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

Groups > sci.physics > #570958 > unrolled thread

Jets

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Jets john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 10:44 -0700
    Jets HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 10:54 -0700
      Jets john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 11:17 -0700
      Re: Jets benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-16 14:21 -0400
        Re: Jets john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 07:04 -0700
          Re: Jets HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 16:54 -0700
    Re: Jets omnilobe@gmail.com - 2016-04-17 08:52 -0700
      Re: Jets john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 08:56 -0700
        Re: Jets john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 09:12 -0700
    Re: Jets moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 03:33 +0000
      Re: Jets john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 05:21 -0700
        Re: Jets HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 06:31 -0700
          Re: Jets john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 06:37 -0700
            Re: Jets HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 06:44 -0700
              Re: Jets john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 07:32 -0700
                Re: Jets HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 10:23 -0700
                  Re: Jets john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 10:47 -0700
                    Re: Jets HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 11:11 -0700
                    Re: Jets moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 18:22 +0000
                      Re: Jets "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-18 13:41 -0500
                        Re: Jets moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 19:05 +0000
                          Re: Jets "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> - 2016-04-18 16:12 -0500
                    Re: Jets Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 11:10 -0500
                  Re: Jets benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-18 23:44 -0400
        Re: Jets moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 14:32 +0000
          Re: Jets john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 07:52 -0700
            Re: Jets HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 08:21 -0700
              Re: Jets john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 09:08 -0700
                Re: Jets HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 09:35 -0700
                  Re: Jets benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-18 13:10 -0400
                Re: Jets moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-18 16:57 +0000
            Re: Jets Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 14:33 -0500
            Re: Jets moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-20 15:34 +0000
    Re: Jets Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 11:01 -0500
      Re: Jets john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 09:14 -0700
        Re: Jets moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-19 16:36 +0000
          Re: Jets john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:46 -0700
            Re: Jets Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 14:03 -0500
        Re: Jets Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 12:24 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#571372

"Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:

>ROTFLMAO.

>You who came up with a different reason for why the Twin Towers were not 

K00ktard, get back into your own topic.  This is about astrophysics, which
is way, way, WAY over your kooktarded head, even if I am arguing with 
another kook.

Are you so kooktarded that you saw the word "Jets" in the subject and
immediately assumed this had to be about 9/11? And then responded without
reading whether it actually was?

Now quit running away, and get us the evidence you owe us. You are WAY 
overdue!

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

#571397

"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message 
news:nf3b5l$l47$1@pcls7.std.com...
> "Rocky" <wookiee@att.net> writes:
>
>>ROTFLMAO.
>
>>You who came up with a different reason for why the Twin Towers were not
>
> K00ktard, get back into your own topic.  This is about astrophysics, which
> is way, way, WAY over your kooktarded head,

ROTFLMAO when you can't even deal with ordinary physics that state objects 
fall down and not through other objects or walls.
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

You want to say the debris from the Twin Towers fell through the "Surviving 
Corners" to end up in the basement.   ROTFLMAO
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

What you really should do is prove that "Global Collapses" do not have 
enough force or energy to crush certain walls at the bottom of the Twin 
Towers despite the fact they were all the same thickness.  ROTFLMAO
 http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/blast3.jpeg

Rocky 

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

#571563

On 4/18/2016 12:47 PM, john wrote:
> So-
> These big-assed jets are everywhere out there-
> shooting away from Black Holes-
> by the scientists' own admission,
> totally unexpectedly,
> and your sorry-ass theory says
> nothing comes away from BHs
> except Hawking radiation,

What? Where do you come up with that statement that NOTHING comes away 
from BH's except Hawking radiation?

> and HE can't get out of his CHAIR,
> and ...., where was I going with that?
>
> Oh well. You're obviously FOS
>


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

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

#571489

On 04/18/2016 01:23 PM, HVAC wrote:
> HVAC
> I keep explaining that galactic structure
> tells us about atoms
> and atomic action tells us about galaxies-
> in my model-
> called the Galaxy Model for the Atom.
> --------------
>
> John. Seriously. Just 86 this entire childish and silly 'model' and read a few books. Also, I suggest you hold off on your small pharma meds until the end of your day.
>
> Good luck bro

HVAC has good advice, John. Cosmology is 100% bullshit and fantasy. 
That's why Wormley and HardBlow are so big into it. Nobody has been more 
than a few feet into space. Remember all the bullshit about planets 
before they sent any probes? Remember how all the Wormley-HVAC 
"scientists" assured us that Venus was the most "earth-like" planet and 
probably had Vensuians living there.

<snort> Right! Living there stepping over the puddles of molten lead!
Same level of knowledge can be expected from the fantasy crowd for any 
galactic theory!

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

#571303

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael:
>Jets are a HUGE part of the picture.
>YOUR retarded theories seem to
>have left them out entirely!!!

So how are jets even relevant to your spinny thing benzene, much less real
benzene?

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

#571305

Jets are just high-energy particles
flowing up the magnetic pole
generated by the spinning rings.

Spinning discs of stars have them and
we can see them.
Atoms have them and we can't see them
because the particles flowing out-
which bend back around and ARE the
magnetic field- are matter at the next
size level down.

I could draw a jet perpendicular to each of
the discs in my Benzene model,
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF
 including the Hydrogen discs,
and those jets would always be parallel,
but why? If you took geometry you know
that, since all the discs are always parallel
and the jets are each perpendicular to its
disc, the jets are parallel.
Use your imagination for once, Michael.

They weren't imagining all those
parallel jets out there in the Cosmos when
they saw them just recently,
BUT I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THEM FOR
THIRTY THREE YEARS.

That's called predictive power, Odd Michael HVAC.
Which your model don't got none of, no how.

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

#571306

John kooked
They weren't imagining all those 
parallel jets out there in the Cosmos when 
they saw them just recently, 
BUT I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THEM FOR 
THIRTY THREE YEARS. 

That's called predictive power, Odd Michael HVAC. 
Which your model don't got none of, no how. 
------------

It is not a prediction. It's A wild ass guess (wag) based on nothing, predicting nothing.

If you would like to repost what you deem a 'prediction', feel free.

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

#571309

Okay
If, years before something is observed,
two things really; that jets and new stars are
part of a cycle (remember long, long ago
when I wrote, "IT'S A CYCLE, MICHAEL"?),
and that these jets are evidence of 
a magnetic pole at right-angles to the
disc center, which will want to align with
other jets (and that is now observed),
how did I NOT predict that, you figure?

Meanwhile they give Nobels for data
bumps and gizmo chirps. Go figure.

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

#571311

12:08 PMjohn
Okay 
If, years before something is observed, 
two things really; that jets and new stars are 
part of a cycle (remember long, long ago 
when I wrote, "IT'S A CYCLE, MICHAEL"?), 
and that these jets are evidence of 
a magnetic pole at right-angles to the 
disc center, which will want to align with 
other jets (and that is now observed), 
how did I NOT predict that, you figure? 
-------------

John. It wasn't a prediction it was a wild ass guess. On top of that, it was 97.6% wrong. To even imagine an atom being in any way related to relativistic polar jets shows fundamental flaws in your physics knowledge and education. No offense.

Now don't go flying off the handle. If you think I'm wrong and I'm simply picking on you, feel free to post any and all supporting evidence or previous posts that support your silly claims.

I suggest that you listen to people here... Jim Penino, Mr Bodkin, Michael Moroney, professor Wormley and others. I would even suggest that some of these would even provide help for you in the area of book recommendations on this topic.

Good luck on your long journey bro!

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

#571324

On 04/18/2016 12:35 PM, HVAC wrote:
>
> 12:08 PMjohn
> Okay
> If, years before something is observed,
> two things really; that jets and new stars are
> part of a cycle (remember long, long ago
> when I wrote, "IT'S A CYCLE, MICHAEL"?),
> and that these jets are evidence of
> a magnetic pole at right-angles to the
> disc center, which will want to align with
> other jets (and that is now observed),
> how did I NOT predict that, you figure?
> -------------
>
> John. It wasn't a prediction it was a wild ass guess. On top of that, it was 97.6% wrong. To even imagine an atom being in any way related to relativistic polar jets shows fundamental flaws in your physics knowledge and education. No offense.
>
> Now don't go flying off the handle. If you think I'm wrong and I'm simply picking on you, feel free to post any and all supporting evidence or previous posts that support your silly claims.
>
> I suggest that you listen to people here... Jim Penino, Mr Bodkin, Michael Moroney, professor Wormley and others. I would even suggest that some of these would even provide help for you in the area of book recommendations on this topic.
>
> Good luck on your long journey bro!
>
The "professor"  in "professor" Wormley needs to be in quotes.

I'm now the grammar/spelling moderator.

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

#571315

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>how did I NOT predict that, you figure?

No, John, retroactive claims of prediction don't count, especially when so
vague.

You have to do this:

"I believe benzene molecules are a bunch of precessing spinny things, with
their axes all aligned.  I believe this will give benzene Property XXXXXX,
and the existing model does not predict that.  I predict that if you do
YYYYYY, and my model is correct, you will see AAAAAA.  I predict that if
you do YYYYYY, and my model is incorrect, you will see BBBBBB."

Fill in for XXXXXX, YYYYYY, AAAAAA, BBBBBB, convince someone to do YYYYYY,
and go collect your Nobel.

That's how science works.

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

#571639

On 4/18/2016 9:52 AM, john wrote:
> Atoms have them and we can't see them
> because the particles flowing out-
> which bend back around and ARE the
> magnetic field- are matter at the next
> size level down.

So the presence of atomic jets isn't experimentally testable, John?
Sound like science to you?

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

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

#571848

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>They weren't imagining all those
>parallel jets out there in the Cosmos when
>they saw them just recently,
>BUT I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THEM FOR
>THIRTY THREE YEARS.

>That's called predictive power, Odd Michael HVAC.

No, that's called long term k00kiness,

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

#571559

On 4/16/2016 12:44 PM, john wrote:
> A few years back, I suggested that
> jets from BHs caused new stars to
> form. As part of a cycle.
> According to the Galaxy Model for the Atom.
>
> That idea was roundly pooh-poohed, but
> has since been found to be true.
>
> Now, jets have been found aligned. I have
> made numerous posts about atoms'
> discs being aligned by controlling them
> with magnetic fields. I have constructed
> a Benzene model from parallel precessing
> discs.
>
> That's called "predictive power", Odd and
> Michael.
>
> Your model has never spoken to jets.
>
> That's called "bullshit QM", Odd and Michael.
>

Are you predicting jets from the carbon atoms in benzene, John?

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

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

#571564

Odd quaver...queried
"
Are you predicting jets from the carbon atoms in benzene, John? "

All atoms have magnetic poles at right-angles
to their precessing discs of electrons.

Let me explain ONE more time:

Electrons change directions.
This causes magnetism.
Magnetism doesn't want to fight,
so all the electrons turn so their magnetism
agrees.
THE ONLY WAY TO DO THIS
is to have them all be part of the 
same turning disc
(Read: same coil)
and the only way to make a sphere
out of that is to precess it.

So. Prediction:
Galaxies (and atoms) precess.

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

#571573

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd quaver...queried
>"
>Are you predicting jets from the carbon atoms in benzene, John? "

>All atoms have magnetic poles at right-angles
>to their precessing discs of electrons.

>Let me explain ONE more time:

>Electrons change directions.
>This causes magnetism.

It causes electromagnetic radiation (from that acceleration), but go on...

>Magnetism doesn't want to fight,
>so all the electrons turn so their magnetism
>agrees.
>THE ONLY WAY TO DO THIS
>is to have them all be part of the 
>same turning disc
>(Read: same coil)
>and the only way to make a sphere
>out of that is to precess it.

Ummm...

>So. Prediction:
>Galaxies (and atoms) precess.

OK, so far, so good.

Now, come up with an experiment(s) that give result X if galaxies (and 
atoms) precess, and result Y if galaxies (and atoms) don't precess.
In other words, how to observe/verify this supposed precession.

Get someone to run the experiments and if positive, go collect your Nobel
Prize.  (However, the explanation of the violations of the existing laws
of physics ought to be real interesting!)

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

#571596

Michael reasoned
"Now, come up with an experiment(s) that give result X if galaxies (and 
atoms) precess, and result Y if galaxies (and atoms) don't precess. 
In other words, how to observe/verify this supposed precession."

Okay.
Measure light from disc-edges and see
if it's symmetrically-redshifted.
(Hint- it isn't)

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

#571628

On 4/19/2016 12:46 PM, john wrote:
> Michael reasoned
> "Now, come up with an experiment(s) that give result X if galaxies (and
> atoms) precess, and result Y if galaxies (and atoms) don't precess.
> In other words, how to observe/verify this supposed precession."
>
> Okay.
> Measure light from disc-edges and see
> if it's symmetrically-redshifted.
> (Hint- it isn't)
>

You'd have to limit that search to galaxies that have their axis pointed 
directly on a line to earth. Do you see why? (Rotation also produces 
redshift, unless this condition holds.)

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

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

#571585

On 4/19/2016 11:14 AM, john wrote:
> Odd quaver...queried
> "
> Are you predicting jets from the carbon atoms in benzene, John? "
>
> All atoms have magnetic poles at right-angles
> to their precessing discs of electrons.

Evidence for this?

Secondly, do you know the difference between a jet and a magnetic field?

>
> Let me explain ONE more time:
>
> Electrons change directions.
> This causes magnetism.
> Magnetism doesn't want to fight,
> so all the electrons turn so their magnetism
> agrees.

Why then is ice or sulfur or wood not ferromagnetic?

> THE ONLY WAY TO DO THIS
> is to have them all be part of the
> same turning disc
> (Read: same coil)
> and the only way to make a sphere
> out of that is to precess it.
>
> So. Prediction:
> Galaxies (and atoms) precess.
>

What's the evidence for jets in atoms?


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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web