|
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 1, 10:40*am, John Smith wrote:
On 6/1/2011 10:27 AM, Brad Guth wrote: ... BTW; *Even though I’ve given you a bad time lately, I still think photons and thus radio/microwaves need a little something as transponder or relay nodes in order to propagate through supposedly empty space. *However, perhaps this requires only a few particles of atoms or whatever dark/clear matter per given cm3, or even per m3 of interstellar or intergalactic space as sufficient, because those radio/ microwaves do in fact work outside of the vast bulk of our atmosphere. ... Yeah? *You do huh? *Doesn't even sound close to plausible to me! The ether is a super conductor, a loss-less conductor of radio frequencies. *Even after billions of years of travel, the radio waves contain all the RF energy first delivered to them -- the radio waves have just spread out. (except for minute quantities absorbed by particles and such in their travels, and converted to heat.) What you propose would cause such losses as to be impossible on first consideration ... Regards, JS Photon and microwave losses are as you say unavoidable because of the mostly cold matter getting in their way. Either getting absorbed/ converted, reflected/diverted seems perfectly normal. However, photons do seem to be rather intelligent in how they act/ react with matter. http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
Tornado Watch in New York City.
http://www.drudgereport.com Bit, bit, bit Tornados never happen in New York City.Just ask Bill Nye the IDIOT guy. cuhulin |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/1/2011 1:45 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:40 am, John wrote: On 6/1/2011 10:27 AM, Brad Guth wrote: ... BTW; Even though I’ve given you a bad time lately, I still think photons and thus radio/microwaves need a little something as transponder or relay nodes in order to propagate through supposedly empty space. However, perhaps this requires only a few particles of atoms or whatever dark/clear matter per given cm3, or even per m3 of interstellar or intergalactic space as sufficient, because those radio/ microwaves do in fact work outside of the vast bulk of our atmosphere. ... Yeah? You do huh? Doesn't even sound close to plausible to me! The ether is a super conductor, a loss-less conductor of radio frequencies. Even after billions of years of travel, the radio waves contain all the RF energy first delivered to them -- the radio waves have just spread out. (except for minute quantities absorbed by particles and such in their travels, and converted to heat.) What you propose would cause such losses as to be impossible on first consideration ... Regards, JS Photon and microwave losses are as you say unavoidable because of the mostly cold matter getting in their way. Either getting absorbed/ converted, reflected/diverted seems perfectly normal. However, photons do seem to be rather intelligent in how they act/ react with matter. http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” First, what is "cold matter?" Never heard of the stuff, but got some cold stuff in my freezer. Reflection and RF converted into heat is not really in the material being discussed, why do you feel it of importance here? Post any material you have on "intelligent photons." Sounds bizarre to me ... Regards, JS |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
4:00 PM WLBT 3 tee vee big ass weather map, 101 degrees in Jackson, 102
degrees in Vicksburg, 104 degrees in Meridian.I Don't believe WLBT 3 (the tee vee station that doesn't exist) and Barbie Bassett at WLBT 3.Only 94 degrees right now inside my flower box on doggy's front porch. Those so-called 'Meterologist tee vee weather people', they LIE, LIE, LIE, and then they LIE some more! cuhulin |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 1, 1:51*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/1/2011 1:45 PM, Brad Guth wrote: On Jun 1, 10:40 am, John *wrote: On 6/1/2011 10:27 AM, Brad Guth wrote: ... BTW; *Even though I’ve given you a bad time lately, I still think photons and thus radio/microwaves need a little something as transponder or relay nodes in order to propagate through supposedly empty space. *However, perhaps this requires only a few particles of atoms or whatever dark/clear matter per given cm3, or even per m3 of interstellar or intergalactic space as sufficient, because those radio/ microwaves do in fact work outside of the vast bulk of our atmosphere.. ... Yeah? *You do huh? *Doesn't even sound close to plausible to me! The ether is a super conductor, a loss-less conductor of radio frequencies. *Even after billions of years of travel, the radio waves contain all the RF energy first delivered to them -- the radio waves have just spread out. (except for minute quantities absorbed by particles and such in their travels, and converted to heat.) What you propose would cause such losses as to be impossible on first consideration ... Regards, JS Photon and microwave losses are as you say unavoidable because of the mostly cold matter getting in their way. *Either getting absorbed/ converted, reflected/diverted seems perfectly normal. However, photons do seem to be rather intelligent in how they act/ react with matter. *http://www.wanttoknow.info/ *http://translate.google.com/# * Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” First, what is "cold matter?" *Never heard of the stuff, but got some cold stuff in my freezer. Reflection and RF converted into heat is not really in the material being discussed, why do you feel it of importance here? Post any material you have on "intelligent photons." *Sounds bizarre to me ... Regards, JS If it's existing at or below 2.7 K, that's cold and about as dark or stealth as it gets. A 2.7 K speck of dust or carbon buckyball isn't going to increase temperature by all that much if hit by a photon. Are you suggesting that photons can't be reflected or converted? Any brief search tells us: Photons align and spin-up or spin-down atoms. Tunneled or wave-guided photons are capable of FTL. Photons are used to stop and hold atoms dead in their tracks. I believe that a FM photon can transfer a multi-bit packet, possibly a 1024 packet. http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/1/2011 3:01 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jun 1, 1:51 pm, John wrote: On 6/1/2011 1:45 PM, Brad Guth wrote: On Jun 1, 10:40 am, John wrote: On 6/1/2011 10:27 AM, Brad Guth wrote: ... BTW; Even though I’ve given you a bad time lately, I still think photons and thus radio/microwaves need a little something as transponder or relay nodes in order to propagate through supposedly empty space. However, perhaps this requires only a few particles of atoms or whatever dark/clear matter per given cm3, or even per m3 of interstellar or intergalactic space as sufficient, because those radio/ microwaves do in fact work outside of the vast bulk of our atmosphere. ... Yeah? You do huh? Doesn't even sound close to plausible to me! The ether is a super conductor, a loss-less conductor of radio frequencies. Even after billions of years of travel, the radio waves contain all the RF energy first delivered to them -- the radio waves have just spread out. (except for minute quantities absorbed by particles and such in their travels, and converted to heat.) What you propose would cause such losses as to be impossible on first consideration ... Regards, JS Photon and microwave losses are as you say unavoidable because of the mostly cold matter getting in their way. Either getting absorbed/ converted, reflected/diverted seems perfectly normal. However, photons do seem to be rather intelligent in how they act/ react with matter. http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” First, what is "cold matter?" Never heard of the stuff, but got some cold stuff in my freezer. Reflection and RF converted into heat is not really in the material being discussed, why do you feel it of importance here? Post any material you have on "intelligent photons." Sounds bizarre to me ... Regards, JS If it's existing at or below 2.7 K, that's cold and about as dark or stealth as it gets. A 2.7 K speck of dust or carbon buckyball isn't going to increase temperature by all that much if hit by a photon. Interesting, but, we only remarked on the change of RF to heat as a "loss" of RF energy, in this regard, doesn't matter how cold the object is ... could strike the hot matter of a sun with no difference in importance. Are you suggesting that photons can't be reflected or converted? Any brief search tells us: Photons align and spin-up or spin-down atoms. Tunneled or wave-guided photons are capable of FTL. Photons are used to stop and hold atoms dead in their tracks. I am saying you are attempting to present a subject matter which I did not remark on and have no interest in this time -- a remark of your favorite bourbon would be about as on topic. Beside, "photons" cease to be photons if exhibiting no movement, and, about as relevant, they suddenly gain mass ... I believe that a FM photon can transfer a multi-bit packet, possibly a 1024 packet. Apparently campings people had a belief that world was about to end, and just about as relevant to the original remarks ... http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” Again, disassociated "facts" which go off on a tangent from the original posts. Absolute cold = NO movement of atomic particles. Interesting phenomenon which, so far, has no practical uses in functional devices. Your argument(s) seem to just go off on a tangent where you seek to dazzle us with brilliance, on off topic subjects and speculations ... again, you demonstrate a need for personal ego inflation ... I must tell you, I have much better things to do ... Regards, JS |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 1, 3:12*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/1/2011 3:01 PM, Brad Guth wrote: On Jun 1, 1:51 pm, John *wrote: On 6/1/2011 1:45 PM, Brad Guth wrote: On Jun 1, 10:40 am, John * *wrote: On 6/1/2011 10:27 AM, Brad Guth wrote: ... BTW; *Even though I’ve given you a bad time lately, I still think photons and thus radio/microwaves need a little something as transponder or relay nodes in order to propagate through supposedly empty space. *However, perhaps this requires only a few particles of atoms or whatever dark/clear matter per given cm3, or even per m3 of interstellar or intergalactic space as sufficient, because those radio/ microwaves do in fact work outside of the vast bulk of our atmosphere. ... Yeah? *You do huh? *Doesn't even sound close to plausible to me! The ether is a super conductor, a loss-less conductor of radio frequencies. *Even after billions of years of travel, the radio waves contain all the RF energy first delivered to them -- the radio waves have just spread out. (except for minute quantities absorbed by particles and such in their travels, and converted to heat.) What you propose would cause such losses as to be impossible on first consideration ... Regards, JS Photon and microwave losses are as you say unavoidable because of the mostly cold matter getting in their way. *Either getting absorbed/ converted, reflected/diverted seems perfectly normal. However, photons do seem to be rather intelligent in how they act/ react with matter. *http://www.wanttoknow.info/ *http://translate.google.com/# * *Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” First, what is "cold matter?" *Never heard of the stuff, but got some cold stuff in my freezer. Reflection and RF converted into heat is not really in the material being discussed, why do you feel it of importance here? Post any material you have on "intelligent photons." *Sounds bizarre to me ... Regards, JS If it's existing at or below 2.7 K, that's cold and about as dark or stealth as it gets. *A 2.7 K speck of dust or carbon buckyball isn't going to increase temperature by all that much if hit by a photon. Interesting, but, we only remarked on the change of RF to heat as a "loss" of RF energy, in this regard, doesn't matter how cold the object is ... could strike the hot matter of a sun with no difference in importance. Are you suggesting that photons can't be reflected or converted? Any brief search tells us: * Photons align and spin-up or spin-down atoms. * Tunneled or wave-guided photons are capable of FTL. * Photons are used to stop and hold atoms dead in their tracks. I am saying you are attempting to present a subject matter which I did not remark on and have no interest in this time -- a remark of your favorite bourbon would be about as on topic. *Beside, "photons" cease to be photons if exhibiting no movement, and, about as relevant, they suddenly gain mass ... I believe that a FM photon can transfer a multi-bit packet, possibly a 1024 packet. Apparently campings people had a belief that world was about to end, and just about as relevant to the original remarks ... *http://www.wanttoknow.info/ *http://translate.google.com/# * Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” Again, disassociated "facts" which go off on a tangent from the original posts. Absolute cold = NO movement of atomic particles. *Interesting phenomenon which, so far, has no practical uses in functional devices. Your argument(s) seem to just go off on a tangent where you seek to dazzle us with brilliance, on off topic subjects and speculations ... again, you demonstrate a need for personal ego inflation ... I must tell you, I have much better things to do ... Regards, JS http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...=en&scoring=d& "JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE" now who's off topic? http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/1/2011 3:25 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
... http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...=en&scoring=d& "JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE" now who's off topic? http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” I said, your responses have been off topic to the matters being discussed, and, specifically, the post(s) I responded to ... again you go off on a tangent and note that those discussions were off topic to the subject of the thread, which is first mentioned in your post ... I didn't care when I made my first off topic post, and your pointing out that I didn't care does nothing to change me mind now. I mean, it is impossible to provide logical responses to your bizarre inquiry(s.) Every one of your questions simply requires me to point out it, it itself, the question(s), attempts to go off topic and establish groundless foundations to your rants ... again, something I just chalk up to your "self indulgent ego stroking." Regards, JS |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
Photons of light (Wheels of Light) spinning clockwise and photons of
light spinning counter clockwise could mean computers that can never be hacked. There actually are some people studying just how that would work.I read something about that in 1999 or 2000. cuhulin |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 1, 3:39*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/1/2011 3:25 PM, Brad Guth wrote: ... http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a.../thread/008241... * "JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE" now who's off topic? *http://www.wanttoknow.info/ *http://translate.google.com/# * Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” I said, your responses have been off topic to the matters being discussed, and, specifically, the post(s) I responded to ... again you go off on a tangent and note that those discussions were off topic to the subject of the thread, which is first mentioned in your post ... I didn't care when I made my first off topic post, and your pointing out that I didn't care does nothing to change me mind now. I mean, it is impossible to provide logical responses to your bizarre inquiry(s.) *Every one of your questions simply requires me to point out it, it itself, the question(s), attempts to go off topic and establish groundless foundations to your rants ... again, something I just chalk up to your "self indulgent ego stroking." Regards, JS Then perhaps you should stick with the original topic. My replies were all related to what Warhol thinks about radio waves not propagating through nothing, and I can somewhat understand that interpretation because as far as we know there's no such thing as nothing. So I can't be certain or much less prove that photons can function within absolutely nothing. Obviously you are a very naysay kind of guy, and yet you believe anything your K-12 peers and government has to say. Go figure. http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/1/2011 8:47 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
... Then perhaps you should stick with the original topic. My replies were all related to what Warhol thinks about radio waves not propagating through nothing, and I can somewhat understand that interpretation because as far as we know there's no such thing as nothing. So I can't be certain or much less prove that photons can function within absolutely nothing. Obviously you are a very naysay kind of guy, and yet you believe anything your K-12 peers and government has to say. Go figure. http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” ROFLOL As I pointed out, there is no such as nothing, when in regards to all we can see ... Regards, JS |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/1/2011 11:14 PM, Warhol wrote:
... Ether is a fluid... air or Et2O... compressed it forms a liquid... So ether is a liquid gas and in space it's vacuum... we have a conflict here. so no air wave can travel thru the emptiness of the universe... To communicate with other worlds we need to use Light... smoke won't work nether... and sound neither. The intoxicating ether you are sniffing, as you make these insane posts, has noting to do with the ether under discussion, your ether places you at a severe disadvantage in being able to recognize this: THIS: 1) a: the rarefied element formerly believed to fill the upper regions of space. b: the upper regions of space : heavens 2) a: also ae·ther, a medium that in the wave theory of light permeates all space and transmits transverse waves. b: airwaves FROM HE http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ether Regards, JS |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 2, 8:23*am, John Smith wrote:
On 6/1/2011 11:14 PM, Warhol wrote: ... Ether is a fluid... air or Et2O... compressed it forms a liquid... So ether is a liquid gas and in space it's vacuum... we have a conflict here. so no air wave can travel thru the emptiness of the universe... To communicate with other worlds we need to use Light... smoke won't work nether... and sound neither. The intoxicating ether you are sniffing, as you make these insane posts, has noting to do with the ether under discussion, your ether places you at a severe disadvantage in being able to recognize this: THIS: 1) a: the rarefied element formerly believed to fill the upper regions of space. b: the upper regions of space : heavens 2) a: also ae·ther, a medium that in the wave theory of light permeates all space and transmits transverse waves. b: airwaves FROM HEhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ether Regards, JS what do they mean with "the upper regions of space" hah what a definition for the upper regions of the mesosphere... http://sccscience.files.wordpress.co...atmosphere.jpg In the thermosphere you have no aether... there is only the void... and as we all know waves can't propagate in the void... A gas has a mass and a weight... Vacuum has no mass or no weight... see the difference? |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/1/2011 11:44 PM, Warhol wrote:
On Jun 2, 8:23 am, John wrote: On 6/1/2011 11:14 PM, Warhol wrote: ... Ether is a fluid... air or Et2O... compressed it forms a liquid... So ether is a liquid gas and in space it's vacuum... we have a conflict here. so no air wave can travel thru the emptiness of the universe... To communicate with other worlds we need to use Light... smoke won't work nether... and sound neither. The intoxicating ether you are sniffing, as you make these insane posts, has noting to do with the ether under discussion, your ether places you at a severe disadvantage in being able to recognize this: THIS: 1) a: the rarefied element formerly believed to fill the upper regions of space. b: the upper regions of space : heavens 2) a: also ae·ther, a medium that in the wave theory of light permeates all space and transmits transverse waves. b: airwaves FROM HEhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ether Regards, JS what do they mean with "the upper regions of space" hah what a definition for the upper regions of the mesosphere... http://sccscience.files.wordpress.co...atmosphere.jpg In the thermosphere you have no aether... there is only the void... and as we all know waves can't propagate in the void... A gas has a mass and a weight... Vacuum has no mass or no weight... see the difference? Oh, you are sober now and recognize that? Yeah, around the time they were referring to it as aether, they believed it only "inhabited" the upper regions of space. We now know it permeates every region of "space" which we can see, the earth itself, and all forms of matter ... even our bodies. Regards, JS |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 2, 8:51*am, John Smith wrote:
On 6/1/2011 11:44 PM, Warhol wrote: On Jun 2, 8:23 am, John *wrote: On 6/1/2011 11:14 PM, Warhol wrote: ... Ether is a fluid... air or Et2O... compressed it forms a liquid... So ether is a liquid gas and in space it's vacuum... we have a conflict here. so no air wave can travel thru the emptiness of the universe... To communicate with other worlds we need to use Light... smoke won't work nether... and sound neither. The intoxicating ether you are sniffing, as you make these insane posts, has noting to do with the ether under discussion, your ether places you at a severe disadvantage in being able to recognize this: THIS: 1) a: the rarefied element formerly believed to fill the upper regions of space. b: the upper regions of space : heavens 2) a: also ae·ther, a medium that in the wave theory of light permeates all space and transmits transverse waves. b: airwaves FROM HEhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ether Regards, JS what do they mean with "the upper regions of space" hah what a definition for the upper regions of the mesosphere... http://sccscience.files.wordpress.co...atmosphere.jpg In the thermosphere you have no aether... there is only the void... and as we all know waves can't propagate in the void... A gas has a mass and a weight... Vacuum has no mass or no weight... see the difference? Oh, you are sober now and recognize that? Yeah, around the time they were referring to it as aether, they believed it only "inhabited" the upper regions of space. We now know it permeates every region of "space" which we can see, the earth itself, and all forms of matter ... even our bodies. Regards, JS since a few NASA employees post here maybe they have something to sat about this? Also the opposite of what NASA says is the truth... They will have egg on their faces again. |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/2/2011 12:29 AM, Warhol wrote:
... since a few NASA employees post here maybe they have something to sat about this? Also the opposite of what NASA says is the truth... They will have egg on their faces again. No one wishes to stick their neck out and call it "ether" (or aether) for that matter ... even Einstein attempts to acknowledge "it" as the "cosmological effect" (basically, but denied by many, to be equiv. to a "cosmic ether.") I find many high schools and colleges are even "unaware" (or in some form of denial) to Einsteins admission of a "gravitational ether." Like I say, there is relatively "handful" of people who come right out and deal with ether as a substantial material, in academic and research branches. An example of what I am referring to is this abstract: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991PhLA..152..458A Or, this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608164 Investigating with search terms composed of "gravitational ether", "cosmic ether", "cosmological effect", etc. will show the debate is far from over ... However, the "effect" which seems to go wanting for a proper name has already been covered under the name of "ether." However, since many have denied its' existence, but now are forced to admit "something is there", attempt to hide their mistaken denial in a "name change ploy/tactic." This has more to do with human nature and the refusal to admit mistakes than anything else ... Actually, quite funny to watch! Very smart people also suffer from such ego worship ... and the fear of being ostracized by their peers ... Simply put, you can still deny the "ether" if you just name "it" something else, since then, you deny the "it" is ether! ROFLOL Regards, JS |
Never say "never"-it's like daring God
|
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 2, 9:48*am, John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 12:29 AM, Warhol wrote: ... since a few NASA employees post here maybe they have something to sat about this? Also the opposite of what NASA says *is the truth... They will have egg on their faces again. No one wishes to stick their neck out and call it "ether" (or aether) for that matter ... even Einstein attempts to acknowledge "it" as the "cosmological effect" (basically, but denied by many, to be equiv. to a "cosmic ether.") I find many high schools and colleges are even "unaware" (or in some form of denial) to Einsteins admission of a "gravitational ether." Like I say, there is relatively "handful" of people who come right out and deal with ether as a substantial material, in academic and research branches. An example of what I am referring to is this abstract: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991PhLA..152..458A Or, this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608164 Investigating with search terms composed of "gravitational ether", "cosmic ether", "cosmological effect", etc. will show the debate is far from over ... However, the "effect" which seems to go wanting for a proper name has already been covered under the name of "ether." *However, since many have denied its' existence, but now are forced to admit "something is there", attempt to hide their mistaken denial in a "name change ploy/tactic." *This has more to do with human nature and the refusal to admit mistakes than anything else ... Actually, quite funny to watch! *Very smart people also suffer from such ego worship ... and the fear of being ostracized by their peers ... Simply put, you can still deny the "ether" if you just name "it" something else, since then, you deny the "it" is ether! *ROFLOL Regards, JS I wont talk anymore about this, since ether is known to be air... just consult the ancient encyclopedia's. and in space there ain't no ether found... there is only the infinite void... Space does not bend. A ray/ a Beam does. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0109/3c175_vla.jpg And what is an atomic clock? what a joke... science filled with untrue claims. THE GREAT ATOMIC CLOCK SCAM! Like false religion, if they contradict each other each time. Maybe I should start a thread; "FAKE of CENTURY" BTW E = mc2 is not Einstein's equation at all... The big E just made "h" (plancks constant usable)... no such thing as dark energy/mass no anti gravity no black holes Space don't bend by gravity No Cosmic Ether if you have specifics perhaps ask Yids deliberately associated his name with it though for the usual reasons of deception and promoting the meme that the self chosen are superior intellects... the *******s who think they know, have no p.h.u.c.k.ing clue... PSS Ether, or luminiferous Ether, was the hypothetical substance through which electromagnetic waves travel. It was proposed by the greek philosopher Aristotle Eric Weisstein's World of Biography and used by several optical theories as a way to allow propagation of light, which was believed to be impossible in "empty" space. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html So it was and they changed the laws by fraud and made all students very dumb... the ancient knew what we don't know anymore. |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
Hollywood libturds and their CLINICALLY INSANE leftist agenda.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=308456 Top Shrink says democraps and libturds are CLINICALLY INSANE! http://www.devilfinder.com/find.php?...nically+Insane cuhulin |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/2/2011 7:22 AM, Warhol wrote:
... and in space there ain't no ether found... there is only the infinite void... Space does not bend. A ray/ a Beam does. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0109/3c175_vla.jpg ... Actually, the only way you can bend a light beam (or, any other electromagnetic beam or photons) is to bend the material which contains the beam. But, if you said something correct now, you would ruin your record of being 100% wrong -- good save! ROFLOL Regards, JS |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
Space does not bend. Einstein disagreed. |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/2/2011 9:25 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
Space does not bend. Einstein disagreed. Really? So then he didn't acknowledge that the "gravitational ether" existed? He didn't acknowledge that space is bent like a mattress by a bowling ball, and subject to the forces of gravity? You are claiming lines of space (ether) penetrate through the earth as perfectly straight lines? Let's see the sources which cause you to reach that/those conclusion(s?) Regards, JS |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/2/11 11:34 , John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 9:25 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote: Space does not bend. Einstein disagreed. Really? So then he didn't acknowledge that the "gravitational ether" existed? He didn't acknowledge that space is bent like a mattress by a bowling ball, and subject to the forces of gravity? You are claiming lines of space (ether) penetrate through the earth as perfectly straight lines? Let's see the sources which cause you to reach that/those conclusion(s?) Regards, JS Wow. Two words and you misread it. I stand in awe. Einstein was quite clear that space was a non-Euclidian construct. That, in fact, it was quite flexible, and that there were no straight lines. And that it was finite. |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 2, 9:34*am, John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 9:25 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote: Space does not bend. Einstein disagreed. Really? So then he didn't acknowledge that the "gravitational ether" existed? He didn't acknowledge that space is bent like a mattress by a bowling ball, and subject to the forces of gravity? You are claiming lines of space (ether) penetrate through the earth as perfectly straight lines? Let's see the sources which cause you to reach that/those conclusion(s?) Regards, JS Obviously lensing proves the flexibility of space and perhaps even that of time which at least photons seem to respect, thereby establishing that it's by no means empty unless 1000 atomic particles plus whatever flow of gravity and magnetic fields per cubic meter is supposed to represent emptiness. If space were truly empty, photons could ether travel FTL and thereby become invisible to our best instruments, or perhaps not manage to go anywhere. http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:34:10 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith : On 6/2/2011 9:25 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote: Space does not bend. Einstein disagreed. Really? Yes, really; Einstein showed that space bends, and therefore disagreed with the statement that "Space does not bend". snip -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 2, 8:33*am, John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 7:22 AM, Warhol wrote: ... and in space there ain't no ether found... there is only the infinite void... Space does not bend. A ray/ a Beam does. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0109/3c175_vla.jpg ... Actually, the only way you can bend a light beam (or, any other electromagnetic beam or photons) is to bend the material which contains the beam. But, if you said something correct now, you would ruin your record of being 100% wrong -- good save! ROFLOL Regards, JS Once in a while our cranky doom and gloom Warhol gets it right. http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 2, 7:22*am, Warhol wrote:
On Jun 2, 9:48*am, John Smith wrote: On 6/2/2011 12:29 AM, Warhol wrote: ... since a few NASA employees post here maybe they have something to sat about this? Also the opposite of what NASA says *is the truth... They will have egg on their faces again. No one wishes to stick their neck out and call it "ether" (or aether) for that matter ... even Einstein attempts to acknowledge "it" as the "cosmological effect" (basically, but denied by many, to be equiv. to a "cosmic ether.") I find many high schools and colleges are even "unaware" (or in some form of denial) to Einsteins admission of a "gravitational ether." Like I say, there is relatively "handful" of people who come right out and deal with ether as a substantial material, in academic and research branches. An example of what I am referring to is this abstract: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991PhLA..152..458A Or, this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608164 Investigating with search terms composed of "gravitational ether", "cosmic ether", "cosmological effect", etc. will show the debate is far from over ... However, the "effect" which seems to go wanting for a proper name has already been covered under the name of "ether." *However, since many have denied its' existence, but now are forced to admit "something is there", attempt to hide their mistaken denial in a "name change ploy/tactic." *This has more to do with human nature and the refusal to admit mistakes than anything else ... Actually, quite funny to watch! *Very smart people also suffer from such ego worship ... and the fear of being ostracized by their peers ... Simply put, you can still deny the "ether" if you just name "it" something else, since then, you deny the "it" is ether! *ROFLOL Regards, JS I wont talk anymore about this, since ether is known to be air... just consult the ancient encyclopedia's. and in space there ain't no ether found... there is only the infinite void... Space does not bend. A ray/ a Beam does. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0109/3c175_vla.jpg And what is an atomic clock? what a joke... science filled with untrue claims. THE GREAT ATOMIC CLOCK SCAM! Like false religion, if they contradict each other each time. Maybe I should start a thread; "FAKE of CENTURY" BTW E = mc2 is not Einstein's equation at all... The big E just made "h" (plancks constant usable)... no such thing as dark energy/mass no anti gravity no black holes Space don't bend by gravity No Cosmic Ether if you have specifics perhaps ask Yids deliberately associated his name with it though for the usual reasons of deception and promoting the meme that the self chosen are superior intellects... the *******s who think they know, have no p.h.u.c.k.ing clue... PSS Ether, or luminiferous Ether, was the hypothetical substance through which electromagnetic waves travel. It was proposed by the greek philosopher Aristotle Eric Weisstein's World of Biography and used by several optical theories as a way to allow propagation of light, which was believed to be impossible in "empty" space. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html So it was and they changed the laws by fraud and made all students very dumb... the ancient knew what we don't know anymore. Space is not empty, unless 1000 atomic particles per m3 qualifies, plus scads of energy and force always passing through each and every m3. I'm not sure the innards of a black hole are empty, but there is that remote possibility of that robust sphere of positrons being hollow and thus having nothing at its core. http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 2, 5:33*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 7:22 AM, Warhol wrote: ... and in space there ain't no ether found... there is only the infinite void... Space does not bend. A ray/ a Beam does. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0109/3c175_vla.jpg ... Actually, the only way you can bend a light beam (or, any other electromagnetic beam or photons) is to bend the material which contains the beam. But, if you said something correct now, you would ruin your record of being 100% wrong -- good save! ROFLOL Regards, JS our ancient TV Tubes work with a bended electrical arc Beam in vacuum... http://www.physicscentral.com/elemen...s/beam-img.jpg http://www.edsavhandbook.com/CRT%20Ilustrationn.jpg modulating electron beams navigate from left to right, top to bottom, and illuminate the red, green, and blue sets of phosphor located behind a fine wire mesh screen, the shadow mask, near the screen’s surface. Thus the original video image is recreated. So here we have the proof rays/beams can be bended... The cathode ray tube is the technology that launched TV and dominated video displays in the 20th century. Its key component parts consist of the cathode, the anode, two electromagnets, a steering circuit. |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
Get a sheet of paper and fold it into pleats, as though you are making a
fan to wave back and forth to cool yourself.Some people say/hypothesize Space/or a part of Space, the distance could be shortened similar to a sheet of pleated paper so as to shorten the distance when traveling from place to place in Space in Spaceships. cuhulin |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
|
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 9:25 AM, D. Peter Maus wrote: Space does not bend. Einstein disagreed. Really? Really Really - and it was proved by Walter Sydney Adams in 1925 and in the Pound-Rebka experiment of 1959. So then he didn't acknowledge that the "gravitational ether" existed? Well hardly since there is no such thing. He didn't acknowledge that space is bent like a mattress by a bowling ball, and subject to the forces of gravity? No that is 3 dimensional thinking. spacetime is distorted by a sufficiently large mass. Gravity is an effect of that distortion not the cause. The behaviour we ascribe to the force of gravity is actually the result of inertial motion within the four dimensional curved geometry of spacetime. You are claiming lines of space (ether) penetrate through the earth as perfectly straight lines? Thats just silly Let's see the sources which cause you to reach that/those conclusion(s?) Regards, JS You could start with his 1911 paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light". Keith |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
On Jun 2, 2:53*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 10:17 AM, Warhol wrote: ... our ancient TV Tubes work with a bended electrical arc Beam in vacuum... ... You are going to have to look to Einstein to even get a "sense" and a "feel" about the slippery stuff, ether. It is not like any matter we know, it is completely alien to us. *We do not possess senses to detect it, and there are no instruments, yet, which will. One very un-intuitive quality of ether? *It passes through your vacuum tubes like the glass envelopes don't even exist, and all other parts of the tube, for that matter ... but then, I doubt you have a mind which can even begin to fathom speculation on ether -- so you are pretty much stuck where you are! Regards, JS If something/anything is moving FTL, such as gravity, then we can't possibly detect it even though it is still there. Perhaps the matrix or flow of ether is simply FTL. http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
All of my tee vee sets have Vacuum picture tubes.I am watching my typed
letters showing up on screen right now as I am typing this sheet, on my Sansui 27 inch screen tee vee set that I use only for WebTV, WebTV Comfort Zone.My other tee vee set (Sony 27 inch flat screen tee vee set) has Thunderoad movie on there right now.Next up on TCM, Godzilla, King of the Monsters. I am Mike Fink, King of the Riverrrr,,,,,, cuhulin |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
Author: 'Birth Certificate' prompts departure of White House counsel
http://www.wnd.com http://www.worldnetdaily.com Phony Fake Ass Fraud Forgery! cuhulin |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was FAKE
John Smith wrote:
On 6/2/2011 11:28 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote: ... So then he didn't acknowledge that the "gravitational ether" existed? Well hardly since there is no such thing. He didn't acknowledge that space is bent like a mattress by a bowling ball, and subject to the forces of gravity? ... See, that is why you are wrong on most points, you get the basic laws screwed up and how do you expect anything else you are going to say to make any sense -- IT WON'T! "The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events." -- Einstein (Source, Pais, "Subtle is the Lord" p 313.) AND -- In 1920 Albert Einstein stated [1]: page 16: But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adducted in favor of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical quality whatever. The fundamental facts of (quantum) mechanics do not harmonize with this view. page 23: Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for Ether is a volatile organic compound at one time used as an anaesthetic. If you intend to push the aether theory at least get the terminology right fer petes sake. in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. The "æther" described by those who hold to that view does NOT mean a mechanical medium whose deformations correspond to electromagnetic fields, but rather a locally preferred state of rest at each point of spacetime. You clearly failed to grasp this major difference between classical views of the aether as a physical substance and modern aetheric theories that view it as an aspec of spacetime. Try reading EINSTEIN-ÆTHER THEORY by CHRISTOPHER ELING , TED JACOBSON , AND DAVID MATTINGLY From he http://www.helical-structures.org/ei...bout_ether.htm And: http://www.blavatsky.net/science/ether/ether.htm Oh please Blavatsky as a reference, who will you choose next ? Gypsy Rose Lee perhaps. And: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958AuJPh..11..279B You need to jump off that wagon and now jump on the "hair-splitting" wagon of what Einstein meant! But then, that is what I like about you, YOU ARE CONSISTENTLY WRONG! ROFLOL Regards, JS You aseem to be incapable of understanding even the most basic tenets of the subject. Special Relativity clearly shows that an aether is NOT required and clearly states that an aether in the classic sense of a physical medium is nonsense. Taking fragments of writing out of context and using them as 'proof' is not convincing. What Einstein did was to write that a solid phase Aether "seemed" to be a necessary consequence" of light transmission. He then went on to demonstrate that something that "seemed" to be necessary actually was not. He sums up saying "according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether" However he makes it clear this is NOT a physical medium, instead he states "But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. " Keith |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/2/2011 5:15 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
John Smith wrote: On 6/2/2011 11:28 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote: ... So then he didn't acknowledge that the "gravitational ether" existed? Well hardly since there is no such thing. He didn't acknowledge that space is bent like a mattress by a bowling ball, and subject to the forces of gravity? ... See, that is why you are wrong on most points, you get the basic laws screwed up and how do you expect anything else you are going to say to make any sense -- IT WON'T! "The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events." -- Einstein (Source, Pais, "Subtle is the Lord" p 313.) AND -- In 1920 Albert Einstein stated [1]: page 16: But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adducted in favor of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical quality whatever. The fundamental facts of (quantum) mechanics do not harmonize with this view. page 23: Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for Ether is a volatile organic compound at one time used as an anaesthetic. If you intend to push the aether theory at least get the terminology right fer petes sake. in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. The "æther" described by those who hold to that view does NOT mean a mechanical medium whose deformations correspond to electromagnetic fields, but rather a locally preferred state of rest at each point of spacetime. You clearly failed to grasp this major difference between classical views of the aether as a physical substance and modern aetheric theories that view it as an aspec of spacetime. Try reading EINSTEIN-ÆTHER THEORY by CHRISTOPHER ELING , TED JACOBSON , AND DAVID MATTINGLY From he http://www.helical-structures.org/ei...bout_ether.htm And: http://www.blavatsky.net/science/ether/ether.htm Oh please Blavatsky as a reference, who will you choose next ? Gypsy Rose Lee perhaps. And: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958AuJPh..11..279B You need to jump off that wagon and now jump on the "hair-splitting" wagon of what Einstein meant! But then, that is what I like about you, YOU ARE CONSISTENTLY WRONG! ROFLOL Regards, JS You aseem to be incapable of understanding even the most basic tenets of the subject. Special Relativity clearly shows that an aether is NOT required and clearly states that an aether in the classic sense of a physical medium is nonsense. Taking fragments of writing out of context and using them as 'proof' is not convincing. What Einstein did was to write that a solid phase Aether "seemed" to be a necessary consequence" of light transmission. He then went on to demonstrate that something that "seemed" to be necessary actually was not. He sums up saying "according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether" However he makes it clear this is NOT a physical medium, instead he states "But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. " Keith All I see is a nut telling me what they think, imagine, deduce, have visions of, psychically know, etc., and not a very inventive one, at that! But, you have indicated to now go into the "hair-splitting-phase" of what "Einstein meant" ... gee, now where have I seen that before? ROFLOL Regards, JS |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/2/2011 5:15 PM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
John Smith wrote: On 6/2/2011 11:28 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote: ... So then he didn't acknowledge that the "gravitational ether" existed? Well hardly since there is no such thing. He didn't acknowledge that space is bent like a mattress by a bowling ball, and subject to the forces of gravity? ... See, that is why you are wrong on most points, you get the basic laws screwed up and how do you expect anything else you are going to say to make any sense -- IT WON'T! "The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events." -- Einstein (Source, Pais, "Subtle is the Lord" p 313.) AND -- In 1920 Albert Einstein stated [1]: page 16: But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adducted in favor of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical quality whatever. The fundamental facts of (quantum) mechanics do not harmonize with this view. page 23: Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for Ether is a volatile organic compound at one time used as an anaesthetic. If you intend to push the aether theory at least get the terminology right fer petes sake. in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. The "æther" described by those who hold to that view does NOT mean a mechanical medium whose deformations correspond to electromagnetic fields, but rather a locally preferred state of rest at each point of spacetime. You clearly failed to grasp this major difference between classical views of the aether as a physical substance and modern aetheric theories that view it as an aspec of spacetime. Try reading EINSTEIN-ÆTHER THEORY by CHRISTOPHER ELING , TED JACOBSON , AND DAVID MATTINGLY From he http://www.helical-structures.org/ei...bout_ether.htm And: http://www.blavatsky.net/science/ether/ether.htm Oh please Blavatsky as a reference, who will you choose next ? Gypsy Rose Lee perhaps. And: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958AuJPh..11..279B You need to jump off that wagon and now jump on the "hair-splitting" wagon of what Einstein meant! But then, that is what I like about you, YOU ARE CONSISTENTLY WRONG! ROFLOL Regards, JS You aseem to be incapable of understanding even the most basic tenets of the subject. Special Relativity clearly shows that an aether is NOT required and clearly states that an aether in the classic sense of a physical medium is nonsense. Taking fragments of writing out of context and using them as 'proof' is not convincing. What Einstein did was to write that a solid phase Aether "seemed" to be a necessary consequence" of light transmission. He then went on to demonstrate that something that "seemed" to be necessary actually was not. He sums up saying "according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether" However he makes it clear this is NOT a physical medium, instead he states "But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. " Keith Ether is the single most important element in the form, structure and operation of our world and universe. Without it, the "attractive" and "repulsive" components of atomic particles, would not, could not, exist. It is only because of ether serving as a medium for all the electric and magnetic "communications between these atomic particles, the nucleus, electrons, photons, etc., etc. that matter is able to form itself into the organized units it does, to hold these shapes, and to exhibit the properties it does. You have backwards, it is NOT the matter which has the greater importance and you can ignore the ether, it is just the fact that NOTHING would exist as it does without this ether ... What an idiot and an outright imbecilic slob! For awhile I wondered, but obviously, you are the MOST stupid here! Regards, JS |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing was...
PLANET XEGESIS - 10 http://www.raidersnewsupdate.com/leadstory142.htm
We are all effin DOOMED anyway, I tell you we are DOOMED! There is NO Escape. cuhulin |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/2/11 19:46 , John Smith wrote:
Ether is the single most important element in the form, structure and operation of our world and universe. Without it, the "attractive" and "repulsive" components of atomic particles, would not, could not, exist. It is only because of ether serving as a medium for all the electric and magnetic "communications between these atomic particles, the nucleus, electrons, photons, etc., etc. that matter is able to form itself into the organized units it does, to hold these shapes, and to exhibit the properties it does. You have backwards, it is NOT the matter which has the greater importance and you can ignore the ether, it is just the fact that NOTHING would exist as it does without this ether ... What an idiot and an outright imbecilic slob! For awhile I wondered, but obviously, you are the MOST stupid here! Regards, JS You know, John...in the 18th century, this thinking would be considered visionary. But today, with General Relativity, String Theory, and a pretty good running start at a Grand Unified Theory, it's a little behind the times. Like Newtonian mechanics. Good for it's time. But in a universe of speeds that may be expressed as an appreciable fraction of C, not really all that precise. As described by Lorenz. And demonstrated at Princeton. The theory of ether was rather undone by Michelson and Morely in 1887, when they devised an experiment to detect the ether wind with negative results. The notion of a universally distributed inter-matter substance called ether has been replaced with the thinking that aether is a property of space, which Einstein demostrated through General Relativity was not only subject to bending, distortion and curvature, but was also finite without edge, curving back on itself, not unlike a Moebius band. Creating a universe in which travel in a single direction of sufficient duration will result in a return to the origin. Put another way, if you had a telescope large enough, if you looked in any direction long enough, eventually, you'd see the back of your own head. |
JFK Admits in secret OVal Office Recording...Moon landing wasFAKE
On 6/2/2011 7:45 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 6/2/11 19:46 , John Smith wrote: Ether is the single most important element in the form, structure and operation of our world and universe. Without it, the "attractive" and "repulsive" components of atomic particles, would not, could not, exist. It is only because of ether serving as a medium for all the electric and magnetic "communications between these atomic particles, the nucleus, electrons, photons, etc., etc. that matter is able to form itself into the organized units it does, to hold these shapes, and to exhibit the properties it does. You have backwards, it is NOT the matter which has the greater importance and you can ignore the ether, it is just the fact that NOTHING would exist as it does without this ether ... What an idiot and an outright imbecilic slob! For awhile I wondered, but obviously, you are the MOST stupid here! Regards, JS You know, John...in the 18th century, this thinking would be considered visionary. But today, with General Relativity, String Theory, and a pretty good running start at a Grand Unified Theory, it's a little behind the times. Like Newtonian mechanics. Good for it's time. But in a universe of speeds that may be expressed as an appreciable fraction of C, not really all that precise. As described by Lorenz. And demonstrated at Princeton. The theory of ether was rather undone by Michelson and Morely in 1887, when they devised an experiment to detect the ether wind with negative results. The notion of a universally distributed inter-matter substance called ether has been replaced with the thinking that aether is a property of space, which Einstein demostrated through General Relativity was not only subject to bending, distortion and curvature, but was also finite without edge, curving back on itself, not unlike a Moebius band. Creating a universe in which travel in a single direction of sufficient duration will result in a return to the origin. Put another way, if you had a telescope large enough, if you looked in any direction long enough, eventually, you'd see the back of your own head. Yeah, sure isn't visionary, been known about for a LONG time ... it is just where the cutting edge is taking us, at this point ... I agree, except for an absolute shape/size/form of the universe to be known ... I'd keep all eyes on CERN in the future ... Regards, JS |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:02 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com