Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/11/2010 4:17 AM, K1TTT wrote:

...
you obviously don't know the difference between speed and velocity and
how you can accelerate something without changing its speed. in any
case, if there were any kind of aether dragging or acceleration it
would cause shock or bow waves of compression in the aether at some
point that could be detected by variations in the speed of light in
different directions. this applies for earth dragging aether, or mr.
b's sun dragged aether.

It is so confusing, there are so many, let me see, you are the guy who
wants to purchase the bridge I have in brooklyn? Just send me the
check; We will go from there! :-)

Regards,
JS

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/11/2010 4:06 AM, K1TTT wrote:

...
no, sr is not necessary for propagation. and a dielectric is not
necessary for displacement current. nor is plasma necessary. you are
still very selective in your reading, a simple search shows that
stokes as well as all the other aether theories have been disproved
for nearly 100 years now.

You will go to any complexity, any obfuscation, any devious explanations
of enormous proportions ... it is easy to recognise befuddle confusion,
it looks just like all that BS.

When you get to the real explanation, it is simple, you will know its'
truth by the beauty of its' logic. The creator didn't construct all the
other parts of the universe thus, but when he got to the ether decided
to make it enormously complex ... you should be ashamed, your IQ is
showing ... what is the temperature of this room?

Regards,
JS

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/11/2010 7:21 AM, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Sep 10, 7:12 pm, John wrote:
... I doubt if an either bubble can exist in "nothing" ...

That's exactly what I was trying to say. The quantum soup that we call
"empty space" within our bounded universe is not empty. Space within
our universe can never be absolutely empty and always contains at
least dark energy which comprises ~70% of our universe. It is
sometimes called zero-point energy, surrounds us, and allows us to
exist. From Wikipedia: "Zero-point energy is sometimes used as a
synonym for the vacuum energy, an amount of energy associated with the
vacuum of empty space. When the term is used in this way, sometimes it
is referred to as the quantum vacuum zero point energy." Absolute-
nothing, i.e. less than zero-point energy, is the complete absence of
any type of matter and energy. Space cannot exist within absolute-
nothing which is what makes parallel universes possible. Instead of
asserting that space contains dark (zero-point) energy, it would be
more correct to to assert that space is the *result* of the pressure
of dark (zero-point) energy, i.e. the quantum vacuum that we call
"empty space" is *caused* by the existence of zero point energy left
over from the big bang - also responsible for the present expansion of
the universe.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Got cha'. Close enough, I agree, we do agree ... we wear the same hat.
It is actually platinum foil, those fools over there think it is
tinfoil! ROFLOL

However, only logic and reason dictates the above, which you correctly
posted. If you believe in magic, bullets shoot from our antenna(s)
across an empty void ... and sugar plums dance on the heads of pins.

Regards,
JS

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 11, 2:58*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/11/2010 4:17 AM, K1TTT wrote:

...
you obviously don't know the difference between speed and velocity and
how you can accelerate something without changing its speed. *in any
case, if there were any kind of aether dragging or acceleration it
would cause shock or bow waves of compression in the aether at some
point that could be detected by variations in the speed of light in
different directions. *this applies for earth dragging aether, or mr.
b's sun dragged aether.

It is so confusing, there are so many, let me see, you are the guy who
wants to purchase the bridge I have in brooklyn? *Just send me the
check; *We will go from there! *:-)

Regards,
JS

no, i am the one that uses real science to confuse mr.b and art by
pointing out reality. i already have enough bridges of my own to
maintain on my property.

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/11/2010 8:31 AM, K1TTT wrote:

...
no, i am the one that uses real science to confuse mr.b and art by
pointing out reality. i already have enough bridges of my own to
maintain on my property.

Yes, well gather all your self-important BS around you, along with those
you can impress with your cr*p ... and have at it ... I can safely
dismiss you as a malcontent and chit-stirrer.

Frankly, I will give you this, the benefit of the doubt: I am not sure
you are doing it intentionally, you could actually believe it.
None-the-less, it is still what it is ...

Regards,
JS

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 11, 3:36*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/11/2010 8:31 AM, K1TTT wrote:

...
no, i am the one that uses real science to confuse mr.b and art by
pointing out reality. *i already have enough bridges of my own to
maintain on my property.

Yes, well gather all your self-important BS around you, along with those
you can impress with your cr*p ... and have at it ... I can safely
dismiss you as a malcontent and chit-stirrer.

Frankly, I will give you this, the benefit of the doubt: *I am not sure
you are doing it intentionally, you could actually believe it.
None-the-less, it is still what it is ...

Regards,
JS

of course i am doing it intentionally, stirring up art and mr.b is
just pure amusement. their science is pure junk, mr.b has been going
backwards in time for a while now dragging up ancient history that has
been well debunked. art just makes up technobabble based on whatever
he thinks he sees jumping off his antenna that day.

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/11/2010 8:41 AM, K1TTT wrote:

...
of course i am doing it intentionally, stirring up art and mr.b is
just pure amusement. their science is pure junk, mr.b has been going
backwards in time for a while now dragging up ancient history that has
been well debunked. art just makes up technobabble based on whatever
he thinks he sees jumping off his antenna that day.

You build your premises on card board with rube goldberg logic and
mechanics ... Einstein had to renege and accept the gravitational ether,
without it his relativity falls apart ... you waste my time and are
given to grandiose delusions ... you can't even recognize the
impossibility of your own argument(s.) But, you want me to take it
seriously ... I find that, a lot, but around people I usually choose to
avoid. Some think homosexual marriage is logical ... I have seen it all.

Regards,
JS

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 11, 3:46*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/11/2010 8:41 AM, K1TTT wrote:

...
of course i am doing it intentionally, stirring up art and mr.b is
just pure amusement. *their science is pure junk, mr.b has been going
backwards in time for a while now dragging up ancient history that has
been well debunked. *art just makes up technobabble based on whatever
he thinks he sees jumping off his antenna that day.

You build your premises on card board with rube goldberg logic and
mechanics ... Einstein had to renege and accept the gravitational ether,
without it his relativity falls apart ... you waste my time and are
given to grandiose delusions ... you can't even recognize the
impossibility of your own argument(s.) *But, you want me to take it
seriously ... I find that, a lot, but around people I usually choose to
avoid. *Some think homosexual marriage is logical ... I have seen it all.

Regards,
JS

no, you must have me confused with someone else. i quote well
accepted engineering texts and journals. its art and mr.b that put
together rube goldberg theories to fit their latest whim.

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/11/2010 9:11 AM, K1TTT wrote:

...
no, you must have me confused with someone else. i quote well
accepted engineering texts and journals. its art and mr.b that put
together rube goldberg theories to fit their latest whim.

Yeah, you are like richard clark, you base beliefs and claim facts
depending on who states them, and proudly so, it is not the context of
the statement, it is who said it, the above is an excellent example, in
your own words. A million men can be wrong, just as easily as one ...
especially using the your method, above ... an echo chamber is not a
place to seek truth.

You probably think 9/11 wasn't an inside job too ...:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...102519299.html

There are your experts, engineers architects ...

Regards,
JS

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 11, 3:46*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/11/2010 8:41 AM, K1TTT wrote:

...
of course i am doing it intentionally, stirring up art and mr.b is
just pure amusement. *their science is pure junk, mr.b has been going
backwards in time for a while now dragging up ancient history that has
been well debunked. *art just makes up technobabble based on whatever
he thinks he sees jumping off his antenna that day.

You build your premises on card board with rube goldberg logic and
mechanics ... Einstein had to renege and accept the gravitational ether,
without it his relativity falls apart ... you waste my time and are
given to grandiose delusions ... you can't even recognize the
impossibility of your own argument(s.) *But, you want me to take it
seriously ... I find that, a lot, but around people I usually choose to
avoid. *Some think homosexual marriage is logical ... I have seen it all.

Regards,
JS

no, you must have me confused with someone else. i quote well
accepted engineering texts and journals. its art and mr.b that put
together rube goldberg theories to fit their latest whim.

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 11, 4:18*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/11/2010 9:11 AM, K1TTT wrote:

...
no, you must have me confused with someone else. *i quote well
accepted engineering texts and journals. *its art and mr.b that put
together rube goldberg theories to fit their latest whim.

Yeah, you are like richard clark, you base beliefs and claim facts
depending on who states them, and proudly so, it is not the context of
the statement, it is who said it, the above is an excellent example, in
your own words. *A million men can be wrong, just as easily as one ...
especially using the your method, above ... an echo chamber is not a
place to seek truth.

You probably think 9/11 wasn't an inside job too ...:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...ineers-for-911...

There are your experts, engineers architects ...

Regards,
JS

ah, a conspiracy lover... i always ask the question: If the
government were involved in any given conspiracy how long do you think
they could really keep it secret?

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/11/2010 9:27 AM, K1TTT wrote:

...
ah, a conspiracy lover... i always ask the question: If the
government were involved in any given conspiracy how long do you think
they could really keep it secret?

Yes, well, as I first stated as my premise, when beginning all of this
with you, I am dealing with an idiot ... that is all the time I have for
that ...

Regards,
JS

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 11, 4:31*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/11/2010 9:27 AM, K1TTT wrote:

...
ah, a conspiracy lover... i always ask the question: *If the
government were involved in any given conspiracy how long do you think
they could really keep it secret?

Yes, well, as I first stated as my premise, when beginning all of this
with you, I am dealing with an idiot ... that is all the time I have for
that ...

Regards,
JS

i'm just glad you admitted what you are and i didn't have to say it.

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 11, 9:28*am, K1TTT wrote:
has anyone linked zpe or 'quantum soup' or dark energy to
electromagnetic waves in a way that preserves the constancy of the
speed of light in all reference frames? *or related those phenomena to
epsilon or mu of free space?

The speed of light is measured in length/time, e.g. 186,000 miles/
second. Given that relativity affects both length and time in
different ways, wouldn't you say that the choice of the speed of light
as a universal constant was somewhat arbitrary? Why should a universal
constant involve 0.416667% of one rotation of the earth? What did the
universe use for a second-of-time reference during the 8? billion
years before the earth was formed and started dictating the length of
a second? IMO, the universal speed-of-light constant is just an
arbitrary reference point that had to be cast in stone before the math
would work.

If we stretched a physical cable between our galaxy and a receding
galaxy and found that the cable didn't break even though the galaxies
were receding, what could we conclude? I have concluded that the red
shift is not because the galaxies are receding faster and faster but
because the velocity of recession is actually slowing due to gravity.
What we perceive as recession contains relativity effects due to
decreasing velocity which causes space to expand and seconds to become
shorter. 186,000 miles gets longer and one second get shorter The
resulting length/time calculation is a double whammy red-shift error,
IMO. The universal speed-of-light constant only applies to a lone
observer capable of immense rationalization.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

Szczepan Bialek wrote:

The space is not a dielectric. Electric waves travel in metal transmissing
lines where no epsilon or mu.
S*

Babbling nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/11/2010 11:27 AM, K1TTT wrote:
On Sep 11, 4:18 pm, John wrote:
no, you must have me confused with someone else. i quote well
accepted engineering texts and journals. its art and mr.b that put
together rube goldberg theories to fit their latest whim.

Yeah, you are like richard clark, you base beliefs and claim facts
depending on who states them, and proudly so, it is not the context of
the statement, it is who said it, the above is an excellent example, in
your own words. A million men can be wrong, just as easily as one ...
especially using the your method, above ... an echo chamber is not a
place to seek truth.

You probably think 9/11 wasn't an inside job too ...:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...ineers-for-911...

There are your experts, engineers architects ...

Regards,
JS

ah, a conspiracy lover... i always ask the question: If the
government were involved in any given conspiracy how long do you think
they could really keep it secret?

I have always wondered which of the 2 groups debating here are more
successful. Like who gets paid for their stand on what's real.

Ok, I don't actually wonder.

tom
K0TAR

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/11/2010 1:27 PM, Szczepan Bialek wrote:
wrote
...

has anyone linked zpe or 'quantum soup' or dark energy to
electromagnetic waves in a way that preserves the constancy of the
speed of light in all reference frames?

You do not know that the reference frames are dragged:

""Frame Dragging
One of the strangest predictions of the general theory of relativity
concerning black holes is called frame dragging. For a rotating black hole,
the theory predicts that space and time itself can be dragged by the
rotating black hole. The adjacent figure shows an artist's conception of
this idea (J. Bergeron, Sky& Telescope: get permission; Ref). Some recent
data has been interpreted as supporting evidence for frame dragging around a
black hole (Ref). "
From: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...blackhole.html

If you do not like the Sun's ether drag you can use the Sun's reference
frame drag. Which one do you prefer.

or related those phenomena to epsilon or mu of free space?

The space is not a dielectric. Electric waves travel in metal transmissing
lines where no epsilon or mu.
S*



He sure can use Google.

To bad he doesn't read to learn.

tom
K0TAR

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/11/2010 7:21 PM, tom wrote:

...
I have always wondered which of the 2 groups debating here are more
successful. Like who gets paid for their stand on what's real.

Ok, I don't actually wonder.

tom
K0TAR

Yeah. I guess some stare at their belly buttons for hours, and wonder;
And, I guess some hold them in high respect as gurus ... I don't.
Good to hear you ain't wonderin'.

Regards,
JS

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 11, 9:34*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/11/2010 7:21 PM, tom wrote:

...
I have always wondered which of the 2 groups debating here are more
successful. Like who gets paid for their stand on what's real.

Ok, I don't actually wonder.

tom
K0TAR

Yeah. *I guess some stare at their belly buttons for hours, and wonder;
* And, I guess some hold them in high respect as gurus ... I don't.
Good to hear you ain't wonderin'.

Regards,
JS

John
Look at his last 100 posts and check to see if you find one of them
informative and then question why you even respond to him? I mean it.
He sends nothing but trash all the time. Anybody can say "babbling
nonsense" but not anybody can explain
babbling nonsense unless he himself is well practiced in the art!

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 11, 9:56*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 11, 9:34*pm, John Smith wrote:



On 9/11/2010 7:21 PM, tom wrote:

...
I have always wondered which of the 2 groups debating here are more
successful. Like who gets paid for their stand on what's real.

Ok, I don't actually wonder.

tom
K0TAR

Yeah. *I guess some stare at their belly buttons for hours, and wonder;
* And, I guess some hold them in high respect as gurus ... I don't.
Good to hear you ain't wonderin'.

Regards,
JS

John
Look at his last 100 posts and check to see if you find one of them
informative and then question why you even respond to him? I mean it.
He sends nothing but trash all the time. Anybody can say "babbling
nonsense" but not anybody can explain
babbling nonsense unless *he himself is well practiced in the art!

John
After you read his last 100 posts you can now look ahead and predict
what his next 100 posts are going to look like. Do you really need
such a discorse for the next month or so?

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/11/2010 9:21 PM, tom wrote:
On 9/11/2010 11:27 AM, K1TTT wrote:
On Sep 11, 4:18 pm, John wrote:
no, you must have me confused with someone else. i quote well
accepted engineering texts and journals. its art and mr.b that put
together rube goldberg theories to fit their latest whim.

Yeah, you are like richard clark, you base beliefs and claim facts
depending on who states them, and proudly so, it is not the context of
the statement, it is who said it, the above is an excellent example, in
your own words. A million men can be wrong, just as easily as one ...
especially using the your method, above ... an echo chamber is not a
place to seek truth.

You probably think 9/11 wasn't an inside job too
...:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...ineers-for-911...


There are your experts, engineers architects ...

Regards,
JS

ah, a conspiracy lover... i always ask the question: If the
government were involved in any given conspiracy how long do you think
they could really keep it secret?

I have always wondered which of the 2 groups debating here are more
successful. Like who gets paid for their stand on what's real.

To state it a bit more clearly - who can make a living based upon their
stand on what's real? That always separates the wheat from the chaff.

Mr B, Art, Doctor Smith, how'r you all doin' in the antenna consulting
and/or sales and design business?

I expect very well considering you know more than the rest of group that
hangs out here.

Please insert ill considered response 6 lines below.

tom
K0TAR

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/11/2010 8:47 PM, tom wrote:

...
To state it a bit more clearly - who can make a living based upon their
stand on what's real? That always separates the wheat from the chaff.

Mr B, Art, Doctor Smith, how'r you all doin' in the antenna consulting
and/or sales and design business?

I expect very well considering you know more than the rest of group that
hangs out here.

Please insert ill considered response 6 lines below.

tom
K0TAR

Yes, Art, the above is a demonstration of what you are pointing out ...
how can you possibly think I can miss it? Can anyone?

When a president like clinton, bush or obama can make president, what
would possibly shock/confuse anyone about this?

Regards,
JS

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 12, 3:40*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 11, 9:56*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Sep 11, 9:34*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/11/2010 7:21 PM, tom wrote:

...
I have always wondered which of the 2 groups debating here are more
successful. Like who gets paid for their stand on what's real.

Ok, I don't actually wonder.

tom
K0TAR

Yeah. *I guess some stare at their belly buttons for hours, and wonder;
* And, I guess some hold them in high respect as gurus ... I don't.
Good to hear you ain't wonderin'.

Regards,
JS

John
Look at his last 100 posts and check to see if you find one of them
informative and then question why you even respond to him? I mean it.
He sends nothing but trash all the time. Anybody can say "babbling
nonsense" but not anybody can explain
babbling nonsense unless *he himself is well practiced in the art!

John
After you read his last 100 posts you can now look ahead and predict
what his next 100 posts are going to look like. Do you really need
such a discorse for the next month or so?

come on art, enough discussing other's posts... wx not looking good
here today so lets have a blast of classic art techno bafflegab! i
could use a good laugh!

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 12, 3:40*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 11, 9:56*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Sep 11, 9:34*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/11/2010 7:21 PM, tom wrote:

...
I have always wondered which of the 2 groups debating here are more
successful. Like who gets paid for their stand on what's real.

Ok, I don't actually wonder.

tom
K0TAR

Yeah. *I guess some stare at their belly buttons for hours, and wonder;
* And, I guess some hold them in high respect as gurus ... I don't.
Good to hear you ain't wonderin'.

Regards,
JS

John
Look at his last 100 posts and check to see if you find one of them
informative and then question why you even respond to him? I mean it.
He sends nothing but trash all the time. Anybody can say "babbling
nonsense" but not anybody can explain
babbling nonsense unless *he himself is well practiced in the art!

John
After you read his last 100 posts you can now look ahead and predict
what his next 100 posts are going to look like. Do you really need
such a discorse for the next month or so?

come on art, enough discussing other's posts... wx not looking good
here today so lets have a blast of classic art techno bafflegab! i
could use a good laugh!

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 11, 6:27*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"K1TTT" ...

has anyone linked zpe or 'quantum soup' or dark energy to

electromagnetic waves in a way that preserves the constancy of the
speed of light in all reference frames?

You do not know that the reference frames are dragged:

""Frame Dragging
One of the strangest predictions of the general theory of relativity
concerning black holes is called frame dragging. For a rotating black hole,
the theory predicts that space and time itself can be dragged by the
rotating black hole. The adjacent figure shows an artist's conception of
this idea (J. Bergeron, Sky & Telescope: get permission; Ref). Some recent
data has been interpreted as supporting evidence for frame dragging around a
black hole (Ref). "
From: *http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...blackhole.html

If you do not like the Sun's ether drag you can use the Sun's reference
frame drag. Which one do you prefer.

or related those phenomena to epsilon or mu of free space?

The space is not a dielectric. Electric waves travel in metal transmissing
lines where no epsilon or mu.
S*

hey mr.b. here is a group that you might fit in with:
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/12/2010 2:13 PM, K1TTT wrote:

...
hey mr.b. here is a group that you might fit in with:
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

Darn, I knew there was going to be a problem in handing out licenses to
recovering mental patients ... having a bit of a problem in discerning
reality from fantasy? Meds not working correctly? Anger management
classes didn't take? Shrink still working you though control issues?
ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Sep 11, 6:27 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

If you do not like the Sun's ether drag you can use the Sun's reference
frame drag. Which one do you prefer.

or related those phenomena to epsilon or mu of free space?

The space is not a dielectric. Electric waves travel in metal transmissing
lines where no epsilon or mu.

hey mr.b. here is a group that you might fit in with:
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

The Author do not know about MGX and Stokes. He only know MMX and Sagnac.
Many people do not know the all evidences. Like you.

For such Galileo was wrong. For you Stokes (Chairman of Royal Society) was
wrong.
S*

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Sep 13, 8:09 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

hey mr.b. here is a group that you might fit in with:

http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

The Author do not know about MGX and Stokes. He only know MMX and Sagnac.
Many people do not know the all evidences. Like you.

For such Galileo was wrong. For you Stokes (Chairman of Royal Society)
was
wrong.

wow, now that made absolutely no sense.

Now we have to choose: Galiean relativity or Special relativity and,
Stokes ether or Maxwell-Lorentz-Einstein ether.

It seems to me that in you opinion the both: Galileo and Stokes were wrong.
In may opinion the MGX proved that the both were right.
S*

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 14, 7:40*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On Sep 13, 8:09 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



hey mr.b. here is a group that you might fit in with:

http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

The Author do not know about MGX and Stokes. He only know MMX and Sagnac.
Many people do not know the all evidences. Like you.

For such Galileo was wrong. For you Stokes (Chairman of Royal Society)
was
wrong.
wow, now that made absolutely no sense.

Now we have to choose: Galiean relativity or Special relativity and,
Stokes ether or Maxwell-Lorentz-Einstein ether.

It seems to me that in you opinion the both: Galileo and Stokes were wrong.
In may opinion the MGX proved that the both were right.
S*

no, galileo was right, stokes was wrong. but you might want to join
that anti-galileo group, i think you would fit right in.