Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.space.policy > #56099 > unrolled thread
| Started by | dumpster4@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-13 13:37 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-05-26 23:21 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 82 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.space.policy
Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) dumpster4@hotmail.com - 2016-04-13 13:37 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-04-13 23:24 +0000
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 18:45 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hpe.com> - 2016-04-15 00:27 +0000
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-14 22:58 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 23:34 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-05-22 16:48 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-05-22 21:37 +0000
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 00:46 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-05-22 17:08 -0500
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 00:42 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2016-05-23 13:49 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 23:04 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-05-24 11:00 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-05-24 18:03 +0000
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-05-27 00:00 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 11:48 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Duster Zee <anyak.net> - 2016-06-07 20:33 +0100
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-05-26 23:21 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 22:18 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-06-07 14:09 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 22:18 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-04-14 22:51 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2016-04-14 23:01 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 02:46 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 07:21 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-04-17 09:40 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-17 17:41 +0000
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 18:43 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-05-25 10:22 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-05-25 18:45 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 05:22 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 09:07 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 22:26 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 09:13 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 18:29 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 18:54 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 07:00 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 08:25 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 09:43 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 17:25 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 19:16 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 22:13 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 09:44 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 17:30 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 18:07 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 21:32 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 23:43 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 05:24 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-05-28 23:12 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 23:55 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 05:37 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 08:13 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 09:20 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 09:45 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 17:32 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 23:58 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 05:45 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-05-26 22:38 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2016-05-27 08:48 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 04:41 +0100
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 09:21 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 19:22 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> - 2016-05-29 09:19 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 13:22 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 14:06 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-06-07 09:51 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-07 11:44 -0500
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2016-06-07 13:57 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-06-07 16:07 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 19:25 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 05:10 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-05-26 22:54 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-27 22:23 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2016-05-26 23:09 -0400
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) millsscientific@gmail.com - 2016-04-15 06:35 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) millsscientific@gmail.com - 2016-04-15 06:52 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) millsscientific@gmail.com - 2016-04-15 07:18 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) eaglesondouglas@gmail.com - 2016-04-15 09:33 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) eaglesondouglas@gmail.com - 2016-04-19 13:59 -0700
Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-01 10:21 -0700
Re: Stephen Hawking's Interstellar Spaceship Proposal (And More!) William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2016-05-26 23:21 -0700
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 14:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nj72k7$hjd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56538 |
DARPA is funding methods of getting separate components to self-assemble and form larger satellites and also self-assemble to form robotic rovers: How Tiny 'SuperBots' Will Create Cheap, Modular Satellites. BY SOPHIA STUART JANUARY 14, 2015 1 COMMENT http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2475070,00.asp Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Robert Clark" wrote in message news:ni8e8g$avo$2@dont-email.me... You may be thinking of self-reproducing which is different from self-assembly. Self-assembly can be done at the macroscale. Considering the advances in nanoscale devices it should be doable at the nanoscale. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Sjouke Burry" wrote in message news:57422972$0$4393$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl... On 22.05.16 22:48, Robert Clark wrote: > > Suppose we made the probes at the virus or bacteria scale then used > self-assembly to form a macroscale spacecraft say size of Mars Pathfinder. > Then we might only need a ground laser of currently existing size, say a > few > hundred kilowatts, to send multiple nanoscale components to relativistic > speeds. > > Know of references for doing self-assembly with components at the > nanoscale? > > Bob Clark > > You think that you can put a computer/assembly line inside a nano particle? Please show us how. It should be able to go after raw material in space,which needs oodles of energy. What useful amount of energy can you store in a nano particle? Where does the particle get the ions to to travel millions of miles? I think a minimal self-reproducing craft would weight several tons, and be anything but small. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 22:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c2384890-7b26-48bd-a7b0-5425931f80de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56179 |
On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 12:31:44 PM UTC+12, Rick Jones wrote: > William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> wrote: > > This was all worked out by my friend Bob Forward back in the 1980s, > > in his Starwisp proposal. > > > http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=3816 > > That had only a passing reference to communications. > > > http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/4Landis.pdf > > My read of the link above was admittedly cursory, but it did not seem > to address the matter of communications, just propulsion. > > > This was updated by one of Bob's students, Young Bae just recently. > > > http://ykbcorp.com/downloads/Bae_photon_propulsion_STAIF2_Paper_Circulation.pdf > > Again, a cursory read, but it seems to discuss propulsion and not > communications. > > rick jones > -- > It is not a question of half full or empty - the glass has a leak. > The real question is "Can it be patched?" > these opinions are mine, all mine; HPE might not want them anyway... :) > feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hpe.com but NOT BOTH... Bob Forward was a friend of mine. He planned on equipping each element to be able to measure precisely their position relative to their nearer neighbours, and have them all operate in a swarm to create an extended phased array communications system as well as sensory system. Multiple cameras whose point spread function is known, and position relative to other cameras, can do a lot of interesting things. http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=33409 http://interstellar-flight.ru/design/base_e/starwisp.pdf http://breakthroughinitiatives.org/Research/3 Young Bae, a student of Forward, perfected the laser light sail by creating the photonic laser thruster, for which he will be forever known. One of the applications Bae has published when he was working for the AFRL was to provide precise positioning between small probes using PLT efficiently to measure and push probes relative to one another, to create an extended array for both sensing and communications. http://govcomm.harris.com/solutions/spacesystems/phasedarrayantennas.aspx www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA530515
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 22:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.317a21435f7599b89899c3@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #56107 |
In article <nemkel$sl7$1@news.hpeswlab.net>, rick.jones2@hpe.com says... > > dumpster4@hotmail.com wrote: > > See: > > > http://gizmodo.com/a-russian-billionaire-and-stephen-hawking-want-to-build-1770467186 > > Indeed, the hurdles range from how to create the laser array > capable of accelerating a small payload off Earth to how to > transmit data back to us over interstellar distances. These will > be huge accomplishments, with reverberations throughout many > fields of science and technology. > > I was wondering how they were going to get comms back from such a > small package. I guess the answer is they haven't exactly figured > that out yet. No kidding. It's hard enough getting a signal from probes like Pioneer 10 and Voyagers 1 and 2 which are "only" a few light hours away. Probes that are light *years* away would be much more difficult. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 23:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <T_mdnTKoHKXoxI3KnZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #56195 |
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message news:MPG.317a21435f7599b89899c3@news.eternal-september.org... > >In article <nemkel$sl7$1@news.hpeswlab.net>, rick.jones2@hpe.com says... >> >> dumpster4@hotmail.com wrote: >> > See: >> >> > http://gizmodo.com/a-russian-billionaire-and-stephen-hawking-want-to-build-1770467186 >> >> Indeed, the hurdles range from how to create the laser array >> capable of accelerating a small payload off Earth to how to >> transmit data back to us over interstellar distances. These will >> be huge accomplishments, with reverberations throughout many >> fields of science and technology. >> >> I was wondering how they were going to get comms back from such a >> small package. I guess the answer is they haven't exactly figured >> that out yet. > >No kidding. It's hard enough getting a signal from probes like Pioneer >10 and Voyagers 1 and 2 which are "only" a few light hours away. Probes >that are light *years* away would be much more difficult. One possibility is if you're sending multiple probes (and honestly, once you've built the laser, the probes are cheap) you just do it as a relay. Probe 1 transmits to Probe 2 that retransmits back to Probe 3, etc. But yeah, my first thought was that getting there is only part of the issue. Getting the data back is a much bigger issue. > >Jeff -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 02:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9e601ea-7a7e-4cef-b31e-feb5702184df@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56195 |
On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 2:51:47 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote: > In article <nemkel$sl7$1@news.hpeswlab.net>, rick.jones2@hpe.com says... > > > > dumpster4@hotmail.com wrote: > > > See: > > > > > http://gizmodo.com/a-russian-billionaire-and-stephen-hawking-want-to-build-1770467186 > > > > Indeed, the hurdles range from how to create the laser array > > capable of accelerating a small payload off Earth to how to > > transmit data back to us over interstellar distances. These will > > be huge accomplishments, with reverberations throughout many > > fields of science and technology. > > > > I was wondering how they were going to get comms back from such a > > small package. I guess the answer is they haven't exactly figured > > that out yet. > > No kidding. It's hard enough getting a signal from probes like Pioneer > 10 and Voyagers 1 and 2 which are "only" a few light hours away. Probes > that are light *years* away would be much more difficult. > > Jeff > -- > All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. > These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, > employer, or any organization that I am a member of. In college I worked with Paul Horowitz and John Kraus and developed the first digital signal processor using the Cooley Tukey theorem of FFT decomposition. The USN and USAF were interested in this for a variety of reasons, but I was interested in SETI. The Arecibo radio telescope has the ability to communicate with its twin anywhere in the Milky Way. The Very Large Array in Socorro NM is capable of detecting leakage from radio usage anywhere in the Perseus Arm, and can communicate with a twin of itself anywhere in the Galactic Cluster we inhabit. (if we knew when and where to point the array). The VLA is not used for SETI however, a product of the Golden Fleece Award back in the 1980s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9WHs49nlHk http://frank.harvard.edu/~howard/papers/SETI_review_tarter_ARAA.pdf http://seti.harvard.edu/grad/dpdf/thesislt.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 07:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3u1hb14hq1gatdnjmuh77qgtiqbpa1j5e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56208 |
William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>In college I worked with Paul Horowitz and John Kraus and developed the first digital signal processor using the Cooley Tukey theorem of FFT decomposition. The USN and USAF were interested in this for a variety of reasons, but I was interested in SETI.
>
I'm going to call 'bullshit' on this one. The first DSPs were
developed at NEC, AT&T, and TI, not by Mook when he was but a lad at
school.
Name anyone or anything and Mook will come up with a story about how
he knew or worked with them and was instrumental in whatever.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 09:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf03hp$vol$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56107 |
I've been thinking of ways we can get such nanocraft to link up through
self-assembly and form larger structures that can do more detailed
observations and experiments. This could work even for visits to far off
destinations still in the Solar System such as Kuiper belt objects like
Pluto or the Oort cloud.
The main problem is getting the many objects flying independently and
getting further apart the further out they go to gradually be drawn to each
other and link up. Once they link up, I don't it would be to difficult to
then get them to do self-assembly.
But it's that drawing together step that is the sticking point.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Rick Jones" wrote in message news:nemkel$sl7$1@news.hpeswlab.net...
dumpster4@hotmail.com wrote:
> See:
> http://gizmodo.com/a-russian-billionaire-and-stephen-hawking-want-to-build-1770467186
Indeed, the hurdles range from how to create the laser array
capable of accelerating a small payload off Earth to how to
transmit data back to us over interstellar distances. These will
be huge accomplishments, with reverberations throughout many
fields of science and technology.
I was wondering how they were going to get comms back from such a
small package. I guess the answer is they haven't exactly figured
that out yet.
rick jones
--
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 17:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jeucuc-b2.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #56286 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > I've been thinking of ways we can get such nanocraft to link up through > self-assembly and form larger structures that can do more detailed > observations and experiments. This could work even for visits to far off > destinations still in the Solar System such as Kuiper belt objects like > Pluto or the Oort cloud. > > The main problem is getting the many objects flying independently and > getting further apart the further out they go to gradually be drawn to each > other and link up. Once they link up, I don't it would be to difficult to > then get them to do self-assembly. > > But it's that drawing together step that is the sticking point. > > Bob Clark Since you are already using Stargate technology, i.e. replicators, just use some more, i.e. tractor beams. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-24 18:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bfc3fa7f-2668-4d3d-8391-a189a6d88e20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56286 |
On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 1:40:20 AM UTC+12, Robert Clark wrote:
> I've been thinking of ways we can get such nanocraft to link up through
> self-assembly and form larger structures that can do more detailed
> observations and experiments. This could work even for visits to far off
> destinations still in the Solar System such as Kuiper belt objects like
> Pluto or the Oort cloud.
>
> The main problem is getting the many objects flying independently and
> getting further apart the further out they go to gradually be drawn to each
> other and link up. Once they link up, I don't it would be to difficult to
> then get them to do self-assembly.
>
> But it's that drawing together step that is the sticking point.
>
> Bob Clark
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
> launchers, to 'flying cars'.
> This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
>
> Nanotech: from air to space.
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Rick Jones" wrote in message news:nemkel$sl7$1@news.hpeswlab.net...
>
> dumpster4@hotmail.com wrote:
> > See:
>
> > http://gizmodo.com/a-russian-billionaire-and-stephen-hawking-want-to-build-1770467186
>
> Indeed, the hurdles range from how to create the laser array
> capable of accelerating a small payload off Earth to how to
> transmit data back to us over interstellar distances. These will
> be huge accomplishments, with reverberations throughout many
> fields of science and technology.
>
> I was wondering how they were going to get comms back from such a
> small package. I guess the answer is they haven't exactly figured
> that out yet.
>
> rick jones
> --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1t4M2XnIhI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4q0_0dKiKg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_6p-1J551Y
http://video.mit.edu/watch/small-cubes-that-self-assemble-25913/
http://www.ganino.com/games/Science/science%20magazine%202001-2002/root/data/Science%202001-2002/pdf/2002_v295_n5564/3076162.pdf
http://video.mit.edu/watch/small-cubes-that-self-assemble-25913/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F_SRwrCF6Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tVR4IzE30s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRdcZSuCpNo
A self replicating machine cell that extracts silicon from Earth's surface, and makes positronium (Ps) molecules from sunlight, and stores it within itself efficiently and efficiently retrieves it. The system self replicates every 23.7 seconds. It covers 1.57 sq km of surface in two hours. Two hours after that it sends a square millimeter of machine cells to the sun, accelerating at 1000 gees. This requires 0.2865 propellant fraction of Ps to achieve 38,289 km/sec top speed, and slow to zero speed on the solar surface, using photonic thrust, reaching the surface 2.16915 hours after launch. It takes 47 minutes after arrival, to encase the Sun, and capture 4 million tons per second of Ps, and 10,000 tons per second of any material desired, whilst maintaining normal solar image to any body visible or detectable from the solar surface. Virtually unlimited computing power is available. We are a Kardashev class II civilization.
There are two ways to fly to the stars.
(1) As a body;
(a) enter stasis,
(b) inhabit a portable biosphere,
(c) encase that biosphere in tungsten, plastic, iron, sheild meters thick,
(d) encase that shield in a photonic crystal dozens of meters thick,
(e) risk the loss of vehicle during transit.
(f) limited to 310 million persons per year using solar output
(g) 30 years to depopulate Earth.
(2) As a virtual pattern;
(a) machine cells enter your body,
(b) machine cells record quantum state as body is dissolved,
(c) multiple copies of your quantum state dispatched to stars at 1000 gee
(d) arrival and replication assured at chosen destinations
(e) backup copies stored until experiences retrieved
(f) multiple copies sent to multiple destinations simultaneously.
(g) quantum state retrieved from multiple destinations,
(h) back up personality updated with experiences
(i) home personality integrates experiences, plans others
(j) repeat exploration cycle at (b)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTMS9y8OVuY
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 10:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ni4c8f$r1f$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56527 |
Thanks for the links on self-assembly. But in regards to propulsion using
positronium, i.e., antimatter, how do you store it in a small craft? It
would have to be held within a vacuum since any contact with matter would
cause it to turn into pure energy. Moreover it would have to be held in
stasis within that vacuum, less any contact with the walls would also cause
it to turn into pure energy.
Bob Clark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"William Mook" wrote in message
news:bfc3fa7f-2668-4d3d-8391-a189a6d88e20@googlegroups.com...
On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 1:40:20 AM UTC+12, Robert Clark wrote:
> I've been thinking of ways we can get such nanocraft to link up through
> self-assembly and form larger structures that can do more detailed
> observations and experiments. This could work even for visits to far off
> destinations still in the Solar System such as Kuiper belt objects like
> Pluto or the Oort cloud.
>
> The main problem is getting the many objects flying independently and
> getting further apart the further out they go to gradually be drawn to
> each
> other and link up. Once they link up, I don't it would be to difficult to
> then get them to do self-assembly.
>
> But it's that drawing together step that is the sticking point.
>
> Bob Clark
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
> launchers, to 'flying cars'.
> This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:
>
> Nanotech: from air to space.
> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Rick Jones" wrote in message news:nemkel$sl7$1@news.hpeswlab.net...
>
> dumpster4@hotmail.com wrote:
> > See:
>
> > http://gizmodo.com/a-russian-billionaire-and-stephen-hawking-want-to-build-1770467186
>
> Indeed, the hurdles range from how to create the laser array
> capable of accelerating a small payload off Earth to how to
> transmit data back to us over interstellar distances. These will
> be huge accomplishments, with reverberations throughout many
> fields of science and technology.
>
> I was wondering how they were going to get comms back from such a
> small package. I guess the answer is they haven't exactly figured
> that out yet.
>
> rick jones
> --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1t4M2XnIhI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4q0_0dKiKg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_6p-1J551Y
http://video.mit.edu/watch/small-cubes-that-self-assemble-25913/
http://www.ganino.com/games/Science/science%20magazine%202001-2002/root/data/Science%202001-2002/pdf/2002_v295_n5564/3076162.pdf
http://video.mit.edu/watch/small-cubes-that-self-assemble-25913/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F_SRwrCF6Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tVR4IzE30s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRdcZSuCpNo
A self replicating machine cell that extracts silicon from Earth's surface,
and makes positronium (Ps) molecules from sunlight, and stores it within
itself efficiently and efficiently retrieves it. The system self replicates
every 23.7 seconds. It covers 1.57 sq km of surface in two hours. Two
hours after that it sends a square millimeter of machine cells to the sun,
accelerating at 1000 gees. This requires 0.2865 propellant fraction of Ps
to achieve 38,289 km/sec top speed, and slow to zero speed on the solar
surface, using photonic thrust, reaching the surface 2.16915 hours after
launch. It takes 47 minutes after arrival, to encase the Sun, and capture
4 million tons per second of Ps, and 10,000 tons per second of any material
desired, whilst maintaining normal solar image to any body visible or
detectable from the solar surface. Virtually unlimited computing power is
available. We are a Kardashev class II civilization.
There are two ways to fly to the stars.
(1) As a body;
(a) enter stasis,
(b) inhabit a portable biosphere,
(c) encase that biosphere in tungsten, plastic, iron, sheild meters
thick,
(d) encase that shield in a photonic crystal dozens of meters thick,
(e) risk the loss of vehicle during transit.
(f) limited to 310 million persons per year using solar output
(g) 30 years to depopulate Earth.
(2) As a virtual pattern;
(a) machine cells enter your body,
(b) machine cells record quantum state as body is dissolved,
(c) multiple copies of your quantum state dispatched to stars at
1000 gee
(d) arrival and replication assured at chosen destinations
(e) backup copies stored until experiences retrieved
(f) multiple copies sent to multiple destinations simultaneously.
(g) quantum state retrieved from multiple destinations,
(h) back up personality updated with experiences
(i) home personality integrates experiences, plans others
(j) repeat exploration cycle at (b)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTMS9y8OVuY
---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-25 18:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.31aff5037b80ad40989758@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #56529 |
In article <ni4c8f$r1f$2@dont-email.me>, rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says... > > Thanks for the links on self-assembly. But in regards to propulsion using > positronium, i.e., antimatter, how do you store it in a small craft? It > would have to be held within a vacuum since any contact with matter would > cause it to turn into pure energy. Moreover it would have to be held in > stasis within that vacuum, less any contact with the walls would also cause > it to turn into pure energy. WTF Bob? Seriously? We can't even sustain fusion for power generation on earth (using seriously heavy magnetic containment) and you think we have the tech for antimatter containment and propulsion? You've been hanging around Mook for too long. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 05:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <29082e74-12cd-4441-8062-332979ad4581@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56530 |
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 10:45:15 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote: > In article <ni4c8f$r1f$2@dont-email.me>, > rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says... > > > > Thanks for the links on self-assembly. But in regards to propulsion using > > positronium, i.e., antimatter, how do you store it in a small craft? It > > would have to be held within a vacuum since any contact with matter would > > cause it to turn into pure energy. Moreover it would have to be held in > > stasis within that vacuum, less any contact with the walls would also cause > > it to turn into pure energy. > > WTF Bob? Seriously? We can't even sustain fusion for power generation > on earth We've built hydrogen bombs and we have fourth generation bombs at the present moment. We don't make this avalable for commercial use due to the knowledge being embargoed by the military and intelligence communities. > (using seriously heavy magnetic containment) Because its known to be a dead end the way its being approached. > and you think we > have the tech for antimatter containment and propulsion? Only because he read the references. > You've been > hanging around Mook for too long. You've been avoiding real thought for too long. Non proliferation concerns cause nuclear cross sections for critical reactions not to be published or available in our best schools and libraries. Simple physical relations suppressed. Portions of what is known about nuclear reactions is kept a dark secret. People whom we don't trust who know things are murdered. Jetter cycle fusion was discovered in 1950 by Ulrich Jetter, reduced to practice by 1954 in Project Sherwood, and those who promoted its commercialisation to produce energy too cheap to meter were either discredited silence or killed in the name of national security. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRX9iTweRNE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y98YwJ2GEE > > Jeff > -- > All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. > These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, > employer, or any organization that I am a member of. > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 09:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8g7ekb5v5d0kclcutreo5drpu8kr0p5g52@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56533 |
William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 10:45:15 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
>> In article <ni4c8f$r1f$2@dont-email.me>,
>> rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says...
>> >
>> > Thanks for the links on self-assembly. But in regards to propulsion using
>> > positronium, i.e., antimatter, how do you store it in a small craft? It
>> > would have to be held within a vacuum since any contact with matter would
>> > cause it to turn into pure energy. Moreover it would have to be held in
>> > stasis within that vacuum, less any contact with the walls would also cause
>> > it to turn into pure energy.
>>
>> WTF Bob? Seriously? We can't even sustain fusion for power generation
>> on earth
>
>We've built hydrogen bombs and we have fourth generation bombs at the present moment. We don't make this avalable for commercial use due to the knowledge being embargoed by the military and intelligence communities.
>
We don't make this available because they're BOMBS, you nutter.
>
>> You've been
>> hanging around Mook for too long.
>
>You've been avoiding real thought for too long.
>
And you're spinning off into MookLunacy again. Do you need another
break?
>
>Non proliferation concerns cause nuclear cross sections for critical reactions not to be published or available in our best schools and libraries. Simple physical relations suppressed. Portions of what is known about nuclear reactions is kept a dark secret. People whom we don't trust who know things are murdered.
>
>Jetter cycle fusion was discovered in 1950 by Ulrich Jetter, reduced to practice by 1954 in Project Sherwood, and those who promoted its commercialisation to produce energy too cheap to meter were either discredited silence or killed in the name of national security.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRX9iTweRNE
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y98YwJ2GEE
>
Nutty conspiracy theories on YouTube aren't evidence of anything but
the existence of nutters.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-26 22:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a89e1940-827f-4745-82e0-c725ae3b6660@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56534 |
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 4:07:26 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote: > William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 10:45:15 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote: > >> In article <ni4c8f$r1f$2@dont-email.me>, > >> rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says... > >> > > >> > Thanks for the links on self-assembly. But in regards to propulsion using > >> > positronium, i.e., antimatter, how do you store it in a small craft? It > >> > would have to be held within a vacuum since any contact with matter would > >> > cause it to turn into pure energy. Moreover it would have to be held in > >> > stasis within that vacuum, less any contact with the walls would also cause > >> > it to turn into pure energy. > >> > >> WTF Bob? Seriously? We can't even sustain fusion for power generation > >> on earth > > > >We've built hydrogen bombs and we have fourth generation bombs at the present moment. We don't make this avalable for commercial use due to the knowledge being embargoed by the military and intelligence communities. > > > > We don't make this available because they're BOMBS, That's obvious. You're mising the point stupid. Because bombs might be made, relevant data is suppressed. > you nutter. Fuck you you ignorant piece of shit. The comment was about why we don't have fusion operating today. We don't have fusion operating today because the very process of how that works is secret. If you want fusion, declassify the secret stuff. Its that simple. Bombs are a question of motivation. > > > > >> You've been > >> hanging around Mook for too long. > > > >You've been avoiding real thought for too long. > > > > And you're spinning off into MookLunacy again. Fuck you you stupid piece of shit. > Do you need another > break? Fuck you! You can go to hell you motherfucker. If you don't want me writing here, just ask me not to post again, and I'll happily avoid you and your goddamned idiot bullshit. > > > >Non proliferation concerns cause nuclear cross sections for critical reactions not to be published or available in our best schools and libraries. Simple physical relations suppressed. Portions of what is known about nuclear reactions is kept a dark secret. People whom we don't trust who know things are murdered. > > > >Jetter cycle fusion was discovered in 1950 by Ulrich Jetter, reduced to practice by 1954 in Project Sherwood, and those who promoted its commercialisation to produce energy too cheap to meter were either discredited silence or killed in the name of national security. > > > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRX9iTweRNE > > > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y98YwJ2GEE > > > > Nutty conspiracy theories Fuck you. > on YouTube aren't evidence of anything but > the existence of nutters. Any stinking shit out of your fucking mouth, or your deranged mind, is evidence of nothing as well, you cock sucking sonofabitch. > > -- > "Ordinarily he is insane. Fuck you. > But he has lucid moments when he is > only stupid." > -- Heinrich Heine Heine was a cocksucking queer in an age where queers were reviled by the majority of humanity. He couldn't come out of the closet, and wasn't brave enough or smart enough to make a damn difference to the people of his age, so he was a sour mean spirited unfilfilled sonofabtich who knew nothing about life except to bitch about it. He's a perfect soulmate for you you goddamned excuse for a human being.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 09:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <l4sgkbdlhh3v0p1k8o19fjflk9hndqbrp6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56542 |
William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 4:07:26 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 10:45:15 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
>> >> In article <ni4c8f$r1f$2@dont-email.me>,
>> >> rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com says...
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for the links on self-assembly. But in regards to propulsion using
>> >> > positronium, i.e., antimatter, how do you store it in a small craft? It
>> >> > would have to be held within a vacuum since any contact with matter would
>> >> > cause it to turn into pure energy. Moreover it would have to be held in
>> >> > stasis within that vacuum, less any contact with the walls would also cause
>> >> > it to turn into pure energy.
>> >>
>> >> WTF Bob? Seriously? We can't even sustain fusion for power generation
>> >> on earth
>> >
>> >We've built hydrogen bombs and we have fourth generation bombs at the present moment. We don't make this avalable for commercial use due to the knowledge being embargoed by the military and intelligence communities.
>> >
>>
>> We don't make this available because they're BOMBS,
>
>That's obvious. You're mising the point stupid. Because bombs might be made, relevant data is suppressed.
>
Yes, it IS obvious. To everyone but you, apparently.
>
>> you nutter.
>
>Fuck you you ignorant piece of shit.
>
Looks like it's time for you to take another break and recover your
sanity, Mookie.
>
>The comment was about why we don't have fusion operating today. We don't have fusion operating today because the very process of how that works is secret. If you want fusion, declassify the secret stuff. Its that simple. Bombs are a question of motivation.
>
Sure. And we never landed on the Moon and airliners are spraying mind
control chemicals. You're a nutter, Mookie. Own it and move on.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> You've been
>> >> hanging around Mook for too long.
>> >
>> >You've been avoiding real thought for too long.
>> >
>>
>> And you're spinning off into MookLunacy again.
>>
>
>Fuck you you stupid piece of shit.
>
Looks like it's time for you to take another break and recover your
sanity, Mookie.
>
>>
>> Do you need another
>> break?
>>
>
>Fuck you! You can go to hell you motherfucker. If you don't want me writing here, just ask me not to post again, and I'll happily avoid you and your goddamned idiot bullshit.
>
Looks like it's time for you to take another break and recover your
sanity, Mookie. Post where you like, but when you behave like a
nutter you should expect to be called one.
>> >
>> >Non proliferation concerns cause nuclear cross sections for critical reactions not to be published or available in our best schools and libraries. Simple physical relations suppressed. Portions of what is known about nuclear reactions is kept a dark secret. People whom we don't trust who know things are murdered.
>> >
>> >Jetter cycle fusion was discovered in 1950 by Ulrich Jetter, reduced to practice by 1954 in Project Sherwood, and those who promoted its commercialisation to produce energy too cheap to meter were either discredited silence or killed in the name of national security.
>> >
>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRX9iTweRNE
>> >
>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y98YwJ2GEE
>> >
>>
>> Nutty conspiracy theories
>>
>
>Fuck you.
Looks like it's time for you to take another break and recover your
sanity, Mookie.
>
>> on YouTube aren't evidence of anything but
>> the existence of nutters.
>
>Any stinking shit out of your fucking mouth, or your deranged mind, is evidence of nothing as well, you cock sucking sonofabitch.
Looks like it's time for you to take another break and recover your
sanity, Mookie.
>>
>> --
>> "Ordinarily he is insane.
>
>Fuck you.
>
Looks like it's time for you to take another break and recover your
sanity, Mookie.
>> But he has lucid moments when he is
>> only stupid."
>> -- Heinrich Heine
>
>Heine was a cocksucking queer in an age where queers were reviled by the majority of humanity. He couldn't come out of the closet, and wasn't brave enough or smart enough to make a damn difference to the people of his age, so he was a sour mean spirited unfilfilled sonofabtich who knew nothing about life except to bitch about it. He's a perfect soulmate for you you goddamned excuse for a human being.
>
Looks like it's time for you to take another break and recover your
sanity, Mookie.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 18:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <21111639-3907-45da-9088-aff8b22a211b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56549 |
I deleted this about 5 minutes after I posted it. That says a lot about your focus of attention you miserable bitch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-27 18:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <i5uhkblfj1i4v6ukllm8fghdqfvr8k2ld9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56558 |
William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I deleted this about 5 minutes after I posted it. That says a lot about your focus of attention you miserable bitch.
>
Most Usenet servers don't honor delete requests and haven't since
there was a spate of delete forgeries over a decade ago that were
being used as a 'weapon' to remove off topic nutter posts from various
newsgroups. They're discarded when received with no indication that
they even occurred.
The fact that you posted your vile tripe at all indicates your mental
issues with stability and impulse control. The fact that you think
there's any reason why anyone would know you'd deleted it is an
indicator of your intellectual limitations, you ignorant cunt.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 07:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b4c5876-b53e-4b47-9bd2-d6565e8f1c51@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56559 |
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:55:01 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote: > William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >I deleted this about 5 minutes after I posted it. That says a lot about your focus of attention you miserable bitch. > > > > Most Usenet servers don't honor delete requests and haven't since > there was a spate of delete forgeries over a decade ago that were > being used as a 'weapon' to remove off topic nutter posts from various > newsgroups. They're discarded when received with no indication that > they even occurred. > > The fact that you posted your vile tripe at all indicates your mental > issues with stability and impulse control. The fact that you think > there's any reason why anyone would know you'd deleted it is an > indicator of your intellectual limitations, you ignorant cunt. > > > -- > "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the > truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." > -- Thomas Jefferson I deleted it - you wanted to keep it on the record. You had to act within minutes or you couldn't have done that. That tells us a lot about your focus of attention your intent and the intensity with which you pursue it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 08:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gfcjkbdqdv9mmlfip22nfana2fckk8jmqv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #56564 |
William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:55:01 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I deleted this about 5 minutes after I posted it. That says a lot about your focus of attention you miserable bitch.
>> >
>>
>> Most Usenet servers don't honor delete requests and haven't since
>> there was a spate of delete forgeries over a decade ago that were
>> being used as a 'weapon' to remove off topic nutter posts from various
>> newsgroups. They're discarded when received with no indication that
>> they even occurred.
>>
>> The fact that you posted your vile tripe at all indicates your mental
>> issues with stability and impulse control. The fact that you think
>> there's any reason why anyone would know you'd deleted it is an
>> indicator of your intellectual limitations, you ignorant cunt.
>>
>
>I deleted it - you wanted to keep it on the record. You had to act within minutes or you couldn't have done that. That tells us a lot about your focus of attention your intent and the intensity with which you pursue it.
>
You're insane AND stupidly ignorant. We've had this conversation
before and I've tried to explain to you how Usenet NEWS works, but you
obviously don't get it. Let me see if I can explain how Usenet NEWS
works to you with a hypothetical timeline, so that even a simpleton
like you gets it.
T+0 - Mookie composes and send his vile spew in a demonstration of his
mental instability and control issues and posts to Goggle Gropes.
T+1 - Goggle Gropes propagates the message to other Usenet servers,
since sci.space.policy is a Usenet NEWS group. Message is propagated
by those servers to other servers, etc. Your vile spew is 'on the
record' and no one needed to do anything to make that happen.
T+5 - Mookie has second thoughts and deletes his vile spew from Goggle
Gropes. Goggle Gropes deletes it from their local server. It may or
may not issue a 'Cancel' control message to the Usenet servers it
propagated the message to (I haven't bothered to check). If they do,
those servers may or may not honor the 'Cancel' message (most won't)
and may or may not propagate the 'Cancel' control message to other
servers (most probably will, if the Goggle Gropes server actually sent
one out). Cancel is propagated but probably not honored.
T+5+N for any N smaller than the server's retention that Fred uses -
Fred connects to the server he uses via NNTP. Mookie's vile spew is
there because Mookie's 'Cancel' request was ignored by the server. No
indication that Mookie deleted it on the local Goggle Gropes server
exists Fred responds to Mookie's vile spew.
Some Time Later - Mookie flips out and displays his absolute ignorance
about how Usenet NEWS works.
Do you get it now, you havering loon? I didn't have to "act within
minutes" because your vile spew was already recorded for posterity on
almost every Usenet server on the planet. The fact that you believe
what you say is a firm indication of both your ignorance and your
paranoia.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 09:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7eb5434-c1f4-4889-a67c-12bc39380cef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56567 |
On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 3:25:25 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote: > William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 1:55:01 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote: > >> William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> >I deleted this about 5 minutes after I posted it. That says a lot about your focus of attention you miserable bitch. > >> > > >> > >> Most Usenet servers don't honor delete requests and haven't since > >> there was a spate of delete forgeries over a decade ago that were > >> being used as a 'weapon' to remove off topic nutter posts from various > >> newsgroups. They're discarded when received with no indication that > >> they even occurred. > >> > >> The fact that you posted your vile tripe at all indicates your mental > >> issues with stability and impulse control. The fact that you think > >> there's any reason why anyone would know you'd deleted it is an > >> indicator of your intellectual limitations, you ignorant cunt. > >> > > > >I deleted it - you wanted to keep it on the record. You had to act within minutes or you couldn't have done that. That tells us a lot about your focus of attention your intent and the intensity with which you pursue it. > > > > You're insane AND stupidly ignorant. You're projecting your faults on to others. > We've had this conversation > before Because you're still a sick fuck. > and I've tried to explain to you how Usenet NEWS works, Now you're blaming usenet. I deleted my comment. You wish to preserve it and expand upon it. > but you > obviously don't get it. You don't. You have nothing positive to say about anything at any time. You're a miserable piece of shit in my estimation. > Let me see if I can explain how Usenet NEWS > works to you You think this is about usenet - its about your focus of attention you miserable bastard. > with a hypothetical timeline, so that even a simpleton > like you gets it. Fuck you you miserable excuse for a human being. Do you talk to people in public like this? You've obviously never had the shit beat out of you. I bet you're all sweetness and light in person - too scared to talk like that to a person who might kick your ass. > T+0 - Mookie composes and send his vile spew In response to being called a Nutter for no fucking reason. > in a demonstration of his > mental instability Calling out a miserable piece of shit for the asshole they are is not mental instability. Your pedantic focus on usenet in a vain effort to feel better about yourself by shitting on others - is evidence of mental illness. > and control issues and posts to Goggle Gropes. > T+1 - Goggle Gropes propagates the message to other Usenet servers, > since sci.space.policy is a Usenet NEWS group. Message is propagated > by those servers to other servers, etc. Your vile spew is 'on the > record' and no one needed to do anything to make that happen. > > T+5 - Mookie has second thoughts and deletes his vile spew from Goggle > Gropes. Goggle Gropes deletes it from their local server. It may or > may not issue a 'Cancel' control message to the Usenet servers it > propagated the message to (I haven't bothered to check). RIght, you don't bother to check things that don't support your insane position. Which points to your insanity. Fact is, the only way the post I delted would remain up is if someone was spending a helluva lot of time looking intently for the post and responded to it quickly. I mean the response had to happen within MINUTES of it being posted. Immediately after appearing to that user. That's fast. That's my point. Anyone who claims to block my posts couldn't have responded that quickly to preserve what I said. Obviously they're lying if they say they block me. They're lying if they say they're anything other than a miserable sonofabtich who loves pissing people off and crowing about it.. > If they do, > those servers may or may not honor the 'Cancel' message (most won't) > and may or may not propagate the 'Cancel' control message to other > servers (most probably will, if the Goggle Gropes server actually sent > one out). Cancel is propagated but probably not honored. > > T+5+N for any N smaller than the server's retention that Fred uses - > Fred connects to the server he uses via NNTP. Mookie's vile spew is > there because Mookie's 'Cancel' request was ignored by the server. No > indication that Mookie deleted it on the local Goggle Gropes server > exists Fred responds to Mookie's vile spew. > > Some Time Later - Mookie flips out and displays his absolute ignorance > about how Usenet NEWS works. > > Do you get it now, you havering loon? Fuck you you miserable excuse for a human being. You love constructing imaginary events that make you feel better about yourself at other's expense. Fact is, anyone who blocks my posts wouldn't have seen it much less respond to. Any sane person wouldn't have responded INSTANTLY to it! lol. You don't get that point because reality just doesn't mean that much to you you fucking idiot. > I didn't have to "act within > minutes" because your vile spew was already recorded for posterity on > almost every Usenet server on the planet. You resopnded in minutes to what I said you poor excuse for a human being. You don't block my posts. So your ranting about that is a lie. You responded within minutes the post appearing. The part you don't get and admit you don't get is if you were blocking my posts the post I deleted would be gone from the internet in a day as all Usenet servers on the planet erased it. Fact is you HAD to act within minutes to preserve it. > The fact that you believe > what you say is a firm indication of both your ignorance and your > paranoia. You're the paranoid one telling people you block my posts and scanning incessantly for anything I post you can gripe about you miserable blowhard. Fact is, every usenet server on the planet operates the same way - the way you didn't want to repeat because it didn't fit your bullshit story. Had you been blocking my posts, had you not responded to what I wrote - it would have been gone within a day. The only way to preserve what I wrote is for you to reply to it and keep it in your response. That's why you HAD to respond as quickly as you did - you miserable fool. > > -- > "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is > only stupid." > -- Heinrich Heine Heine is even more miserable than you - I suppose that's why there is such an affinity between you two. lol.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web