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

Groups > sci.physics > #632105 > unrolled thread

The rules change

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The rules change john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 07:18 -0700
    Re: The rules change Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:21 -0500
    Re: The rules change moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-06 19:51 +0000
    Re: The rules change Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-05-07 10:09 -0500
    Re: The rules change dale <dale@dalekelly.org> - 2017-05-09 14:53 -0400
      Re: The rules change john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 12:12 -0700
        Re: The rules change pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-05-09 12:33 -0700
          Re: The rules change Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-05-11 22:40 -0500
            Re: The rules change john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 03:04 -0700
              Re: The rules change HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 05:13 -0700
                Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-12 18:32 -0400
                  Re: The rules change Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-05-13 13:38 -0500
              Re: The rules change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 06:18 -0700
                Re: The rules change Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 06:46 -0700
                  Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-12 18:53 -0400
                Re: The rules change john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 07:22 -0700
                  Re: The rules change Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 09:34 -0500
                  Re: The rules change moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-12 18:16 +0000
                    Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-12 19:05 -0400
                      Re: The rules change HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 02:01 -0700
                        Re: The rules change Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-05-13 13:08 -0500
                        Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-15 21:01 -0400
                          Re: The rules change Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-05-17 08:54 -0500
                            Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-17 18:56 -0400
                              Re: The rules change Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 16:27 -0700
                                Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-17 20:15 -0400
                  Re: The rules change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 19:42 -0700
                Re: The rules change Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-05-12 13:41 -0500
                  Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-12 19:09 -0400
              Re: The rules change Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 09:33 -0500
                Re: The rules change Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 07:46 -0700
                  Re: The rules change john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 07:51 -0700
                    Re: The rules change Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 14:59 -0500
                    Re: The rules change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 19:46 -0700
                      Re: The rules change john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 05:37 -0700
                        Re: The rules change Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 08:27 -0500
                        Re: The rules change moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 14:34 +0000
                        Re: The rules change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 10:52 -0700
                        Re: The rules change HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 11:55 -0700
                          Re: The rules change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-05-15 19:31 +0000
                            Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-15 21:41 -0400
                              Re: The rules change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-05-16 03:06 +0000
                                Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-16 18:23 -0400
                                  Re: The rules change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-05-16 22:38 +0000
                                    Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-16 21:00 -0400
                                      Re: The rules change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-05-17 02:51 +0000
                                        Re: The rules change john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 05:02 -0700
                                          Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-17 18:47 -0400
                                        Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-17 18:46 -0400
                                          Re: The rules change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-05-17 23:25 +0000
                                            Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-17 20:04 -0400
                                              Re: The rules change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-05-18 00:29 +0000
                                                Re: The rules change john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 19:06 -0700
                              Re: The rules change Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 11:01 -0700
                  Re: The rules change "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-05-12 09:15 -0700
                    Re: The rules change Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 13:23 -0700
                      Re: The rules change "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-05-12 14:24 -0700
                Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-12 18:56 -0400
        Re: The rules change Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 15:19 -0500
          Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-09 18:18 -0400
        Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-09 17:57 -0400
          Re: The rules change john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 15:19 -0700
            Re: The rules change HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 19:44 -0700
              Re: The rules change john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 19:51 -0700
              Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-10 17:37 -0400
                Re: The rules change HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 02:18 -0700
                  Re: The rules change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-05-11 16:41 +0000
                    Re: The rules change HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 10:07 -0700
                      Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-11 18:13 -0400
                    Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-11 18:34 -0400
                      Re: The rules change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-05-11 23:36 +0000
                        Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-11 20:43 -0400
                          Re: The rules change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-05-12 02:27 +0000
                            Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-11 22:56 -0400
                              Re: The rules change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-05-12 04:58 +0000
                                Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-12 18:31 -0400
                                  Re: The rules change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-05-12 22:49 +0000
                                    Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-12 20:33 -0400
                                      Re: The rules change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-05-13 02:24 +0000
                                        Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-15 20:58 -0400
                                          Re: The rules change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-05-16 01:10 +0000
                                            Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-15 22:35 -0400
                                              Re: The rules change jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-05-16 05:08 +0000
                                                Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-16 17:49 -0400
            Re: The rules change Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 07:50 -0500
              Re: The rules change HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 07:23 -0700
                Re: The rules change john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 07:35 -0700
                  Re: The rules change moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-10 17:31 +0000
                    Re: The rules change john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 10:57 -0700
                      Re: The rules change moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-10 19:01 +0000
                      Re: The rules change Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 15:16 -0500
                  Re: The rules change HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:28 -0700
                    Re: The rules change john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:48 -0700
                      Re: The rules change Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-05-10 13:58 -0500
                Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-10 17:51 -0400
                  Re: The rules change Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-05-12 20:29 -0500
                    Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-15 20:57 -0400
        Re: The rules change moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-10 00:06 +0000
          Re: The rules change john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 19:49 -0700
            Re: The rules change moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-10 05:21 +0000
            Re: The rules change HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 03:51 -0700
              Re: The rules change benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-10 17:42 -0400
            Re: The rules change Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 07:51 -0500
              Re: The rules change poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-05-11 17:31 -0700

Page 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#632105 — The rules change

The rules of physics change
at the level of the atom?

Great little rule-changers around here.
Good luck with that wishful thinking,
non-classical "physicists".

The steenking rules NEVER change, girls.
You just haven't found out what they are, yet.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#632134

On 5/6/17 9:18 AM, john wrote:
> The rules of physics change
> at the level of the atom?

Yup.

> 
> Great little rule-changers around here.
> Good luck with that wishful thinking,
> non-classical "physicists".

Humans do not INVENT rules. They DISCOVER the rules that nature operates 
by. Now since nature is the one that says the rules change at that 
scale, who are you to say, "Nope, not allowed"?

> 
> The steenking rules NEVER change, girls.

Oh but they do. What EVIDENCE -- scientific, observational EVIDENCE -- 
do you have that says the rules do not change?

Oh, I see. It's just something you BELIEVE is true, without basis.

> You just haven't found out what they are, yet.
> 


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

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

#632138

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>The rules of physics change
>at the level of the atom?

Yes. That is what we observed.

>Great little rule-changers around here.

Nobody changed any rules. We DISCOVERED the rules.

>Good luck with that wishful thinking,
>non-classical "physicists".

>The steenking rules NEVER change, girls.
>You just haven't found out what they are, yet.

Scientists haven't found out everything, of course, but we have
found out that the rules ARE different at the atomic level.

Remember, if a theory says one thing, and observation says something
else, it's the THEORY, not the observation that is wrong.

Applied to you: You say the rules are the same at the atomic level,
observation tells us the rules are, in fact, different, it is your
claim that is wrong, not the observations.

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

#632224

On 5/6/2017 9:18 AM, john wrote:
> The rules of physics change
> at the level of the atom?

yup - remember "rules" are mathamatical constructs that hold over a 
region.  most are approximations to what is observable, not exact 
solutions in many cases, and once you move out of the region (scale) 
they can apply witn incraseing inaccuratly.

>
> Great little rule-changers around here.
> Good luck with that wishful thinking,
> non-classical "physicists".

I dont know what you are trying to say here

>
> The steenking rules NEVER change, girls.
> You just haven't found out what they are, yet.

incorrect, girly,

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

#632616

On 5/6/17 10:18 AM, john wrote:
> The rules of physics change
> at the level of the atom?
> 
> Great little rule-changers around here.
> Good luck with that wishful thinking,
> non-classical "physicists".
> 
> The steenking rules NEVER change, girls.
> You just haven't found out what they are, yet.
> 

Planck uncertainty too?

-- 
dale | http://www.dalekelly.org

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

#632617

How's this for rules?

There are no "voids". Nature abhors a void.
Therefore Space is not empty, just different.

Everything is built from something. Every part
is itself made from parts.

You guys flaunt both of those rules in your
messed-up "physics". Straighten up and fly 
straight

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

#632619

On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 12:12:25 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
> How's this for rules?
> 
> There are no "voids". Nature abhors a void.
> Therefore Space is not empty, just different.
> 
> Everything is built from something. Every part
> is itself made from parts.
> 
> You guys flaunt both of those rules in your
> messed-up "physics". Straighten up and fly 
> straight

And all of those statements are based on nothing more than your own delusions.

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

#633015

On 5/9/2017 2:33 PM, pcardinale@volcanomail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 12:12:25 PM UTC-7, john wrote:
>> How's this for rules?
>>
>> There are no "voids".

that is an assumption, it implies space is not void



>>  Nature abhors a void.

who is "Nature" ?  does it have intellegence ? and why would it/they 
have such a bias ?

>> Therefore Space is not empty, just different.

some space, all space, parts of space could be empty, no atoms at all, 
within a cubic mm...   what scale ? miles, light years, mm or nm ?


>>
>> Everything is built from something.

even the somethings would have to be build from  something else.  but 
what holds it together?  and who is the builder ?

>> Every part
>> is itself made from parts.

for most automobiles, yes.


>>
>> You guys flaunt both of those rules in your
>> messed-up "physics".

nope.

>> Straighten up and fly
>> straight

"Straighten up and fly right" is the proper name of the song.

>
> And all of those statements are based on nothing more than your own delusions.
>

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

#633035

Serg 
"> And all of those statements are based on nothing more than your own delusions. "

I'm not the one who said "nature abhors a vacuum".
I believe Voltaire coined that one.
You have not heard it because you have not
read science enough.

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

#633039

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 6:04:54 AM UTC-4, Poor John Says
> Serg 
> "> And all of those statements are based on nothing more than your own delusions. "
> 
> I'm not the one who said "nature abhors a vacuum".
> I believe Voltaire coined that one.
> You have not heard it because you have not
> read science enough.
------------

Voltaire was a homosexual and given to flights of fancy.

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

#633084

On 5/12/2017 8:13 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 6:04:54 AM UTC-4, Poor John Says
>> Serg
>> "> And all of those statements are based on nothing more than your own delusions. "
>>
>> I'm not the one who said "nature abhors a vacuum".
>> I believe Voltaire coined that one.
>> You have not heard it because you have not
>> read science enough.
> ------------
>
> Voltaire was a homosexual and given to flights of fancy.
>
John, did you ever notice at gays all seem to know just who else 
(historical or otherwise) are gay? It's just something they do.

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

#633181

On 5/12/2017 5:32 PM, benj wrote:
> On 5/12/2017 8:13 AM, HVAC wrote:
>> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 6:04:54 AM UTC-4, Poor John Says
>>> Serg
>>> "> And all of those statements are based on nothing more than your
>>> own delusions. "
>>>
>>> I'm not the one who said "nature abhors a vacuum".
>>> I believe Voltaire coined that one.
>>> You have not heard it because you have not
>>> read science enough.
>> ------------
>>
>> Voltaire was a homosexual and given to flights of fancy.
>>
> John, did you ever notice at gays all seem to know just who else
> (historical or otherwise) are gay? It's just something they do.


Hillary Clinton: The vast, gay-wing conspiracy" is "even better funded" now.

The "vast, gay-wing conspiracy" that Hillary Clinton discussed about in 
the 1990's still exists, she confirmed on Wednesday evening -- but now 
it's out in the open and it's "even better funded," she said.

Clinton was asked about that infamous quote during a televised town hall 
hosted by CNN in Derry, New Hampshire.

"At this point it's probably not correct to say it's a conspiracy 
because it's out in the open," Clinton said. "There is no doubt about 
who the players are, what they're trying to achieve... It's real, and we 
and the Lezbo's are going to beat it up."

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

#633045

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 6:04:54 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Serg 
> "> And all of those statements are based on nothing more than your own delusions. "
> 
> I'm not the one who said "nature abhors a vacuum".
> I believe Voltaire coined that one.

I am pretty sue that dates back to early Greeks.
Ah yes, Aristotle proposed the idea, though
not those exact words.

wiki has also:
"The idea was restated as "Natura abhorret vacuum." by François Rabelais"

> You have not heard it because you have not
> read science enough.

So what science book taught you Voltaire said that?
Silly boy.

ed
Ed
ed

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

#633046

On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 9:18:22 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 6:04:54 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> > Serg 
> > "> And all of those statements are based on nothing more than your own delusions. "
> > 
> > I'm not the one who said "nature abhors a vacuum".
> > I believe Voltaire coined that one.
> 
> I am pretty sue that dates back to early Greeks.

He he... sorry EdJi, just laugh with me... I just can't resist... here goes:
I knew a pretty girl named Sue. So beautiful! Worked with me at GE Astropace.
To this day, that one pretty Sue does not know what a hushed crush I had on her!

Johnny Cash Song: Stop calling me Sue...

Wait... that sounds a little circular/masterbatory. Listen to the meaning.
But yes, I still recall pretty Sue's beautiful face. Call me, Sue?! I'm on FB?!

> Ah yes, Aristotle proposed the idea, though
> not those exact words.
> 
> wiki has also:
> "The idea was restated as "Natura abhorret vacuum." by François Rabelais"
> 
> > You have not heard it because you have not
> > read science enough.
> 
> So what science book taught you Voltaire said that?
> Silly boy.
> 
> ed
> Ed
> ed

Voltaire wrote Candide. One of the most influential works in me m(y) life.
[All that happens, happens for the best...]^7638! And Be(y)ond...

-- Mahipal == माहिपाल ... "My Pal" or "Maple"... as in Loops, S(y)rup, Wood. 
                          /\  "If the line between science fiction and 
                            /   science fact doesn't drive you crazy, 
 /\                         \   then you're just not tr(y)ing!" 
 \           /\/\  /  \   \/                    Mahipal Virdy 
 /   ==    \  /  \/\/                         The |meforce> Paradox 
 \/                            http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/ 
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/seenchi/id1107393483?mt=8

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

#633086

On 5/12/2017 9:46 AM, Mahipal wrote:
> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 9:18:22 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 6:04:54 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
>>> Serg
>>> "> And all of those statements are based on nothing more than your own delusions. "
>>>
>>> I'm not the one who said "nature abhors a vacuum".
>>> I believe Voltaire coined that one.
>>
>> I am pretty sue that dates back to early Greeks.
>
> He he... sorry EdJi, just laugh with me... I just can't resist... here goes:
> I knew a pretty girl named Sue. So beautiful! Worked with me at GE Astropace.
> To this day, that one pretty Sue does not know what a hushed crush I had on her!
>
> Johnny Cash Song: Stop calling me Sue...

Actually the lyric is "My name is Sue! How do you do?"

(do not confuse with Airplane "Don't calling me Shirley")

Looperji, if you are going to live by pop culture you ought to get it right!

> Wait... that sounds a little circular/masterbatory. Listen to the meaning.
> But yes, I still recall pretty Sue's beautiful face. Call me, Sue?! I'm on FB?!
>
>> Ah yes, Aristotle proposed the idea, though
>> not those exact words.
>>
>> wiki has also:
>> "The idea was restated as "Natura abhorret vacuum." by François Rabelais"
>>
>>> You have not heard it because you have not
>>> read science enough.
>>
>> So what science book taught you Voltaire said that?
>> Silly boy.
>>
>> ed
>> Ed
>> ed
>
> Voltaire wrote Candide. One of the most influential works in me m(y) life.
> [All that happens, happens for the best...]^7638! And Be(y)ond...

Hey you bunch of liberal clowns, that thing in front of your face is a 
computer. You can use it to look up all kinds of shit. There is no 
reason anymore to be like HVAC and just make up crap you don't know.

The Latin is Horror Vacui and is generally attributed to Aristotle and 
not Voltaire, you dummies. However, it is likely actually a remnant of 
high science aether theory from the sunken continent of Atlantis which 
likely found it's way to the library at Alexandria where it came into 
Western History. You guys really need some liberal arts education as 
well as some more science.

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

#633047

ed
Ed
ed wrote "not Voltaire"
but what I was replying to was Sergio saying
"> 
> And all of those statements are based on nothing more than your own delusions. 
> 
"
So, ancient Greeks were deluded, too?

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

#633049

On 5/12/17 9:22 AM, john wrote:
> So, ancient Greeks were deluded, too?

Quite a bit of what Aristotle believed was true has been shown to be 
flat wrong, yes.

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

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

#633068

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>ed
>Ed
>ed wrote "not Voltaire"
>but what I was replying to was Sergio saying

Learn to quote properly. Many times nobody knows to what or to whom you are
replying.

>So, ancient Greeks were deluded, too?

"Nature abhors a vacuum" is not a law of physics. It works for a (physical)
vacuum in the presence of gas/air, and for political power when a powerful
dictator is ousted, but where else?  The ancient Greeks were wrong about a
lot of stuff anyway.

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

#633093

On 5/12/2017 2:16 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> ed
>> Ed
>> ed wrote "not Voltaire"
>> but what I was replying to was Sergio saying
>
> Learn to quote properly. Many times nobody knows to what or to whom you are
> replying.
>
>> So, ancient Greeks were deluded, too?
>
> "Nature abhors a vacuum" is not a law of physics. It works for a (physical)
> vacuum in the presence of gas/air, and for political power when a powerful
> dictator is ousted, but where else?  The ancient Greeks were wrong about a
> lot of stuff anyway.
>
It actually refers to the high physics that aether has great tendency to 
fill all empty spaces. It takes extreme effort to to create a true 
vacuum with all the aether pumped out. (Though Tesla did it 
electomagnetically but it's a big government secret which is why guys 
like HVAC always ridicule Tesla as a "kook".)

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

#633147

BJ quacked
It actually refers to the high physics that aether has great tendency to 
fill all empty spaces. It takes extreme effort to to create a true 
vacuum with all the aether pumped out. (Though Tesla did it 
electomagnetically but it's a big government secret which is why guys 
like HVAC always ridicule Tesla as a "kook".) 
----------

I never said Tesla was a kook. I said he was a homosexual who used to fuck his pet bird, "as a man loves a woman".

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

Page 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web