect us too, > during two minutes Earth will rotate, so Zenith is not the best > reference point), but on the first look doable... > > But on the closer look I see three major problems with this:/ > > - "trigonometry". We do not have to compare "there is gravitational > Influenfe from Venus" to "there is not" but > "Venus is Here" to "Venus is where is should be in 140s". > Sun's angular diameter is ~32arc minutes, transit took 6.5hours, > so 140seconds give us displacement of 0.19 arc minutes or > 5.6 *10^-5 radians. > > Venus do not "appear". Is slightly moves. > > The whole Venus influence is > http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=grawitation+constant+*+Venus++mass++%2F+(AU-Venus+orbital+radius+)%5E2 > 1.9 *10^-7 N/kg (you have wrote 1.841e-7, so it is the same) > > And chenge in the force is: > 1.9 *10^-7 = 1.9 *10^-7 N/kg we get only > 1 *10 ^ -11 N/kg (or m/s^2) > I not sure we can measure this. > > But this is perpendicular (to the line Earth-Sun) force. > If you want to measure drop in the force in zenith direction, > it drop like cos(alpha) ~= 1- alpha^2/2 > > 3 *10^-16 Newtons/kg. > It will do not work. > > > Still, we can try to attack the 'perpendicular' part > of the change in force, and do some tricks to get rid > of influence of other bodies. Then there is the second problem: > > -"free-falling". > Earth is not fixed in spaces. It flies like gravity tells it. > The same gravity we want to measure. > > If you are on very small planet, or (better) a spaceship, > and you flight on low Earth orbit, gravitational force > acting on you and your ship is still almost like on earth > 8.95 m/s^2 on 300km orbit. > But you and your instruments do not detect anything. > Earth gravitation is compensated by inertial forces. > (this is the whole idea of space stations;-)) > (I do not try to say hare that acceleration and gravitation > is the same. Only that we can detect the difference:) > > The same works with Earth when it travel in other bodies' > gravitation. In the centre of Earth (luckily to our example > it is both geometric centre and centre of mass) > you will not detect influence of other bodies. > Sun acts 0.00593m/s^2 on you, but also on the Earth > as a whole, and Earth is accelerating 0.00593m/s^2, > so in your room in Earth core there is no effect. > Accelerometers displays 0. > > > > Tides are "second order" effects. On an ocean closer > to the Moon(or Sun), Moon acts with stronger force. > The difference between this force and mean acceleration > of whole planet is a net force that cause tides. > > So our detectors do not feel > G * Venus mass / distance^2 = 1.9 *10^-7 N/kg > > If feels > G * Venus mass / (distance-earth radius)^2 > - G * Venus mass / distance^2 > = 2 (G Venus mass) earth radius / distance^3 + O (lesser terms) > > http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=gravitation+constant+*+Venus++mass++%2F+(AU-Venus+orbital+radius+)%5E3+*+2+earth+radius > > 5.8 *10^-11. > 3250 times less. > From every results from the first "problem" we have > to cut three and a half of digits. > > It will do not work:( > We do not have means to measure that weak changes in forces. > > - The last problem is more theoretical. > We want compare two hipotesis, graviti is instant > and it is slow (like c). But we do not compare > it to every possible theory with slow gravity. > We do not even compare it to the better ones! > > We construct something like 'fuid gravity' > Laplace considered... and proved it have > to be instant:) > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Laplace > > But this mean nothing. We know that slow gravitation do > not work like Laplace assumed. We should take for example > general relativity and use it as a model of 'slow gravity' > case. > > Ant there > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Infeld%E2%80%93Hoffmann_equations > all but one parts of the force act in tke lines between > _current_ positions of the bodies. So like in the instant > gravity. > The last term describe force acting in the line of acceleration > of the second body, not the velocity. > > So even if you can perform that experiment, and get results, > still instant gravitiation and GR give us almost the same > predictions. > > > WOW, it was long. > TLDR: > > -Venus do not appears suddenly. Is only slightly moves. > The force change during the 140s period is not 1.9 *10^-7 > but this number multiply by (in the best scenerio) > sinus of quite small angle. > > -Earth is not fixed in space. If something attract us (an accelerometer) > it attract whole Earth (and base of the accelerometer is fixed to it). > Accelerometer (and water in tides) on the surface do not feel GM/r^2 > (relatively to Earth) it feels 2GM earth_radius /r^3 > (r=distance, M = Venus mass. ) > That is 5.8 *10^-11 (and this have to be multiply by sinus of > mentioned before small angle) > > -To get prediction of how delayed gravity works you have used > very simple toy theory. Theory that we know do not works. > If we get better one (General Relativity) this sort of differences > between both models disappear. This kind of experiment can't distinct > between GR and instant Newtonian gravity. This is complete unmitigated BS. Relativists have to do a complete neutron dance in order to get their chicken shit "theory" to agree with the Newtonian results. Newtonian gravity is not a "toy" theory, it's a highly accurate theory that not only assumes instantaneous gravity, it also assumes a symmetrical gravitational field around a moving mass. This is what is observed. Why? Because Newtonian gravity would be way off if both assumptions were not correct. Now we move to the crackpot theory known as GR. How do the lying relativists solve this problem even though GR assumes that gravity moves at c? They posit that every massive body magically transmits information about its position and velocity out into space and that receiving bodies magically use this information to extrapolate the actual position and velocity of the source mass. No mechanism is offered as to how this magic occurs. Of course, no experiment is offered to falsify it since there is no mechanism. The problem with this crap is that a moving body cannot possibly know its velocity relative to any other body unless it has instantaneous access to the other body's position and velocity relative to itself. In fact, relative anything assumes instantaneous communication between two entities, something that relativists go out of their way to deny. After all, did not that crackpot Albert Einstein deny "spooky action at a distance?" GR has got to be the most blatant, in-your-face lie in the history of physics. It is nothing short of criminal. How do the assholes get away with it? They do because they are part of Big Brother science which uses propaganda to convince people that lies are truths. But not for long. Your time on the BS pedestal is coming to an end. And much sooner than you expect. It won't be pretty either. Sackcloth and ashes and all that other nasty stuff. Repent now or suffer the consequences. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web