RADIO-WAVES cannot travel through the empty medium of Space --...
 

On 6/1/2011 3:44 PM, wrote:

...
Colder than a well digger's arse in Montana!
cuhulin


Or, colder than a witches' tit in January! (and, allowing for her to be
riding a broom at the time the comment is expected to be accurate!)

Regards,
JS

RADIO-WAVES cannot travel through the empty medium of Space --...
 

New York City (watch out NYC, somebody is going around in Brooklyn and
stealing them thar Iron Fences) and San Diego overdue for Hurricanes, so
says an article at,
http://www.standeyo.com
cuhulin

RADIO-WAVES cannot travel through the empty medium of Space --...
 

Watchin the weather channel furr ah leetle wyle.It is a 'weather maker'
day today/tonight.From Coast to Coast and in between.Two tornados hit
Springfield,Massatwobumps twice in two hours.
cuhulin

RADIO-WAVES cannot travel through the empty medium of Space --All audio and video from Apollo-11, ISS, The Shuttle, are FAKE FAKE FAKE
 

On Jun 1, 3:52*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/1/2011 3:34 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

...
A lot of very square brains are stuffed into square skulls of the
exact same volume here in Google Groups or Usenet/newsgroups, thus
you've nailed the problem. *They've managed to put to much of
something into nothing, or vise versa.

*http://www.wanttoknow.info/
*http://translate.google.com/#
* Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Again, I was commenting on "empty", "space", "nothing", "matter", etc.

Your need to now branch off on, yet, another tangent of what appears is
going to now center on personal attacks, due you your ego suffering
imagined damages, simply takes the context of the matters out of the
discussion, and now leaves another discussion in their place.

Interesting, but like I said, I simply have no comments of any
importance to make on subjects which I have no interest in.

Perhaps such NGs as alt.support.self-esteem, alt.self-improve,
alt.support.self-harm or even alt.recovery.panic-anxiety.self-help would
be much more fitting forums/platforms to your directions?

For your easy diversion into subjects, other than the ones under
immediate discussion, perhaps you could consider starting a newsgroup
such as "alt.support.maintaining-focus?"

Regards,
JS

You need to make something really big out of nothing is noted.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

RADIO-WAVES cannot travel through the empty medium of Space --All audio and video from Apollo-11, ISS, The Shuttle, are FAKE FAKE FAKE
 

On 6/1/2011 8:48 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

...
You need to make something really big out of nothing is noted.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

That is your problem, you dismiss the really basic and necessary rules
and laws of science and jump, then, to subjects you are unable to
discuss in a logical and reasoning manner.

Since this now allows you to rant on subjects you know nothing about,
you can make insane guesses, hold insane beliefs, and propose impossible
situations which obey none of the real laws of science and math ... and,
doing all with no sense of how insane it sounds to those who have a
knowledge of all this. Since you don't know any better, you think none
do -- gee, akin to winos giving PhD dissertations on complex matters of
importance!

But hey, if it works for you ... ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

RADIO-WAVES cannot travel through the empty medium of Space --All audio and video from Apollo-11, ISS, The Shuttle, are FAKE FAKE FAKE
 

On 6/1/2011 7:22 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 6/1/2011 11:23 AM, Mike Painter wrote:

...
Weak. You can't build such a device. If you could then you could not
place one box into the other and have it touch bottom as the air
would be compressed and have no means of escape.

So consider it as a thought experiment and ignore all of modern
physics. Then explain how you would tell the difference between an
infinite number of such boxes and nothing.

When you are done tell us how this nothing precludes your idea of an
"aether"



ROFLOL ... Go take a physics class, most everything you state, above,
is in error ... correct this or you can go no further!

Been there, done that, although the idea of taking a single physics class is
a bit amusing.

Care to explain where my errors are?
Let's just take the compressed air part for a start.
We will ignore what physics says about surfaces and grant you a perfectly
smooth surface.



Already did that, you missed this post?:

On 6/1/2011 11:23 AM, Mike Painter wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 11:59 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 9:42 PM, Olrik wrote:

...
Huh?
...

Yeah, the particularly dense have a problem here, let me rephrase:

"Nothing can't hold something."

The logic of that statement is self-explanatory. You can "put"
something into nothing because there would be no "space" to "put" it
into!
Indeed, if you "succeed" in putting something into nothing -- it
would cease to exist! DUH!, there would be "nothing" to hold the
"something!"
Which ignores the "truely empty box" part of your comment.

As for "aether". I suspect you are confusing it with "ether" and you
should stop smelling it.



I can give you a true example of "nothing."

You have a small box, the inside dimension of 1x1x1 inches. Into this
box, you place a 1x1x1 inch O.D. cube.

Now you have an example of "nothing." As, there is "nothing" between
the outside of the cube and the inside of the box -- and, you don't
have any possibility of movement of the cube within the box!

And, the reason is simple, you can't move "something" into "nothing!"

This is what "nothing" is.

Regards,
JS

Weak. You can't build such a device. If you could then you could not
place
one box into the other and have it touch bottom as the air would be
compressed and have no means of escape.

The only thing "weak" about that statement, is the mind which
thought-it/believes-it! You can "cast" the block in the box out of a
liquid which solidified. You can first insert the block into just the
four assembled side of the box, then attach the top and the bottom,
etc., etc.

Again, you don't give me an example of anything but your VERY limited
powers of reason and logic!


So consider it as a thought experiment and ignore all of modern physics.
Then explain how you would tell the difference between an infinite
number of
such boxes and nothing.

Why would I now go into a tangent, off the subject discussed, so you can
baffle us with bull****? Because, you sure as hell ain't going to be
dazzling us with your brilliance!


When you are done tell us how this nothing precludes your idea of an
"aether"


Since the ether can fit between the atoms of all matter known to us, it
would be impossible to ever be able to create a "space" devoid of ether.

Once again, you demonstrate your VERY limited powers of logic and reason
.... apparently, you think you accomplish something else?

Regards,
JS

RADIO-WAVES do not travel anywhere-a field is established aroundthe antenna
 

On 06/01/2011 03:34 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jun 1, 12:59 am, John wrote:
On 5/31/2011 11:59 PM, Mike Painter wrote:









John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 9:42 PM, Olrik wrote:

...
Huh?
...

Yeah, the particularly dense have a problem here, let me rephrase:

"Nothing can't hold something."

The logic of that statement is self-explanatory. You can "put"
something into nothing because there would be no "space" to "put" it
into!
Indeed, if you "succeed" in putting something into nothing -- it would
cease to exist! DUH!, there would be "nothing" to hold the
"something!"
Which ignores the "truely empty box" part of your comment.

As for "aether". I suspect you are confusing it with "ether" and you should
stop smelling it.

I can give you a true example of "nothing."

You have a small box, the inside dimension of 1x1x1 inches. Into this
box, you place a 1x1x1 inch O.D. cube.

Now you have an example of "nothing." As, there is "nothing" between
the outside of the cube and the inside of the box -- and, you don't have
any possibility of movement of the cube within the box!

And, the reason is simple, you can't move "something" into "nothing!"

This is what "nothing" is.

Regards,
JS

A lot of very square brains are stuffed into square skulls of the
exact same volume here in Google Groups or Usenet/newsgroups, thus
you've nailed the problem. They've managed to put to much of
something into nothing, or vise versa.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

RADIO-WAVES cannot travel through the empty medium of Space --All audio and video from Apollo-11, ISS, The Shuttle, are FAKE FAKE FAKE
 

On Jun 1, 10:22*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/1/2011 8:48 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

...
You need to make something really big out of nothing is noted.

*http://www.wanttoknow.info/
*http://translate.google.com/#
* Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

That is your problem, you dismiss the really basic and necessary rules
and laws of science and jump, then, to subjects you are unable to
discuss in a logical and reasoning manner.

Since this now allows you to rant on subjects you know nothing about,
you can make insane guesses, hold insane beliefs, and propose impossible
situations which obey none of the real laws of science and math ... and,
doing all with no sense of how insane it sounds to those who have a
knowledge of all this. *Since you don't know any better, you think none
do -- gee, akin to winos giving PhD dissertations on complex matters of
importance!

But hey, if it works for you ... *ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

There's nothing sane about Google Groups or much less Usenet/
newsgroups that are 99.9% populated with rusemasters or FUD-masters of
the mainstream status quo.

At times you need a really good battery of loose cannons in order to
return the favor, along with a good sense of humor and sadistic
zingers that'll help define those trying to make your existence as
insignificant or nonexistent as possible.

Giving a topic or one of its replies a reasonable swag is fair game.
Otherwise I like to stick within the regular laws of physics and
interpret from the best available science, whereas others here seem to
prefer to topic/author stalk and to use those highly social/political
and even faith-based conditional laws of physics, plus they usually
exclude/banish or obfuscate on behalf of any science that doesn't
happen to agree with their closed mindset that is usually based upon
worshiping all things Einstein.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

RADIO-WAVES cannot travel through the empty medium of Space --All audio and video from Apollo-11, ISS, The Shuttle, are FAKE FAKE FAKE
 

On 6/2/2011 3:45 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

...
Usually these brown-nosed clowns just try to destroy the credibility
of everyone that dares to post a topic or even reply to any other.
As a rule, FUD-masters that seldom if ever admit who they really are
or who they truly represent are out to get anyone that dares to revise
history or interpret anything of physics or science differently than
their mainstream closed mindset, and clearly most of these pesky guys
and a few gals are public funded and/or faith-based motivated. Among
other derogatory names that seem appropriate, I call them pretend-
Atheists that merely act/react exactly like devout Semites. Go
figure, because it's what we have to put up with, or best to ignore
because they're just not worth the effort.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”


Yeah, this post of yours has required the most thought from me, yet!

Yeah, "high strangeness", without a doubt. Their motivations (if there
are any) only look insane to me. The product of drugs? Alcohol?
Overly-aggressive-masturbation? Etc.?

Krist, talk about the difficulty of fathoming ether! Their actions are
without possible explanation(s!) Causes me visions of
demonically-autistic-preschoolers who are
"keyboard/"senseless-text"-savants!" Well, something like that ...
pinches-self-to-determine-dream-state

ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

RADIO-WAVES cannot travel through the empty medium of Space --All audio and video from Apollo-11, ISS, The Shuttle, are FAKE FAKE FAKE
 

On 2011-06-02 18:03, John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 2:13 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 6/1/2011 7:22 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 6/1/2011 11:23 AM, Mike Painter wrote:

...
Weak. You can't build such a device. If you could then you could
not place one box into the other and have it touch bottom as the
air would be compressed and have no means of escape.

So consider it as a thought experiment and ignore all of modern
physics. Then explain how you would tell the difference between an
infinite number of such boxes and nothing.

When you are done tell us how this nothing precludes your idea of
an "aether"



ROFLOL ... Go take a physics class, most everything you state,
above, is in error ... correct this or you can go no further!

Been there, done that, although the idea of taking a single physics
class is a bit amusing.

Care to explain where my errors are?
Let's just take the compressed air part for a start.
We will ignore what physics says about surfaces and grant you a
perfectly smooth surface.



Already did that, you missed this post?:

On 6/1/2011 11:23 AM, Mike Painter wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 11:59 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 5/31/2011 9:42 PM, Olrik wrote:

...
Huh?
...

Yeah, the particularly dense have a problem here, let me rephrase:

"Nothing can't hold something."

The logic of that statement is self-explanatory. You can "put"
something into nothing because there would be no "space" to "put"
it into!
Indeed, if you "succeed" in putting something into nothing -- it
would cease to exist! DUH!, there would be "nothing" to hold the
"something!"
Which ignores the "truely empty box" part of your comment.

As for "aether". I suspect you are confusing it with "ether" and
you should stop smelling it.



I can give you a true example of "nothing."

You have a small box, the inside dimension of 1x1x1 inches. Into
this box, you place a 1x1x1 inch O.D. cube.

Now you have an example of "nothing." As, there is "nothing"
between the outside of the cube and the inside of the box -- and,
you don't have any possibility of movement of the cube within the
box! And, the reason is simple, you can't move "something" into
"nothing!" This is what "nothing" is.

Regards,
JS

Weak. You can't build such a device. If you could then you could not
place
one box into the other and have it touch bottom as the air would be
compressed and have no means of escape.

The only thing "weak" about that statement, is the mind which
thought-it/believes-it! You can "cast" the block in the box out of a
liquid which solidified. You can first insert the block into just the
four assembled side of the box, then attach the top and the bottom,
etc., etc.

Again, you don't give me an example of anything but your VERY limited
powers of reason and logic!


So consider it as a thought experiment and ignore all of modern
physics. Then explain how you would tell the difference between an
infinite
number of
such boxes and nothing.

Why would I now go into a tangent, off the subject discussed, so you
can baffle us with bull****? Because, you sure as hell ain't going
to be dazzling us with your brilliance!


When you are done tell us how this nothing precludes your idea of an
"aether"


Since the ether can fit between the atoms of all matter known to us,
it would be impossible to ever be able to create a "space" devoid of
ether.
Once again, you demonstrate your VERY limited powers of logic and
reason ... apparently, you think you accomplish something else?

Regards,
JS

You repeat statements not supported my modern science, "logic and reason"
and don't seem to be able to actually explain much of anything.

I even gave you an out by allowing perfectly flat surfaces, something
impossible at the scale you want to work and you explain nothing.

More important you don't give evidence, you give opinion. My high school
physics class gave evidence that your belief system is wrong.




Obviously, I would tell by the choice of your words, the tact you took,
and the points you chose to attempt to argue ... you were going to begin
splitting hairs on such as "flat surfaces" and such and yet expand the
tangents ... all to confabulate, obfuscate and baffle us with your
bull**** ...

No, you didn't mislead me for a second ... I knew.

And, I already admitted that, high school physics teachers get it wrong,
indeed, colleges get it wrong, indeed, and even worse, textbooks repeat
the error(s.) I know, been there, done that ... one of the hardest
things to get rid of is an error injected into the system(s!)

You're a genius.

I truly hope that one day you'll be recognize as such.

Regards,
JS