Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Tony Lance on 2 Feb 2007 10:59 Big Bertha Thing spider Cosmic Ray Series Possible Real World System Constructs http://web.onetel.com/~tonylance/spider.html Access page JPG 11K Image Astrophysics net ring Access site Newsgroup Reviews including uk.rec.cycling Drawing of a clockwork spider wheel and hairpin. Extract from Introductory Chapter;- The "Spider tops," which are frequently sold in the streets of London, consist of a heavy little disc mounted on a spindle (Fig. XIV.). When the disc has been set spinning a small curved piece of metal is placed to touch the toe, and at once begins to slide round it, first the side (a) in the figure, and then the side (b), the motion continuing backwards and forwards till the top comes to rest. The fact is that the toe is magnetic, and this being the case it is easy to see that the rolling of the toe on the side of the metal produces the motion. From the book An Elementary Treatment of the Theory of Spinning Tops and Gyroscopic Motion. By Harold Crabtree M.A. Formerly Scholar of Pembroke College, Cambridge Assistant Master at Charterhouse Longmans, Green and Co. 1923 First Edition 1909 Second Edition 1914 New Impression 1923 (C) Copyright Tony Lance 1998 Distribute complete and free of charge to comply. Big Bertha Thing fact Anything but a fact, changes the face of twentieth century science. 1. No iron moons and planetary cores. 2. No red shift measure of speed. 3. No Patrick Moore star at 95% the speed of light. 4. Muons arrive on earth. 5. Relativity is like an imaginary number; useful but not real. 6. Einstein-Haas gives a field strength 1/10000th the electric field. 7. Wave particle duality is a field effect. 8. Schroedinger is an approximation. Who has the wit to check the fact? Tony Lance judemarie(a)bigberthathing.co.uk
From: Lloyd Parker on 2 Feb 2007 05:58 In article <epvf55$8qk_025(a)s893.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <epstsb$qbr$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <epq6o6$8qk_005(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <epo4a4$kra$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>In article <9d81f$45bf6f6d$4fe7196$2020(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <epne6r$8ss_002(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <45BE0B7D.D6FA8748(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Only losing nations and their executives ever face the >>>>>>>>>>>consequences. No nation or national executive engages >>>>>>>>>>>in war with the thought of losing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Hmmmm, well there's more than few in the UK who would like to see >Tony >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Blair >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>prosecuted for war crimes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Under whose law? Islam's? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Under British law you nitwit. Britain is a signatory to the Geneva >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Conventions >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>you know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So you want your political leaders to be punished for >>>>>>>trying to do their job. That kind of thinking must >>>>>>>give lots of encouragement to those who intend to >>>>>>>destroy your lifestyle. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>/BAH >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The sovereign being above the law went out in the US around 1776. I >>doubt >>>>it >>>>>> applies in the UK any longer either. >>>>> >>>>>Not completely. Judicial immunity and a few other features >>>>>arise out of sovereign immunity. This has been discussed in >>>>>SCOTUS opinions more than a few times. >>>>> >>>> >>>>But not sovereign immunity (or Nixon wouldn't have needed that pardon). >>> >>>Nixon didn't need the pardon; the United States of America >>>needed that pardon. >> >>Huh? If Nixon couldn't have been prosecuted, neither he nor the US would >have >>gone through anything. >> >>>You may not remember the villification >>>Ford received because he took away all chances of getting >>>revenge. >>> >>>/BAH >> >>Sure do. But again, if there was no way to "get revenge", why the pardon? > >It was to take away all distractions and force Washington to begin >dealing with the real problems. Things were in a mess. Nobody >had been doing their job for a long time. > >/BAH Not so. Once out of office, Congress could do nothing to Nixon (impeachment being their only way of doing something). They could hold more hearings if they wanted, but they could do that whether Nixon was pardoned or not.
From: Lloyd Parker on 2 Feb 2007 05:56 In article <epvcgf$8qk_014(a)s893.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <58776$45c259f5$4fe752c$2080(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: ><snip> > > >>However, nobody in the US was formally researching "making a >>bomb" till the Manhattan project so far as I know. That there >>were a few mathematical physicists around the world, including >>the USA, who were toying with the possibilities isn't disputed. >>What is fact is that it took 3 years to make the bomb once >>anyone got serious about it. > >If you ever get a chance to visit Oakridge, don't forget to >look up. I was stunned to see all the strung wire. A lot >of it was accumulated over the years, but still, the manpower >to put it up there was just astounding. It was one the >beautiful moments in my life. > >Perhaps they've cleaned it up. That would be said if they have. > ><snip> > >/BAH The entire Manhattan project is an amazing story. All the scientists (we'll never see so many great minds in one place again, I'd wager), the resources, the cost, the way towns were bought out, the way new towns were put up overnight. And the lack of modern tech -- they had row after row of women doing a calculation and passing the number to the next one, since there were no computers. Fascinating story.
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Feb 2007 11:35 In article <PuKdnc4y8bbF017YnZ2dnUVZ8turnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:epvc02$8qk_012(a)s893.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <877iv1n7xs.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>> The US started with no knowledge and built bombs within 3 years. >>>> This included all of the infrastructure required. >>>> The knowledge has been around for five decades so nobody >>>> has to do that work. >>> >>>It also includes the requirement that you think 6 is 3. >>> >>>BAH maths is BAD maths. >>> >>>It also presumes that Szil�rd, Teller, Einstein and Oppenheimer, >>>had no knowledge before they started working on the projects. >>>Weird, as Szil�rd was researching the matter at about the same >>>time as the Erm�chtigungsgesetz was kicking in (but not publishing >>>his work for that very reason). >>> >>>BAH history is BAD history. >> >> There is a huge difference between theory and playing in the labs >> and putting something into production. >> >> With the bomb, both were happening at the same time. It's still >> an amazing managment effort. Unfortunately, it takes war >> to get everybody to aim at the same goal. > >(sorry pressed send before typing last time) > >Another reason not to declare war on everything. Sure. Now that we have a real one, nobody believes it. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 2 Feb 2007 11:38
In article <88371$45c345d4$49ecf7f$10679(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Eeyore wrote: >> >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>What part of "not having an atomic bomb for quite some years" do you not >>>>>>understand? >>>>> >>>>>The US started with no knowledge and built bombs within 3 years. >>>>>This included all of the infrastructure required. >>>>>The knowledge has been around for five decades so nobody >>>>>has to do that work. >>>>> >>>>>Why does everybody assume that countries have to take longer to >>>>>assemble a bomb? >>>>> >>>> >>>>Interesting. Before we even begin to think about this new question, are you >>>>saying (now) that Iran has a competent industrialised system which is >>>>capable of the manufacturing required? >>> >>>I think it's a shame that they are pouring their resources into >>>bomb manufacturing rather than more useful stuff. The more >>>useful stuff would have a side effect of acquiring the power and >>>world respect that Iran wants. >> >> >> All of which completely fails to address the question asked of you. > >LOL, she answered it better than you have the capacity >to understand. Thanks. I thought I had answered it, too. /BAH |