Prev: Another factual, articulate rebuttal of the government's 9-11 conspiracylies
Next: The Muir Russell Review
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 11:18
On 7/9/10 5:04 AM, kado(a)nventure.com wrote:
> The idea of Galilean Relativity is the dumbest idea
> to come down the pike since the silly idea of
> Intelligent Design.

Dumb or not, the concept is supported by observation.
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Jul 2010 11:21
On 7/9/10 9:34 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> A perfect species would live forever.

Such species do not do well in changing environments.
You might want to read up on how species evolve to
adapt to changing environments.


From: PD on 9 Jul 2010 15:45
On Jul 9, 9:13 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 4:29 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PD:  If you wanted to talk science, you should ask: "If you stand
> in the sun, are you being pulled toward the Sun?"  The answer is:
> Yes.  But you are also being pulled toward the Earth, which, because
> it is closer to you, prevents you from being sucked into your own
> personal orbit about the Sun.   — NoEinstein —

So let's see, John, if you explained this properly.

Suppose I'm hanging from the wing of an airplane at 10,000 ft above
the ground. Both the plane and the earth are pulling me
gravitationally. The Earth is pulling me down and the plane is pulling
me up. But the plane is closer to me. So if I let go, the pull of the
plane will be greater and keep me from falling....

There's the small business that the Sun is a third of a million times
more massive than the Earth. So explain again to me why we aren't
sucked up toward the Sun?

>
> > On Jul 8, 1:51 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 7, 5:39 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dear PD, the DUNCE School Teacher:  In your dreams you imagine being
> > > in a position to 'reject' my proven New Science.  But when you awake,
> > > you'll realize that you are still just that imbecilic SPECK at the
> > > bottom of the Science Hill that I am the King of.  — NoEinstein —
>
> > :>)
> > Is it sunny in this fantasy world you live in?
>
> > > > On Jul 7, 11:18 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > [a work of fiction]
>
> > > > Dear John A. Armistead:
>
> > > > After having read your submission, I must regretfully inform you that
> > > > we will not be able to publish it.
>
> > > > Authors sometimes submit essays that are historical accounts. But
> > > > historical accounts are supported by documented facts, and not just
> > > > the interpretations or fabrications of the author, typically.
> > > > Therefore this does not qualify as a work of history.
>
> > > > Authors sometimes submit short stories that are purely fictional.
> > > > However, there is usually a disclaimer that indicates that resemblance
> > > > to real people living or dead is purely coincidental. Since you
> > > > mention real people by name and offer no disclaimer of coincidence, it
> > > > appears you are not submitting this as a short story.
>
> > > > Authors sometimes will write fiction that is "based on" historical
> > > > figures or events. Again, however, there is usually a disclaimer that
> > > > the work is a piece of fiction, and that significant portions of the
> > > > work are literary embellishments or wholly invented events or imagined
> > > > intentions of those historical figures.
>
> > > > Since you have not identified into which of these categories your
> > > > submission falls, we have no good way to provide editorial advice for
> > > > you on how to improve your work to bring it up to our minimum caliber
> > > > for publication.
>
> > > > Regards,- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: spudnik on 9 Jul 2010 15:50
Armistead has refuted Galilean relativity; well, if
he can sell that, he should get a "Nobel in economics!"

>    Dumb or not, the concept is supported by observation.

thus&so:
it's easy to show redshifting of waves, propogated in the lab,
via the refractive index of some transparent material. so,
the burden of proof is upon those, who believe
in an absolute vacuum, through which "photons" must
be aimed at the rods & cones of one's retina.

> I meant that light emitted in a lab will never display Hubble redshift
> unless the experiment lasts a million years.

thus&so:
Pascal experimentally discovered the perfect vacuum
basically with a barometer (he also showed the heighth-limit
of a suction pump (stage) so, there), but he didn't know
of "partial pressures" ... he called it, the Plenum.

aether seems to be a paradigm that was brought
into being by the barely-understood phenomena of atoms
-- the real heresy of Galileo, not ye olde Copernicusism --
to wit the electromagnetic properties of the medium of space,
permitivity & permeability (becauseth,
ain't no a b s o l u t e v a c u u m .-)

thus&so:
I repeat myself to Norton's God-am bot:
"Time is not a dimension; or, it's the only dimension,
whereby we perceive any others," Bucky saith, compared
to Minkowski's ridiculous slogan about a mere phase-space
(then, he died).

thus&so:
the thing about the "inverse" of cosines of multiple angles,
was cool; does it work with sines, trivially?
> http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/www/programs/delphi.htm#chemie

thus&so:
are they still using just urban albedo & evapotranspiration,
ignoring the burning of "fossilized fuels" and nuclear power?
there is a longstanding anomaly, not described by any model =
or GCM, that the nights & winters are warmer =
than the days & summers; so, do the math!

thus&so:
arctic ice isn't stable; it's all floating, won't change sea-level
if it should melt. (we must take into acount *all* human actions,
where possible, not just mere emmssions from Al Gore's footprints .-)
here's another thing that I've never seen considered about it,
when I read of Buzz Aldrin and company's picnic at the N.Pole:
750K-horsepower Soviet ice-breaker to get there. now,
get the schedule for that turkey & do the math of angular momentum!

thus&so:
the elephant in the water is Waxman's '91 bill on SO2 and NOX,
which supposedly was very effective, and it is cap&trade. so,
why does the Wall St. J. call his current bill, that's passed,
"cap&tax" -- did they refer to Kyoto as cap&tax, also, then?
while sequestration probably will not work,
there is one way of making fuel out of CO2 from coalplants,
combining it with methane to make methyl alcohol,
developed by a Nobelist, and used commercially for busses
in Europe and Asia, already, along with a further transformation
into another fuel.

thus&so:
Waxman's '91 bill on NOX and SO2 was cap&trade ...
Kyoto was cap&trade & Dubya "ought" to have signed it,
by his lights as an MBA ...
Kerry-Lieberman's and Waxman's passed bill are nothing,
but "freer trade," cap&trade.
so, why can't we just have a simple, small carbon tax,
thatt'd be a lot like a VAT, it's so all-encompassing --
which Waxman doesn't seem to realize, and is certainly
being played-down by the "yeah" and "neigh" sides
of this political debate; eh?

thus&so:
Oilgate is, Californians be #1 consumers of Gulf and Alaskan,
with Beyond Phossilized Phuels the largest producer --
I think, unless Shell is, in Alaska (but, it's half British).
sure, partly because we have the biggest population but,
another example of British perfidy (*prefide Albion*), that
Climategate could have purposely been leaked, because
the "mainstream" is so hegemonic with their rough-hewn GCMs,
which simply cannot predict weather with much fidelity,
for any length of time & given approximation
to "initializing-the-model conditions."
the funding for the old "cooling" paradigm
of the last two million years (Quaternary preiod),
went out the door to "warming," with a mid-'70s meeting
of the NSF, at which Oliver "Buck" Revelle laid-out the matter
-- he, later to be an unindicted co-conspirator
of George HW Bush in Iran-contra! (of course,
HW was also not indicted, just like for Watergate;
see http://tarpley.net).

thus&so: took just one of your exempli gratia; dyscuss!
> >>Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
> >>I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three
> >>explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and
> >>tower two started to come down.

thus&so:
so, you believe in the corpuscle, discredited by Young (well,
it was never a theory *per se*, from mister Fig "hypothesis non
fingo"
Knewtonne; that is, he asserted that light goes faster
in denser media, which was already (I believe) out of whack
with Snell's law of refraction, proven by Fermat).
of course, the most important milestone, aside
from Roemer's proof of the non-instanteity of light
(waves, he didn't know), was the elucidation of the "path
of least-time" by Leibniz and Bernoulli -- although,
that is just "ray-tracing," which is often interpreted
to be the path of a rock o'light!

--my broker says to call your broker about cap&trade, and
I'll tell you what happens.
http://wlym.com
From: spudnik on 9 Jul 2010 15:54
nice phrasing, since I don't suppose that
he has refuted Lagrange ... or, wait for it!

>    You could say that's the L1 Lagrange Point. But that's not the
>    answer. Can YOU calculate the distance between the earth and sun
>    where the force of gravity from the earth equals the force of
>    gravity from the sun?

thus&so:
it's easy to show redshifting of waves, propogated in the lab,
via the refractive index of some transparent material. so,
the burden of proof is upon those, who believe
in an absolute vacuum, through which "photons" must
be aimed at the rods & cones of one's retina.

> I meant that light emitted in a lab will never display Hubble redshift
> unless the experiment lasts a million years.

thus&so:
Pascal experimentally discovered the perfect vacuum
basically with a barometer (he also showed the heighth-limit
of a suction pump (stage) so, there), but he didn't know
of "partial pressures" ... he called it, the Plenum.

aether seems to be a paradigm that was brought
into being by the barely-understood phenomena of atoms
-- the real heresy of Galileo, not ye olde Copernicusism --
to wit the electromagnetic properties of the medium of space,
permitivity & permeability (becauseth,
ain't no a b s o l u t e v a c u u m .-)

thus&so:
I repeat myself to Norton's God-am bot:
"Time is not a dimension; or, it's the only dimension,
whereby we perceive any others," Bucky saith, compared
to Minkowski's ridiculous slogan about a mere phase-space
(then, he died).

thus&so:
the thing about the "inverse" of cosines of multiple angles,
was cool; does it work with sines, trivially?
> http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/www/programs/delphi.htm#chemie

thus&so:
are they still using just urban albedo & evapotranspiration,
ignoring the burning of "fossilized fuels" and nuclear power?
there is a longstanding anomaly, not described by any model =
or GCM, that the nights & winters are warmer =
than the days & summers; so, do the math!

thus&so:
arctic ice isn't stable; it's all floating, won't change sea-level
if it should melt. (we must take into acount *all* human actions,
where possible, not just mere emmssions from Al Gore's footprints .-)
here's another thing that I've never seen considered about it,
when I read of Buzz Aldrin and company's picnic at the N.Pole:
750K-horsepower Soviet ice-breaker to get there. now,
get the schedule for that turkey & do the math of angular momentum!

thus&so:
the elephant in the water is Waxman's '91 bill on SO2 and NOX,
which supposedly was very effective, and it is cap&trade. so,
why does the Wall St. J. call his current bill, that's passed,
"cap&tax" -- did they refer to Kyoto as cap&tax, also, then?
while sequestration probably will not work,
there is one way of making fuel out of CO2 from coalplants,
combining it with methane to make methyl alcohol,
developed by a Nobelist, and used commercially for busses
in Europe and Asia, already, along with a further transformation
into another fuel.

thus&so:
Waxman's '91 bill on NOX and SO2 was cap&trade ...
Kyoto was cap&trade & Dubya "ought" to have signed it,
by his lights as an MBA ...
Kerry-Lieberman's and Waxman's passed bill are nothing,
but "freer trade," cap&trade.
so, why can't we just have a simple, small carbon tax,
thatt'd be a lot like a VAT, it's so all-encompassing --
which Waxman doesn't seem to realize, and is certainly
being played-down by the "yeah" and "neigh" sides
of this political debate; eh?

thus&so:
Oilgate is, Californians be #1 consumers of Gulf and Alaskan,
with Beyond Phossilized Phuels the largest producer --
I think, unless Shell is, in Alaska (but, it's half British).
sure, partly because we have the biggest population but,
another example of British perfidy (*prefide Albion*), that
Climategate could have purposely been leaked, because
the "mainstream" is so hegemonic with their rough-hewn GCMs,
which simply cannot predict weather with much fidelity,
for any length of time & given approximation
to "initializing-the-model conditions."
the funding for the old "cooling" paradigm
of the last two million years (Quaternary preiod),
went out the door to "warming," with a mid-'70s meeting
of the NSF, at which Oliver "Buck" Revelle laid-out the matter
-- he, later to be an unindicted co-conspirator
of George HW Bush in Iran-contra! (of course,
HW was also not indicted, just like for Watergate;
see http://tarpley.net).

thus&so: took just one of your exempli gratia; dyscuss!
> >>Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
> >>I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three
> >>explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and
> >>tower two started to come down.

thus&so:
so, you believe in the corpuscle, discredited by Young (well,
it was never a theory *per se*, from mister Fig "hypothesis non
fingo"
Knewtonne; that is, he asserted that light goes faster
in denser media, which was already (I believe) out of whack
with Snell's law of refraction, proven by Fermat).
of course, the most important milestone, aside
from Roemer's proof of the non-instanteity of light
(waves, he didn't know), was the elucidation of the "path
of least-time" by Leibniz and Bernoulli -- although,
that is just "ray-tracing," which is often interpreted
to be the path of a rock o'light!

--my broker says to call your broker about cap&trade, and
I'll tell you what happens.
http://wlym.com
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Prev: Another factual, articulate rebuttal of the government's 9-11 conspiracylies
Next: The Muir Russell Review