Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: spudnik on 11 Jan 2010 23:55 and there's an other such person: these generical detectors can, no doubt, be considered to be antennae; think about it. > This from the same person who chooses to believe a C-60 molecule > enters a single slit or multiple slits depending upon detectors being > placed at the exits to the slits in the future (while the C-60 > molecule is in the slits). thus: the worshipful reliance upon all things stated by Albert Einstein, at least until the 'twenties, is that promoted by the British Military-educational Complex, a.k.a. the Harry Potter PSes (Oxbridge). however, insofar as you've gone beyond that, it's a kind-of-interesting! > Einstein never says the aether does not consist of particles. thus: it behooves one to say it "in so many words," to evoke some pattern of comprehension on one's own part, instead of just "linking to Wookeypoopeya," or Encycl.Brit., or the compedium of the found tribe of the Wolframites. (but, > I've given you the ages of all of the stars in each of the systems that thus: he was referring to the matter of climate-gate, so called, and most of the assumptions are terribly conversant with only the last hundred years, but with significant fudge-factors of ignoring *every* God-am thing that is invconvenient. there is actually quite a lot of rather sporadic CO2 data, some by some sort of proxt or other, like ice-cores, going to the 19th century I think it is a valid question, What might occur, if CO2 remained at its current level, or if it dereased, considering cap&trade (circa '91); today's Wall Street Urinal makes a point of saying that either capNtrade or carbon taxation would have the desired eefect! --l'OEuvre! http://wlym.com http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Article_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf
From: spudnik on 13 Jan 2010 01:55 thus far, you have failed to define your teriminology, viz "entrainment" and "displacement." what do you porpose as a unique experiment, utilizing these putative properties? what about antimatter? --l'OEuvre! http://wlym.com
From: Richard Herring on 14 Jan 2010 13:00 In message <hgmkn6$kh8$2(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Tom Potter <xprivatnews(a)mailinator.com> writes > >"Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:-tKdndzYz5VUaLHWnZ2dnUVZ_jRi4p2d(a)mchsi.com... >> On 12/19/09 12:24 AM, Tom Potter wrote: >> >>> >>> Galileo discovered >>> that the frequency of oscillators >>> varied with acceleration, ... >> >> Where in the literature is is discovery noted, Potter? > >Start with these Sammy. > >http://www.imss.fi.it/ms72/INDEX.HTM Potter can read Latin now? Impressive. But I bet he can't tell us which of Galileo's propositions in that document supposedly justifies his claim. >http://scanserver.ulib.org/is/scanserver/newton/xml/doc.scn?pg=409&rp=ht >tp%3A%2F%2Fscanserver.ulib.org%2Fis%2Fscanserver%2FSearch.asp%3FgroupId% >3Dnewton%26bookId%3Dnewton%26query%3Dpendulum&auth=c2b421b91241a34ea8 Galileo wrote Newton's Principia? -- Richard Herring
From: spudnik on 20 Jan 2010 01:31
here is the reference, Mister Aether-fluffy-logic: look under the heading of "Physics" in http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/sample.html > > there is an old fluff-over in the Moving Bodies paper, but > > I don't know if you can find it on the larouchepub.com sites, > > concerning the homopolar generator. anyway, along > Aether Displacement and the associated aether pressure is the physical > explanation for gravity. --l'OEuvre! http://wlym.com |