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

Groups > sci.physics > #593848 > unrolled thread

"Heavy Air" right-on again!

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  "Heavy Air" right-on again! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-19 17:00 -0400
    Re: "Heavy Air" right-on again! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-19 17:07 -0500
      Re: "Heavy Air" right-on again! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-19 19:39 -0400
      Re: "Heavy Air" right-on again! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-20 00:43 +0000
        Re: "Heavy Air" right-on again! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-08-19 21:54 -0500
        Re: "Heavy Air" right-on again! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-20 20:43 -0400
          Re: "Heavy Air" right-on again! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-21 01:16 +0000
            Re: "Heavy Air" right-on again! benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-22 16:49 -0400
              Re: "Heavy Air" right-on again! jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-08-22 21:59 +0000

#593848 — "Heavy Air" right-on again!

  We've all seen the news about the weather. And we are all also 
familiar with Bert's theory of "heavy air" that has been predicting bad 
weather for years. And most of us are are aware of fundamental physics 
principles like the 4 elements: Earth air Fire and water.

Heavy air theory clearly states that all elements are conserved! Thus, 
it is obvious that if Kalifornia is covered in wildfires, that for the 
conservation theory to hold (Noether's theorem) that somewhere else 
there must be states covered in water to balance it all out.

And that is exactly what we see to day! This is proof beyond question 
that the theory of Heavy Air is correct!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#593858

On 8/19/2016 4:00 PM, benj wrote:
>  We've all seen the news about the weather. And we are all also familiar
> with Bert's theory of "heavy air" that has been predicting bad weather
> for years. And most of us are are aware of fundamental physics
> principles like the 4 elements: Earth air Fire and water.
>
> Heavy air theory clearly states that all elements are conserved! Thus,
> it is obvious that if Kalifornia is covered in wildfires, that for the
> conservation theory to hold (Noether's theorem) that somewhere else
> there must be states covered in water to balance it all out.
>
> And that is exactly what we see to day! This is proof beyond question
> that the theory of Heavy Air is correct!

google "Heavy Air Theory" and you run right into Bert, very famous now.

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

#593882

On 8/19/2016 6:07 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/19/2016 4:00 PM, benj wrote:
>>  We've all seen the news about the weather. And we are all also familiar
>> with Bert's theory of "heavy air" that has been predicting bad weather
>> for years. And most of us are are aware of fundamental physics
>> principles like the 4 elements: Earth air Fire and water.
>>
>> Heavy air theory clearly states that all elements are conserved! Thus,
>> it is obvious that if Kalifornia is covered in wildfires, that for the
>> conservation theory to hold (Noether's theorem) that somewhere else
>> there must be states covered in water to balance it all out.
>>
>> And that is exactly what we see to day! This is proof beyond question
>> that the theory of Heavy Air is correct!
>
> google "Heavy Air Theory" and you run right into Bert, very famous now.

You are right. It is well-accepted now. I'm going to have to apologize 
to Bert for ever doubting him! I sure hope I don't have to apologize for 
saying there are no M&M filters!

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

#593890

Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 8/19/2016 4:00 PM, benj wrote:
>>  We've all seen the news about the weather. And we are all also familiar
>> with Bert's theory of "heavy air" that has been predicting bad weather
>> for years. And most of us are are aware of fundamental physics
>> principles like the 4 elements: Earth air Fire and water.
>>
>> Heavy air theory clearly states that all elements are conserved! Thus,
>> it is obvious that if Kalifornia is covered in wildfires, that for the
>> conservation theory to hold (Noether's theorem) that somewhere else
>> there must be states covered in water to balance it all out.
>>
>> And that is exactly what we see to day! This is proof beyond question
>> that the theory of Heavy Air is correct!
> 
> google "Heavy Air Theory" and you run right into Bert, very famous now.

I did and no mention of Bert on the first 2 pages of results.


-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#593894

On 8/19/2016 7:43 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 8/19/2016 4:00 PM, benj wrote:
>>>  We've all seen the news about the weather. And we are all also familiar
>>> with Bert's theory of "heavy air" that has been predicting bad weather
>>> for years. And most of us are are aware of fundamental physics
>>> principles like the 4 elements: Earth air Fire and water.
>>>
>>> Heavy air theory clearly states that all elements are conserved! Thus,
>>> it is obvious that if Kalifornia is covered in wildfires, that for the
>>> conservation theory to hold (Noether's theorem) that somewhere else
>>> there must be states covered in water to balance it all out.
>>>
>>> And that is exactly what we see to day! This is proof beyond question
>>> that the theory of Heavy Air is correct!
>>
>> google "Heavy Air Theory" and you run right into Bert, very famous now.
>
> I did and no mention of Bert on the first 2 pages of results.
>
>

I believe that google presents stuff you have searched on before up front.

JSH a troll in the math group about 5 years ago would always search on 
his name, works and stuff, and he indicated it was always on the first 
page or two which he interpeted that Google scored it as the most 
searched, or everyone was looking at his stuff.  He was fooling himself 
for years, then it sank in, and he evaporated.

But when you search for it for the first time it could not be found.

also significantlly unique phrases will stand out, "Heavy Air Theory" is 
one of those

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

#593988

On 8/19/2016 8:43 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 8/19/2016 4:00 PM, benj wrote:
>>>  We've all seen the news about the weather. And we are all also familiar
>>> with Bert's theory of "heavy air" that has been predicting bad weather
>>> for years. And most of us are are aware of fundamental physics
>>> principles like the 4 elements: Earth air Fire and water.
>>>
>>> Heavy air theory clearly states that all elements are conserved! Thus,
>>> it is obvious that if Kalifornia is covered in wildfires, that for the
>>> conservation theory to hold (Noether's theorem) that somewhere else
>>> there must be states covered in water to balance it all out.
>>>
>>> And that is exactly what we see to day! This is proof beyond question
>>> that the theory of Heavy Air is correct!
>>
>> google "Heavy Air Theory" and you run right into Bert, very famous now.
>
> I did and no mention of Bert on the first 2 pages of results.
>
>
Google search engine has turned to shit these days. Anyone besides me 
notice? Oh that's right I"m a kook for thinking that the world is not 
always the same.

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

#594000

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 8/19/2016 8:43 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/19/2016 4:00 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>  We've all seen the news about the weather. And we are all also familiar
>>>> with Bert's theory of "heavy air" that has been predicting bad weather
>>>> for years. And most of us are are aware of fundamental physics
>>>> principles like the 4 elements: Earth air Fire and water.
>>>>
>>>> Heavy air theory clearly states that all elements are conserved! Thus,
>>>> it is obvious that if Kalifornia is covered in wildfires, that for the
>>>> conservation theory to hold (Noether's theorem) that somewhere else
>>>> there must be states covered in water to balance it all out.
>>>>
>>>> And that is exactly what we see to day! This is proof beyond question
>>>> that the theory of Heavy Air is correct!
>>>
>>> google "Heavy Air Theory" and you run right into Bert, very famous now.
>>
>> I did and no mention of Bert on the first 2 pages of results.
>>
>>
> Google search engine has turned to shit these days. Anyone besides me 
> notice? Oh that's right I"m a kook for thinking that the world is not 
> always the same.

Nope, you are a kook because you use silly, made up words you think are
clever and believe in all sorts of idiotic conspiracies.

-- 
Jim Pennino

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

#594228

On 8/20/2016 9:16 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> On 8/19/2016 8:43 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> On 8/19/2016 4:00 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>  We've all seen the news about the weather. And we are all also familiar
>>>>> with Bert's theory of "heavy air" that has been predicting bad weather
>>>>> for years. And most of us are are aware of fundamental physics
>>>>> principles like the 4 elements: Earth air Fire and water.
>>>>>
>>>>> Heavy air theory clearly states that all elements are conserved! Thus,
>>>>> it is obvious that if Kalifornia is covered in wildfires, that for the
>>>>> conservation theory to hold (Noether's theorem) that somewhere else
>>>>> there must be states covered in water to balance it all out.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that is exactly what we see to day! This is proof beyond question
>>>>> that the theory of Heavy Air is correct!
>>>>
>>>> google "Heavy Air Theory" and you run right into Bert, very famous now.
>>>
>>> I did and no mention of Bert on the first 2 pages of results.
>>>
>>>
>> Google search engine has turned to shit these days. Anyone besides me
>> notice? Oh that's right I"m a kook for thinking that the world is not
>> always the same.
>
> Nope, you are a kook because you use silly, made up words you think are
> clever and believe in all sorts of idiotic conspiracies.
>
Blah, blah, blah. You just run your mouth with nothing to back it up. 
You wouldn't know if a search engine was good or not if it bit you on 
your ignorant ass. You just want to troll the net calling people names 
to make yourself feel like you are valuable. You aren't.

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

#594250

benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> On 8/20/2016 9:16 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 8/19/2016 8:43 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/19/2016 4:00 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>  We've all seen the news about the weather. And we are all also familiar
>>>>>> with Bert's theory of "heavy air" that has been predicting bad weather
>>>>>> for years. And most of us are are aware of fundamental physics
>>>>>> principles like the 4 elements: Earth air Fire and water.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Heavy air theory clearly states that all elements are conserved! Thus,
>>>>>> it is obvious that if Kalifornia is covered in wildfires, that for the
>>>>>> conservation theory to hold (Noether's theorem) that somewhere else
>>>>>> there must be states covered in water to balance it all out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that is exactly what we see to day! This is proof beyond question
>>>>>> that the theory of Heavy Air is correct!
>>>>>
>>>>> google "Heavy Air Theory" and you run right into Bert, very famous now.
>>>>
>>>> I did and no mention of Bert on the first 2 pages of results.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Google search engine has turned to shit these days. Anyone besides me
>>> notice? Oh that's right I"m a kook for thinking that the world is not
>>> always the same.
>>
>> Nope, you are a kook because you use silly, made up words you think are
>> clever and believe in all sorts of idiotic conspiracies.
>>
> Blah, blah, blah. You just run your mouth with nothing to back it up. 

OK, an example of your silly, made up words: gummint.

OK, an example of idiotic conspiracies: that HAARP was anything other
than propagation research.

<snip kook froth and insults>


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web