Prev: Garbage in, Garbage out (Was Re: Why the Ignorant / Stupid Are the First Responders to Good Math / Science / Tech OPs)
Next: Potato head's Oily Obama worries
From: spudnik on 23 Jun 2010 22:17
teabagism is based on a false principle,
that the American Revolution was predicated
upon "taxation without representation,"
which was but a tiny corner of the real ecoonomic problem
-- which is exemplified by the so-called Nobel Prize
in Economics, such as the NYTimes columnist got;
there ain't no such a thing!

thus&so:
there is one theory, that Moon is a dead planet; that is,
if one does not assume that all craters are via bolides,
that the maria are basaltic seafloors, and the highlands
being the finally acreted "Panluna."

therefore, if residual water is to be found,
mayhap also residual hydrocarbons.

> The vacuum of the lunar surface makes anything of a conventional
> liquid or fluid impossible.

thus&so:
are not there already several kinds
of "surrogate factoring" in numbertheory ...
is that a demonstration of the meaning Life,
Universe and 42?

yeah; the second Meander number!

thus&so:
that's about what Roemer did (no umlaut
for the o, hereat). note that
Vedic astrology included the precession of the equinoxes,
whereas Western or Symbolic or Solar atrology doesn't;
it is based upon Ptolemy's hoax, which had no epicylce
for that well-known phenomenon. so,
when a typical western astrologer does your sign,
it is no-better than the twelve daily fortune-cookies
in the newspaper -- Sydney Omarr is dead;
long-live Sydney Omarr (TM) !!

> > a + b + c + d = x^2
> > a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2 = y^2
> > a^3+b^3+c^3+d^3 = z^3
> If (a, b, c, d) is a solution then so is
> (akk, bkk, ckk, dkk)
> for any square kk.
> Solutions for a,b,c,d < 1300 with
> no such common square factor include
> (0, 0, 0, 1)
> (10, 13, 14, 44)
> (54, 109, 202, 260)
> (102, 130, 234, 318)

thus&so:
surely it could not be so hard,
to find some of the rather definitive un-null results
of Michelson, Morely et al; is it?... well, even
as Albert the Witnit wobbled on the idea of aether,
it is really a matter of interpretation. so,
why cannot the electromagnetic properties
of atoms in "space" be an aether; to wit,
permitivity & permeability?
should your "theory" can be taken at all seriously,
you'd have to be able to explain such; would you not?
oh, and there never was a twin paradox;
it is just a "term of art" and pop-science. I mean,
shouldn't the few properties of energy, of light,
be of the ultimate importance for matter,
per the experiments of Young, Fresnel et al,
in utterly burying Newton's "theory" of corpuscles
-- til it was rescued by the word, "photon;
hereinat to be interpreted to mean a massless rock
o'light?... and, thanks for that Nobel!"
> Using Larmor’s transform, there is no twin’s paradox.

--BP loves Waxman-Obama cap&trade (at least circa Kyoto, or
Waxman's '91 cap&trade on NOX and SO2) --
how about a tiny tax, instead of the Last Bailout
of Wall Street and the "City of London?"
http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/100621pne_nordyke.html

--le theoreme prochaine du Fermatttt!
http://wlym.com
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Garbage in, Garbage out (Was Re: Why the Ignorant / Stupid Are the First Responders to Good Math / Science / Tech OPs)
Next: Potato head's Oily Obama worries