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

Groups > sci.physics > #547041 > unrolled thread

Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-21 16:17 -0600
    Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-21 23:45 +0000
      Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:40 -0600
        Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-23 19:03 +0000
    Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-01-22 14:29 -0800
      Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 16:32 -0600
        Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-01-22 22:57 +0000
          Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-22 15:04 -0800
            Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 12:06 -0600
        Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-01-23 14:13 -0800
      Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:05 -0800
        Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 05:19 -0800
          Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 06:27 -0800
            Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 07:31 -0800
              Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 07:56 -0800
                Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 08:20 -0800
                  Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 10:43 -0800
                    Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? "Sofa King" <invalid@example.com> - 2016-01-24 16:27 -0800
                  Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 17:40 -0800
                    Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 23:29 -0800
                  Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 01:54 -0500
                Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? "We Todd Did" <invalid@example.com> - 2016-01-24 16:29 -0800
                  Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 17:57 -0800
              Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-24 10:34 -0800
              Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 01:48 -0500
            Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:13 -0600
              Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:21 -0800
                Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 23:45 -0800
              Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 12:33 -0800
              Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 23:41 -0800
    Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-23 10:37 -0800
      Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-01-25 12:40 -0800
        Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:26 -0600
          Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:15 -0800
            Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 23:47 -0800
          Re: Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:47 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#547041 — Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological constant?

Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological 
constant?
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jan/21/are-gravitational-waves-being-redshifted-away-by-the-cosmological-constant



> The theoretical framework underlying gravitational waves may have to
> be revamped to account for dark energy and the acceleration of the
> expansion of the universe. That's the conclusion of researchers in
> the US, who say that while gravitational waves from nearby sources
> will be unaffected, next-generation detectors such as the Laser
> Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the Einstein Telescope –
> which aim to detect gravitational waves from billions of light-years
> away – may fall foul of the expansion of the universe. While such
> telescopes will still detect gravitational waves, the signal detected
> from more distant waves could be fairly different to what is
> currently expected, say the researchers.
>
> Dark energy is best explained by a small but positive value for the
> cosmological constant, which describes the energy density of space.
> It was the famous factor that Albert Einstein discarded from his
> general theory of relativity, when it was found in 1929 that the
> universe was expanding. For the next 69 years, theorists assumed that
> the cosmological constant was equal to zero. However, in 1998, it was
> discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating,
> driven by the mysterious dark energy, and the cosmological constant
> was back in the running.
>
> Because the value of the cosmological constant is very small (10–52
> m2), it had been assumed that it would have a negligible effect on
> the mathematical descriptions of gravitational waves. However, Abhay
> Ashtekar and colleagues at the Institute for Gravitation and the
> Cosmos at Penn State University in the US believe that it throws a
> spanner into the works of our current gravitational-wave theories.
>


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#547072

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological 
> constant?

Maybe, but what I really was to know is what makes you think you are
so special that you are exempt from copyrights?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#547527

On 1/21/16 5:45 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Maybe, but what I really was to know is what makes you think you are
> so special that you are exempt from copyrights?


   Now, now, jimp, you're obsessive nature is outta control, and your
   absolute contempt and total disgust are addressed in these Anger
   Management classes. You, jimp, need these services:
 > http://yellowpages.com/rancho-cucamonga-ca/anger-management-classes


Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological 
constant?
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jan/21/are-gravitational-waves-being-redshifted-away-by-the-cosmological-constant

 > The theoretical framework underlying gravitational waves may have to
 > be revamped to account for dark energy and the acceleration of the
 > expansion of the universe. That's the conclusion of researchers in
 > the US, who say that while gravitational waves from nearby sources
 > will be unaffected, next-generation detectors such as the Laser
 > Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the Einstein Telescope –
 > which aim to detect gravitational waves from billions of light-years
 > away – may fall foul of the expansion of the universe. While such
 > telescopes will still detect gravitational waves, the signal detected
 > from more distant waves could be fairly different to what is
 > currently expected, say the researchers.
 >
 > Dark energy is best explained by a small but positive value for the
 > cosmological constant, which describes the energy density of space.
 > It was the famous factor that Albert Einstein discarded from his
 > general theory of relativity, when it was found in 1929 that the
 > universe was expanding. For the next 69 years, theorists assumed that
 > the cosmological constant was equal to zero. However, in 1998, it was
 > discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating,
 > driven by the mysterious dark energy, and the cosmological constant
 > was back in the running.
 >
 > Because the value of the cosmological constant is very small (10–52
 > m2), it had been assumed that it would have a negligible effect on
 > the mathematical descriptions of gravitational waves. However, Abhay
 > Ashtekar and colleagues at the Institute for Gravitation and the
 > Cosmos at Penn State University in the US believe that it throws a
 > spanner into the works of our current gravitational-wave theories.
 >

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#547606

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/21/16 5:45 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Maybe, but what I really was to know is what makes you think you are
>> so special that you are exempt from copyrights?
> 
> 
>   Now, now, jimp, you're obsessive nature is outta control, and your

What makes you think you are so special that you are exempt from copyrights?


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#547313

On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:17:04 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological 
> constant?
> > http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jan/21/are-gravitational-waves-being-redshifted-away-by-the-cosmological-constant
> 
> 
> 
> > The theoretical framework underlying gravitational waves may have to
> > be revamped to account for dark energy and the acceleration of the
> > expansion of the universe. That's the conclusion of researchers in
> > the US, who say that while gravitational waves from nearby sources
> > will be unaffected, next-generation detectors such as the Laser
> > Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the Einstein Telescope -
> > which aim to detect gravitational waves from billions of light-years
> > away - may fall foul of the expansion of the universe. While such
> > telescopes will still detect gravitational waves, the signal detected
> > from more distant waves could be fairly different to what is
> > currently expected, say the researchers.
> >
> > Dark energy is best explained by a small but positive value for the
> > cosmological constant, which describes the energy density of space.
> > It was the famous factor that Albert Einstein discarded from his
> > general theory of relativity, when it was found in 1929 that the
> > universe was expanding. For the next 69 years, theorists assumed that
> > the cosmological constant was equal to zero. However, in 1998, it was
> > discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating,
> > driven by the mysterious dark energy, and the cosmological constant
> > was back in the running.
> >
> > Because the value of the cosmological constant is very small (10-52
> > m2), it had been assumed that it would have a negligible effect on
> > the mathematical descriptions of gravitational waves. However, Abhay
> > Ashtekar and colleagues at the Institute for Gravitation and the
> > Cosmos at Penn State University in the US believe that it throws a
> > spanner into the works of our current gravitational-wave theories.
> >


What gravitational waves?

Double-A

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

#547315

On 1/22/16 4:29 PM, Double-A wrote:
> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:17:04 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological
>> constant?
>>> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jan/21/are-gravitational-waves-being-redshifted-away-by-the-cosmological-constant
>>
>>
>>
>>> The theoretical framework underlying gravitational waves may have to
>>> be revamped to account for dark energy and the acceleration of the
>>> expansion of the universe. That's the conclusion of researchers in
>>> the US, who say that while gravitational waves from nearby sources
>>> will be unaffected, next-generation detectors such as the Laser
>>> Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the Einstein Telescope -
>>> which aim to detect gravitational waves from billions of light-years
>>> away - may fall foul of the expansion of the universe. While such
>>> telescopes will still detect gravitational waves, the signal detected
>>> from more distant waves could be fairly different to what is
>>> currently expected, say the researchers.
>>>
>>> Dark energy is best explained by a small but positive value for the
>>> cosmological constant, which describes the energy density of space.
>>> It was the famous factor that Albert Einstein discarded from his
>>> general theory of relativity, when it was found in 1929 that the
>>> universe was expanding. For the next 69 years, theorists assumed that
>>> the cosmological constant was equal to zero. However, in 1998, it was
>>> discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating,
>>> driven by the mysterious dark energy, and the cosmological constant
>>> was back in the running.
>>>
>>> Because the value of the cosmological constant is very small (10-52
>>> m2), it had been assumed that it would have a negligible effect on
>>> the mathematical descriptions of gravitational waves. However, Abhay
>>> Ashtekar and colleagues at the Institute for Gravitation and the
>>> Cosmos at Penn State University in the US believe that it throws a
>>> spanner into the works of our current gravitational-wave theories.
>>>
>
>
> What gravitational waves?
>
> Double-A
>

   You can find out next month -- stay tuned.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

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

#547322

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/22/16 4:29 PM, Double-A wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:17:04 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological
>>> constant?
>>>> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jan/21/are-gravitational-waves-being-redshifted-away-by-the-cosmological-constant
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The theoretical framework underlying gravitational waves may have to
>>>> be revamped to account for dark energy and the acceleration of the
>>>> expansion of the universe. That's the conclusion of researchers in
>>>> the US, who say that while gravitational waves from nearby sources
>>>> will be unaffected, next-generation detectors such as the Laser
>>>> Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the Einstein Telescope -
>>>> which aim to detect gravitational waves from billions of light-years
>>>> away - may fall foul of the expansion of the universe. While such
>>>> telescopes will still detect gravitational waves, the signal detected
>>>> from more distant waves could be fairly different to what is
>>>> currently expected, say the researchers.
>>>>
>>>> Dark energy is best explained by a small but positive value for the
>>>> cosmological constant, which describes the energy density of space.
>>>> It was the famous factor that Albert Einstein discarded from his
>>>> general theory of relativity, when it was found in 1929 that the
>>>> universe was expanding. For the next 69 years, theorists assumed that
>>>> the cosmological constant was equal to zero. However, in 1998, it was
>>>> discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating,
>>>> driven by the mysterious dark energy, and the cosmological constant
>>>> was back in the running.
>>>>
>>>> Because the value of the cosmological constant is very small (10-52
>>>> m2), it had been assumed that it would have a negligible effect on
>>>> the mathematical descriptions of gravitational waves. However, Abhay
>>>> Ashtekar and colleagues at the Institute for Gravitation and the
>>>> Cosmos at Penn State University in the US believe that it throws a
>>>> spanner into the works of our current gravitational-wave theories.
>>>>
>>
>>
>> What gravitational waves?
>>
>> Double-A
>>
> 
>   You can find out next month -- stay tuned.
 
How many copyrights will be violated? 

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#547323

Grav waves- waves of we don't know what
in we're not sure what influencing we
haven't a clue what- and we don't know 
how, either, but how could we?
Haw!

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

#547572

On 1/22/2016 5:04 PM, john wrote:
> Grav waves- waves of we don't know what

No, that's not right. You've been told otherwise.

> in we're not sure

That's not right either. You've been told otherwise.

> what influencing we
> haven't a clue what

That's not right either! Haven't you read a thing told you?

> - and we don't know
> how, either, but how could we?
> Haw!
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#547652

On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 2:32:55 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 1/22/16 4:29 PM, Double-A wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 21, 2016 at 2:17:04 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> >> Are gravitational waves being 'redshifted' away by the cosmological
> >> constant?
> >>> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/jan/21/are-gravitational-waves-being-redshifted-away-by-the-cosmological-constant
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> The theoretical framework underlying gravitational waves may have to
> >>> be revamped to account for dark energy and the acceleration of the
> >>> expansion of the universe. That's the conclusion of researchers in
> >>> the US, who say that while gravitational waves from nearby sources
> >>> will be unaffected, next-generation detectors such as the Laser
> >>> Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the Einstein Telescope -
> >>> which aim to detect gravitational waves from billions of light-years
> >>> away - may fall foul of the expansion of the universe. While such
> >>> telescopes will still detect gravitational waves, the signal detected
> >>> from more distant waves could be fairly different to what is
> >>> currently expected, say the researchers.
> >>>
> >>> Dark energy is best explained by a small but positive value for the
> >>> cosmological constant, which describes the energy density of space.
> >>> It was the famous factor that Albert Einstein discarded from his
> >>> general theory of relativity, when it was found in 1929 that the
> >>> universe was expanding. For the next 69 years, theorists assumed that
> >>> the cosmological constant was equal to zero. However, in 1998, it was
> >>> discovered that the expansion of the universe was accelerating,
> >>> driven by the mysterious dark energy, and the cosmological constant
> >>> was back in the running.
> >>>
> >>> Because the value of the cosmological constant is very small (10-52
> >>> m2), it had been assumed that it would have a negligible effect on
> >>> the mathematical descriptions of gravitational waves. However, Abhay
> >>> Ashtekar and colleagues at the Institute for Gravitation and the
> >>> Cosmos at Penn State University in the US believe that it throws a
> >>> spanner into the works of our current gravitational-wave theories.
> >>>
> >
> >
> > What gravitational waves?
> >
> > Double-A
> >
> 
>    You can find out next month -- stay tuned.
> 


Right after a successful perpetual motion machine is unveiled?

Double-A

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

#547571

Double -A wrote..
> What gravitational waves?

Sams softening up the ground for an announcement that some sort of 
anomaly has been observed but not what they predicted. By posting this 
article in this thread *before* the results are announced...Sam et al
are hoping it will look like they predicted, a priori, that the gravitational
*waves* wont look like what they initially predicted.
Now when the results are announced Sam et al can say...." Look!...
we did actually predict they would look different to what we expected"

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

#547768

On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 8:05:19 PM UTC+2, jay moseley wrote:
> Double -A wrote..
> > What gravitational waves?
> 
> Sams softening up the ground for an announcement that some sort of 
> anomaly has been observed but not what they predicted. By posting this 
> article in this thread *before* the results are announced...Sam et al
> are hoping it will look like they predicted, a priori, that the gravitational
> *waves* wont look like what they initially predicted.
> Now when the results are announced Sam et al can say...." Look!...
> we did actually predict they would look different to what we expected"

==========================
dark matter 
is supposed to enlarge  gravity
or weaken it ??

TIA
Y.Porat
==================================

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

#547776

Dark Matter!
Haw.

Some idiots thought that if the outer stars
of galaxies had mass around the galaxy
to pull on them as they were
coming around, that could explain why
they go faster than they should, and they
ran with that idea.
Forgetting that as soon as the star goes
past, it will be decelerated by exactly that
same amount.
Idiots

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

#547786

Some idiots thought that if the outer stars 
of galaxies had mass around the galaxy 
to pull on them as they were 
coming around, that could explain why 
they go faster than they should, and they 
ran with that idea. 
Forgetting that as soon as the star goes 
past, it will be decelerated by exactly that 
same amount. 
Idiots 
------------

John have you ever studied orbital mechanics?

Actually, I withdraw the question. Obviously the answer is no.

But here is something for you to think about.... When we launch a deep space probe we always use planetary bodies and their gravity wells to get a 'free' speed boost.

But according to what your said above, this would be impossible since all that speed would be lost
as the craft rounded the planet.

If this is beyond you, ask Mr Bodkin or professor Wormley to explain in a more teacher-like manner

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

#547790

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 10:31:15 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote:
> Some idiots thought that if the outer stars 
> of galaxies had mass around the galaxy 
> to pull on them as they were 
> coming around, that could explain why 
> they go faster than they should, and they 
> ran with that idea. 
> Forgetting that as soon as the star goes 
> past, it will be decelerated by exactly that 
> same amount. 
> Idiots 
> ------------
> 
> John have you ever studied orbital mechanics?

Obviously John has. How about you HVAC? Where? When?
 
> Actually, I withdraw the question. Obviously the answer is no.

Which part of Orbital Mechanics do you need explained to you HVAC?

> But here is something for you to think about.... When we launch a
> deep space probe we always use planetary bodies and their gravity
> wells to get a 'free' speed boost.

You quoted free as 'free' for there is no Free Launch. Right?! (TM)

> But according to what your said above, this would be impossible
> since all that speed would be lost as the craft rounded the planet.

Fwiw, Galactic Dynamics is a bit different than Orbital Mechanics.

>  If this is beyond you, ask Mr Bodkin or professor Wormley to
> explain in a more teacher-like manner

Trolls of a feather flock and tweet together. As do Usenet Hyenas. (SM)

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Still working for my BMW@#... He he.”

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

#547794

> John have you ever studied orbital mechanics? 

Obviously John has. How about you HVAC? Where? When? 
--------------

Sorry, that information is classified.


  

> But here is something for you to think about.... When we launch a 
> deep space probe we always use planetary bodies and their gravity 
> wells to get a 'free' speed boost. 

You quoted free as 'free' for there is no Free Launch. Right?! (TM) 
-----------

I put the quotes around 'free' to indicate that all physical laws apply. Energy can never be created nor destroyed in our universe.

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

#547807

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 6:20:59 PM UTC+2, HVAC wrote:
> > John have you ever studied orbital mechanics? 
> 
> Obviously John has. How about you HVAC? Where? When? 
> --------------
> 
> Sorry, that information is classified.
==========================
anonymous pig gangster criminal 
your f -en   mother is classifier !!
 
===================================
> 
> 
>   
> 
> > But here is something for you to think about.... When we launch a 
> > deep space probe we always use planetary bodies and their gravity 
> > wells to get a 'free' speed boost.
----------------
what do you know about that boost Mr dreck 
it is done by your 
witches on brooms  !!
=======================
who is we ?? piggy gangster criminal 

Y.Porat
===============================
> 
 

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

#547850

Get A Brain!
Moran
.jpg

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

#547858

On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 11:20:59 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote:
> > John have you ever studied orbital mechanics? 
> 
> Obviously John has. How about you HVAC? Where? When? 
> --------------
> 
> Sorry, that information is classified.

I bet you HVAC are as stupid in person as you are in writing. 

I know what information and actions of USA citizens are legally
classified. Your response is a bonafide non-sequiter. As usual.

> > But here is something for you to think about.... When we launch a 
> > deep space probe we always use planetary bodies and their gravity 
> > wells to get a 'free' speed boost. 
> 
> You quoted free as 'free' for there is no Free Launch. Right?! (TM) 
> -----------
>
> I put the quotes around 'free' to indicate that all physical laws
>apply. Energy can never be created nor destroyed in our universe.

Our universe? Really?! Our's? Like us Us US We we WE? You make me He he...

The First Law of Thermodynamics. I've never heard, read, or thought
about it. Enlighten me HVAC. Or is that too classified like your
Second, Third, and Zeroth Laws?!

Also nice to see your ever watching Hyenas again posting under my
nameString==Mahipal. So cute, little hungry puppies. Eat THIS!

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Freedom To Troll, 13th Amendment?!”

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

#548220

On Monday, January 25, 2016 at 3:40:53 AM UTC+2, Mahipal wrote:
> On Sunday, January 24, 2016 at 11:20:59 AM UTC-5, HVAC wrote:
> > > John have you ever studied orbital mechanics? 
> > 
> > Obviously John has. How about you HVAC? Where? When? 
> > --------------
> > 
> > Sorry, that information is classified.
> 
> I bet you HVAC are as stupid in person as you are in writing. 
> 
> I know what information and actions of USA citizens are legally
> classified. Your response is a bonafide non-sequiter. As usual.
> 
> > > But here is something for you to think about.... When we launch a 
> > > deep space probe we always use planetary bodies and their gravity 
> > > wells to get a 'free' speed boost. 
> > 
> > You quoted free as 'free' for there is no Free Launch. Right?! (TM) 
> > -----------
> >
> > I put the quotes around 'free' to indicate that all physical laws
> >apply. Energy can never be created nor destroyed in our universe.
> 
> Our universe? Really?! Our's? Like us Us US We we WE? You make me He he...
> 
> The First Law of Thermodynamics. I've never heard, read, or thought
> about it. Enlighten me HVAC. Or is that too classified like your
> Second, Third, and Zeroth Laws?!
> 
> Also nice to see your ever watching Hyenas again posting under my
> nameString==Mahipal. So cute, little hungry puppies. Eat THIS!
> 
> -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Freedom To Troll, 13th Amendment?!”

======================
you are too gentle with that
ANONYMOUS  dreck shit animal baboon 

criminal thief against mankind !!! 
  and ISSIS AGENT 
Y.P
=================================
callwd HAVAC

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web