Prev: do you need two names for getting this n.g from two servers ??!!
Next: ****Re: Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
From: mpc755 on 19 Jun 2010 21:24
On Jun 19, 8:54 pm, Ghod Dhammit <g...(a)att.net> wrote:
> On 6/19/2010 2:19 PM, Mitchell Jones wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Therefore we
> > can now say that the theory of relativity has been refuted by
> > experiment,
>
> Sure, sure.....
>
> > and that the gravitationally entrained aether theory has
> > been confirmed.
>
> Aether theory, sure......no, aether theories have not, at this point,
> been "confirmed".
>
> You sound like a crackpot, you know.  Is that how you wish to be perceived?

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the
matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
aether's state of displacement.

Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
The material is maether.
Maether has mass.
Aether and matter have mass.
Aether is uncompressed maether and matter is compressed maether.
Aether is displaced by matter.
The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'.
The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether.
Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter.

A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The
C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. The aether wave enters
and exits multiple slits. The aether wave creates interference upon
exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule
travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the aether
wave and there is no interference.

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?
By A. EINSTEIN'
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."

The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three
dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether
and matter is energy.

Mass does not convert to energy. Matter converts to aether. As the
mæther transitions from matter to aether it increases in volume. The
physical effect the increase in volume has on the neighboring matter
and aether is energy.

The physical effect of maether decompressing is energy.

Mass is conserved.

The rate at which an atomic clock 'ticks' is based upon the aether
pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS
satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether
and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS
satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest
with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to
"result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated
with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS
satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth" causing the GPS
clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The aether pressure
associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with
respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the
aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites
[to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground."
(quoted text from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).

'The Need to Understand Mass'
By Roger Cashmore
Department of Physics
University of Oxford, UK.
http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs2.htm

"There is, however, one very clever and very elegant solution to this
problem, a solution first proposed by Peter Higgs. He proposed that
the whole of space is permeated by a field, similar in some ways to
the electromagnetic field. As particles move through space they travel
through this field, and if they interact with it they acquire what
appears to be mass. This is similar to the action of viscous forces
felt by particles moving through any thick liquid. the larger the
interaction of the particles with the field, the more mass they appear
to have. Thus the existence of this field is essential in Higg's
hypothesis for the production of the mass of particles."

The "action of viscous forces felt by particles moving through any
thick liquid" is the particles interaction with the aether. The force
is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the particle.
The "thick liquid" is the aether behaving as a frictionless superfluid
'one something'.

"the larger the interaction of the particles with the field, the more
mass they appear to have." The faster the particle moves with respect
to the aether, the greater the pressure exerted by the displaced
aether towards the particle.

'Politics, Solid State and the Higgs'
By David Miller
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University College, London, UK.
http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs3.htm

"1. The Higgs Mechanism
In three dimensions, and with the complications of relativity, this is
the Higgs mechanism. In order to give particles mass, a background
field is invented which becomes locally distorted whenever a particle
moves through it. The distortion - the clustering of the field around
the particle - generates the particle's mass. The idea comes directly
from the physics of solids. Instead of a field spread throughout all
space a solid contains a lattice of positively charged crystal atoms.
When an electron moves through the lattice the atoms are attracted to
it, causing the electron's effective mass to be as much as 40 times
bigger than the mass of a free electron."

The distortion of the background field is the displacement of the
aether by the moving particle. The 'clustering' of the field around
the particle is the 'displacing back'. The 'clustering' of the field
is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the particle.

"The idea comes directly from the physics of solids." The aether
behaves as a frictionless superfluid 'one something'.

In the Casimir Effect, the aether displaced by each of the plates
extends past the other plate, forcing the plates together.
From: Mitchell Jones on 19 Jun 2010 22:25
In article <w4udnan6nMVA-4DRnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d(a)supernews.com>,
Ghod Dhammit <ghod(a)att.net> wrote:

> On 6/19/2010 2:19 PM, Mitchell Jones wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > Therefore we
> > can now say that the theory of relativity has been refuted by
> > experiment,
>
> Sure, sure.....
>
> > and that the gravitationally entrained aether theory has
> > been confirmed.
>
> Aether theory, sure......no, aether theories have not, at this point,
> been "confirmed".
>
> You sound like a crackpot, you know. Is that how you wish to be perceived?

***{In the fullness of time the bodies we presently occupy will exist
only as scattered atoms, and no one, including us, will remember the
names we had during our lives here on Earth. Given that, why should we
care how others think we sound, or how we are perceived?

In reality, I do not post here in hopes of projecting an image to
others, but rather (a) because I see substantive discussions as an
efficient vehicle for growing my understanding of the world, and (b)
because I see understanding as the one thing that we can take with us,
as we each move through our own endless cycles of death and rebirth.

We can take new understandings with us into our next life because as our
understanding grows, we grow. Understandings are part of the essence of
who we are, and, as such, are part of the recipe that must be fulfilled
to bring us back into the world.

--Mitchell Jones}***

*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
From: Mitchell Jones on 19 Jun 2010 22:56
In article <87vntaF3qiU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On 17/06/2010 20:06, Mitchell Jones wrote:
> > In article<87mvsmFp5eU7(a)mid.individual.net>,
> > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 14/06/2010 06:54, Mitchell Jones wrote:
> >>> In article<hv41to$992$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> >>> Xan Du<xan747(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 6/13/2010 9:37 PM, Mitchell Jones wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >>>>> Such insights enable us to make sense out of the experimentally derived
> >>>>> equation below:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> t' = t[1 - v^2/c^2]^.5
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What it means is that (a) aether pressure rises within regions where the
> >>>>> motion of aether is impeded, relative to surrounding regions where it is
> >>>>> in unimpeded motion, (b) the aether is very nearly incompressible, but,
> >>>>> if the relative motion between an impeded region and its surroundings is
> >>>>> great enough, the gradual rise in pressure within the impeded flow
> >>>>> region will begin to have measurable effects, (c) one of those effects
> >>>>> will be a gradual compression that, in turn, will bring about a slowing
> >>>>> of all movement within the region, and (d) the pattern of that slowing,
> >>>>> based on experimental results, is described by the above equation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What this all has to do with "aether displacement," on the other hand, I
> >>>>> have no idea.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --Mitchell Jones}***
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >>>> So, why isn't the aether interplanetary? Interstellar? Intergalactic?
> >>>>
> >>>> -Xan
> >>>
> >>> ***{It is. The surface of the Earth's pool lies within the region of
> >>> gravitational dominance of the Earth. Above the surface there is a an
> >>> interface zone, where the Earth's pool, which moves with the Earth,
> >>> comes into turbulent contact with the Sun's pool. Since the Earth moves
> >>> around the Sun at 29 kps, those are the relative speeds at which the two
> >>> pools interact across the interface zone.
> >>>
> >>> Above that zone of turbulence, we move into the Sun's pool, which
> >>> includes all regions of the Solar System not within the gravitational
> >>> dominance of lesser bodies, such as planets, moons, asteroids, comets,
> >>> etc. Thus each body within the solar system carries with it its own
> >>> aether pool, in its region of gravitational dominance.
> >>>
> >>> Above the surface of the Sun's pool, we transition into the aether pool
> >>> of the Milky Way galaxy, which includes all regions in the galaxy not
> >>> within the gravitational dominance of the included stars, clusters of
> >>> stars, black holes, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Above the surface of the galaxy's pool lies the local group's pool,
> >>> which includes all regions of the local group not within the
> >>> gravitational dominance of the included galaxies and other structures.
> >>>
> >>> Bottom line: each gravitating body or large scale structure in the
> >>> universe carries within the zone of its gravitational dominance an
> >>> associated aether pool, which extends throughout the region not
> >>> dominated by lesser bodies, whether gravitationally bound to the primary
> >>> or just passing through.
> >>>
> >>> --Mitchell Jones}***
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> And so we have a fluid that exerts pressure but does not do so in a
> >> manner that causes drag?
> >
> > ***{Suppose you have a speedboat with a big electric motor and have
> > clamped the rudder tightly into a position so that the boat can only go
> > straight ahead. Standing on the dock, you lean over and flip the switch
> > that turns on the motor. Result: the motor comes on, the drive shaft
> > begins turning the propellor, giving the boat a forward thrust, and it
> > moves out into the lake. Since its speed relative to the water starts
> > out at zero, drag starts out at zero. Result: the boat will begin to
> > accelerate in a straight line, and, as it accelerates, the forces of air
> > and water drag resisting its forward motion will increase. If Ft is the
> > force by which the propellor thrusts the boat forward and Fd is the
> > force of drag, then so long as Ft> Fd, the boat will continue to
> > accelerate. But the faster it goes, the greater Fd becomes. Result:
> > eventually Ft = Fd, and at that point the boat will have achieved
> > terminal velocity, Vt. Acceleration then ceases. Thereafter, the boat
> > will continue in a straight line at constant speed Vt until it runs out
> > of fuel, has a collision, some mechanical malfunction occurs, or
> > whatever.
> >
> > Now suppose you have two identical boats like the above. You build a
> > flat framework of very stiff, strong, lightweight material, lay it down
> > on top of them, and bolt them to it so that their bows touch and they
> > face one another down their centerlines. Result: if you turn them both
> > on, then in the absence of currents in the air or the water, they will
> > just sit there and churn the water without moving. Their thrusts are
> > equal and oppositely directed, so they will cancel out.
> >
> > Note that any speed at all between 0 and Vt could be obtained for the
> > attached pair, simply by changing the angle between their centerlines. A
> > 1% angle of intersection between centerlines would produce slow movement
> > toward the apex of the angle of centerline intersection; a 2% angle
> > would produce a bit faster motion; and so on. In each case, the pairs of
> > boats would at first accelerate until drag equaled their net thrust in
> > the forward direction, and thereafter would move at a steady speed in a
> > uniform direction until their fuel ran out. Maximum speed of Vt could be
> > achieved when their centerlines were parallel and they were facing in
> > the same direction, like a pair of pontoons. And if their centerlines
> > were parallel and they were facing in opposite directions, they would
> > both go around in a circle until they ran out of fuel.
> >
> > Note that a similar framework could be laid down over any number of such
> > boats, and they could be lashed to it in orientations that produced just
> > about any sort of steady motion at terminal velocity that one desired.
> > You could lash twenty, or a hundred, or a thousand boats together so
> > that the group of boats rotated at a steady rate, or moved in any
> > direction at a constant speed. Depending on the arrangement, the speed
> > of movement of the array of boats as a whole could be anywhere between 0
> > and Vt, and the pattern of the motion could be rectilinear, circular,
> > cycloidal, elliptical, etc.
> >
> > The point is simple: it is possible that ordinary material
> > entities--i.e., all of the material entities which mainstream science
> > acknowledges to exist--are merely arrangements of presently unknown
> > lesser particles--call them "energy corpuscles"--which are analogous to
> > tiny speedboats. If so, then when we see an entity that seems to be
> > behaving in accordance with Newton's First Law of Motion--i.e., moving
> > through empty space in the absence of an external force--we may really
> > be looking at an entity which is a fixed arrangement of lesser particles
> > each of which has some power source that enables it to produce its own
> > thrust, and which is moving through the aether at a terminal velocity
> > determined by the opposition between aether drag and the vector sum of
> > all of those tiny thrusts.
> >
> > How, after all, could we tell the difference?
> >
> > Suppose, for example, that a photon is a fixed array of energy
> > corpuscles all pointing in the same direction, and that the speed of
> > light is the terminal velocity of an energy corpuscle relative to the
> > aether in which it is immersed.
> >
> > By what reasoning could we discount such a possibility?
> >
> > To shed some more light on this idea, suppose that you hit a croquet
> > ball with a wooden mallet and it scoots off through the nearest wicket.
> > At the moment of contact between mallet and ball, it is possible that a
> > number of energy corpuscles which had their centerlines pointed at the
> > wicket may have jumped from the mallet to the ball. If so, that would
> > explain why the mallet stopped moving and the ball started up, and it
> > would also explain why it subsequently passed through the wicket.
> >
> > Again, by what reasoning could we discount such a possibility?
> >
> > So, to return to your question about drag, the presence of aether drag,
> > in a universe where material entities were NOT composed of energy
> > corpuscles, would result in a violation of Newton's First Law of Motion.
> > That means things would not continue in constant motion in a straight
> > line unless acted on by an external force. Instead, all inertial motions
> > would eventually come to a stop, due to the effects of aether drag.
> >
> > However, the presence of aether drag in a universe where ordinary
> > material entities are composed of energy corpuscles, would result in
> > Newton's First Law working just fine, because the drag-induced tendency
> > for things to slow down would be exactly counterbalanced by the net
> > thrust provided by the energy corpuscles of which ordinary material
> > entities were composed.
> >
> > In reason we begin by stating, as clearly as we can, the question to be
> > answered. The question, in this case, is how inertial motion is to be
> > explained. How is it, exactly, that an object in motion in a straight
> > line can retain that state of motion, in a universe which massive
> > evidence indicates is pervaded by a gravitationally entrained
> > particulate medium, the aether?
> >
> > After the question has been stated, the next step in the reasoning
> > process is to state, as clearly as we can, the various possible answers
> > to the question. They are the following:
> >
> > Possibility Number 1. We have no aether, but ordinary material entities
> > are composed of energy corpuscles.
> >
> > That's impossible because, in such a universe, only accelerated motion
> > would be possible.
> >
> > Possibility Number 2. We have an aether, and ordinary material entities
> > are not composed of energy corpuscles.
> >
> > That's impossible, because in such a universe Newton's First Law would
> > not work, and inertial motions would all slow to a halt.
> >
> > Possibility Number 3. We have no aether, and material entities are not
> > composed of energy corpuscles.
> >
> > This is the conventional view, but it has no power to explain any of the
> > relevant experimentally derived mathematics, ranging from E = mc^2,
> > through the velocity and gravity induced slowing of clocks, down to
> > things as simple as why hitting a croquet ball with a mallet will send
> > it rolling through a wicket. By the conventional view, you do
> > experiments, formulate equations that, to good accuracy, match the
> > results of experiment, and you don't bother to ask yourself why the
> > equations work--which means: you don't concern yourself with the nature
> > of the reality which underlies the equations.
> >
> > The problem with this view is that it contradicts the principle of
> > continuity in multitudinous ways. For example, the velocity induced
> > slowing of clocks, in the absence of an aether, would require a force
> > leaping into existence out of nothing or vanishing into nothing.
> > Identical clocks act the same, unless subjected to differing forces, and
> > the principle of continuity requires that all forces be carried by
> > entities. Since the velocity induced slowing of clocks is a proven
> > observational fact, it follows that the clocks in question are subject
> > to differing forces, and, thus, it follows that entities must be
> > impinging on the clock mechanisms in ways that differ depending on
> > velocity. What entities? Why, the particles of an aetherial medium, of
> > course.
> >
> > Bottom line: the conventional view, by explaining nothing, in effect
> > postulates magic--which means: continuity violations--and as such is
> > self-contradictory and refuted on its face.
> >
> > Possibility Number 4. We have an aether, and ordinary material entities
> > are composed of energy corpuscles.
> >
> > This is my view, because it is the only possibility that remains, due to
> > the various contradictions associated with the other alternatives.
> >
> > The proponents of possibility number (3), of course, think they see
> > massive problems with possibility number (4), but this post has gone on
> > long enough, so I'll refrain from guessing at what anybody's objections
> > might be, and simply stop here. (Not that I'm unaware of those
> > objections, of course. We have hacked our way through many of them right
> > here in the past, as many of you doubtlessly recall. :-)
> >
> > More later.
>
> The major problems with your approach being the immense complexity of
> the mathematics of what is essentially fluid dynamics. Indeed, you do
> not offer any mathematics whereas conventional STR has a couple of
> simple axioms, c=const in all inertial frames and universality of the
> laws of physics, which can be turned into very simple math that is
> experimentally confirmed.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_special_relativity
>
> Show me your simple math derived from your view of the Ether.

***{I thought I had made it clear that I am not arguing with the
generally accepted mathematical formulae that are used to calculate the
sorts of things that we have been discussing. By and large, I accept and
use the same experimentally derived mathematical constructs as
mainstream physicists. The reason: you can't argue with mathematics
derived from experiment, unless you can demonstrate flaws in the
experimental design, or can bring forward new experimental results that
the generally accepted equations ought to predict, but do not.

Unfortunately, most of the people who post incessantly to these groups
and rail against Einstein's math simply do not understand where the math
comes from. They believe, because Einstein's non-mathematical, natural
language commentaries referred to transparent nonsense such as "curved
space," "time dilation," "length contraction," "universal speed limits,"
and various other forms of tiresome irrationalist hooey, that the
mathematical formulae that he used must have been wrong. "Garbage in,
garbage out," they say.

Well, it isn't that easy. The fact that Einstein's philosophy was a stew
of irrationalism doesn't mean that his math is wrong. The basic fallacy
in the mind of the typical person who fulminates against "relativity" is
simply this: he thinks Einstein's mathematics is based on his
crackbrained natural-language ravings.

That belief, however, is as boneheaded as thinking that Newton's theory
of universal gravitation flowed out of his ridiculous, convoluted,
casuistic religious silliness, and, as a consequence, is dependent on
it. The reality is that philosophical or religious silliness is likely
to come out of a physicist's mouth when he is asked what his favorite
equations mean. However, even if you can see holes a mile wide in such
statements, that does not mean the equations must be wrong. The reality
is that the most basic equations of physics begin their lives as
descriptions of the patterns of known experimental results. In the
beginning, no one understands the underlying reality that caused those
patterns to manifest themselves. That means the equations of physics can
be refuted in one way only: by pointing out solid experimental evidence
showing results which the equations ought to predict, but don't.

In summary, I am not arguing with Einstein's favorite equations, or
attempting to identify experiments that refute them. What I am doing is
accepting the mathematics, tossing out Einstein's natural language,
non-mathematical, irrationalist interpretive framework, and bringing
forward an interpretive framework that makes sense.

My goal, in short, is to understand the reality that underlies the math.

Of course, understanding always begets new questions and new insights.
As an example of the latter, I have already pointed out that the
gravitationally entrained aether theory leads to the realization that
equations defining the region of a celestial body's gravitational
dominance also provide criteria that tell us which numbers to plug into
the mislabeled "time dilation" equations. (Clock calibration equations
would be a better name for them.) As far as I am aware, there is nothing
in "the theory of relativity" that is capable of doing that. (If you
think I am incorrect about this, feel free to bring me up to speed on
the matter.)

I would also note that I have made a testable prediction--to wit: that
Earth orbits with radii significantly greater than 260,000 km will
require the use of values for v that are relative to the Sun, while
those significantly below 260,000 km will require the use of values for
v taken relative to the Earth. (I suggested, in an earlier post, that an
orbit at 320,000 km would be a good place to test this idea.)

To sum up, you misunderstand my position if you expect me to trot forth
a new mathematical system to substitute for the equations favored by
Einstein. My disagreement with him is about his non-mathematical,
natural language interpretive framework--i.e., with his so called
"theory of relativity--and is NOT about his math.

Incidentally, please note that math has no philosophy. It doesn't give a
hoot in hell about the philosophy of the person using it. All it cares
about is whether he plugs in the correct numbers and does the correct
manipulations. If he does, he will get correct answers, and if not, not.
Thus the only advantage one natural language interpretive framework has
over another, where the associated math is concerned, is if one
framework sheds more light on the physical reality underlying the
equations and, as a result, makes it more likely that a user will, in
fact, plug in the right numbers and do the correct manipulations.

Beyond that, I would also point out that Einstein has no unique claim to
the so called "math of relativity." The reason: most of the equations in
his system were originally discovered by his predecessors. They found
them the old-fashioned way, by struggling for days, or weeks, or months,
to find the patterns underlying experimental results that, for one
reason or another, tweaked their interest. While the original
discoverers/creators of those equations, were they still alive, might
have a legitimate claim to receive financial royalties from anyone who
used them commercially, Einstein himself would have no better claim to
most of them than you or I.

In short, we can, and should, use the same equations that he used where
appropriate, and we can do so with no apologies, no guilt, and with no
obligation whatsoever to accept the precepts of Einstein's
non-mathematical and howlingly irrational "theory of relativity."

--Mitchell Jones}***

> --
> Dirk
>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show

*****************************************************************
If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility
that you are in my killfile. --MJ
From: Koobee Wublee on 20 Jun 2010 01:12
On Jun 19, 12:19 pm, Mitchell Jones wrote:

> Of course, it has now been demonstrated that a clock in GPS orbit loses
> time relative to an identical clock at sea level. The proof: the clocks
> intended for GPS orbit have to be adjusted, while on the ground, to run
> 38 microseconds per day slower than a standard ground-based clock, to
> ensure that, when in GPS orbit, they will speed up enough to keep pace
> with clocks on the ground.

Nonsense. As long as all the satellite clocks run at the same
frequency, it will be fine regardless of what frequency the ground
system run at. <shrug>

The rest of howling nonsense is mercifully snipped to preserve
sanity. Study how the GPS actually works first instead of rambling
out howling like a mad dog.


From: hanson on 20 Jun 2010 12:52
"Mitchell Jones" <mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote:
I do not post here in hopes of projecting an image to
others, but rather
(a) because I see [to me] substantive discussions as an
efficient vehicle for growing my understanding of the world, and
(b) because I see understanding as the one thing that we can
take with us, as we each move through our own endless cycles
of death and rebirth.
We can take new understandings with us into our next life
because as our understanding grows, we grow. Understandings
are part of the essence of who we are, and, as such, are part
of the recipe that must be fulfilled to bring us back into the world.
--Mitchell Jones
>
hanson wrote:
Mitch, with your part (a) I can go along since this particular
medium/forum here provides so many different viewpoints
& reasons about any given subject that is under discussion.
>
In your part (b) though you come across as a proselytizer
who just converted from Judaism to Hinduism, or if not that,
then you must be in your final twitches, and be absolutely
terrified about the reality setting in that you are about to fold
your tent, close your umbrella and kick the bucket....
>
Your way out seems to be by adopting the ancient Hindu
hope of reincarnation. Well, no body ever came back, just
like no younger Einstein twin was ever seen...
>
Therefore consider alternativesand be macho (like Marlon
Brando...) and say:
"It�s a long lonely journey... but now I know why it is called the
magnificent horror with its moral terror & endless darkness.
Horror has a face and you must make friends with horror.
Horror and moral terror are your friends, for if they are not,
then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies
who bury your monotone & monochromatic religious happiness.

So, what happened to you, Mitch?
hanson


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: do you need two names for getting this n.g from two servers ??!!
Next: ****Re: Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him