On Apr 22, 7:48*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:18*am, "Tom Potter" wrote:



"NoEinstein" wrote in message

...
On Apr 21, 8:18 am, "Tom Potter" wrote:

"
?=
wrote in message

.. .

What makes you believe Art Deco could understand
â?o integer units of action â? ? !

He couldn't understand potty humor if it exeeded one line.
We're like idiot savants with non-overlapping esoteric talents;
so one man's talent can't be seen by the other.

Actually Art Deco understands, and does,
his job very well.

Art works out of the caliballista.org boiler-room,
which is operated by a few Jewish bigots,
and used to intimidate and smear people,
that the bigots target.

Art's job is not to engage in rational, intelligent, moral
discussions to arrive at fundamental truths,

but his job is to smear folks, and obscure threads
on issues that his handlers don't want to have
the public exposed to.

Art does his job in several ways.

1. He ****es out posters,
and gets them off the issue,
and into a ****ing war.

2. He tries to link his victims
with negative images, negative ideas,
and negative people.

3. He appends alt.usenet.kook
to threads he wants to disrupt
in order to instigate a flame war between
the poster, the caliballista, boiler-rook bigots,
and the young boys and sociopaths
who hang out in alt.usenet.kook.

Art does a pretty good job
directing the activities of a few race/religion motivated bigots,
and in exploiting inferiority complexes in a few
sociopaths and young boys,
who tend to boost their egos by demeaning folks.
( Note that Art also exploits the inferiority complexes
of young boys and sociopaths in the serious newsgroups,
and gets some of them to append alt.usenet.kook to posts.

The Republican Party,
and now the Clinton gang
use the same tactics
used by the calaballista.org race motivated bigots,
and the tactic must work,
as they spend millions of dollars
trying to divert the attention of people
from facts and details.

I dare say that if Obama becomes president,
the masses will begin to turn aggressively on the
bigots, media, and politicians who use
smear as a weapon to promote their agenda,
which could not be promote successfully
using logic, intelligence and facts.

Hopefully, when the public gets sick of the
smear tactics, laws will be passed that make
it easy for folks smeared by Institutionalized Bigotry
to collect damages from the individuals and
organization that effected the smears.

The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his
own."

To read the stories of a few of the many folks
who have been victims of Institutionalized bigotry
visit the web site below.

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...crazyideas.blo....

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

-- Dear Tom: *If Obama becomes President, the USA is probably doomed....

Considering that - NoEinstein -
is making Einstein look good,

and considering that he is opposed to Obama,
the only candidate for president
that is not totally controlled by the Jewish lobby,

one has to wonder if - NoEinstein -
is a shill,

working for the Einstein Cult,
and the War-for-Profit Gang.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...crazyideas.blo...

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Tom: *Obama is a "minority" candidate supported by "minority"
Jews. *TIME-Warner and CNN network are hugely biased toward Obama.
The publishers of science texts are mostly controlled by Jews; and
those love the fact that they make so much money trying to "explain"
Einstein. *Einstein was a Jew, and Jews get their egos boosted by
letting him remain unchallenged. *So, you could rightly say that Jews
are the primary reason my Einstein disproofs haven't gotten to the
front pages. *Do you agree? *:-) *— NoEinstein —

Bingo! Another sociopath finally takes off the mask and speaks his
mind in foamy-lipped candor!

PD

On Apr 22, 7:04*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 21, 9:22*pm, Huang wrote:



On Apr 21, 5:18*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 20, 10:09*pm, Huang wrote:

On Apr 20, 8:09*pm, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 19, 12:09*am, Huang wrote:

Light can be a wave or a particle, but not both at the same time..

This is because physical length can be either continuous or discrete,
but not both at the same time.

And this is because a random length may be regarded as being
indeterminately continuous or discrete.

And to understand this you must understand existential indeterminacy.
That points may be regarded as being existentially indeterminate, but
there is another equally valid approach which does NOT consider points
to be existentially indeterminate, and that BOTH cases are equally
valid.

You should now know exactly what a photon is, what gravity is, dark
matter, and everything else.

Dear Huang: *You just quote Einstein. *But I've disproved that man up,
down, and sideways! *Light is PHOTONS only, NOT a wave... EVER!
Please go to my profile and read my recent posts. *Then, you should
agree to forget his moronic ideas. *— NoEinstein —- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I wish Einstein were here to kick your ass properly, and in person.

If light did'nt behave like a wave then they would'nt be calling it a
wave-prticle duality. It would be the "particle singularity" hah hah..

Dear Huang: *I'll get the last laugh! *Since I've disproved Einstein's
theories of relativity, and etc., nothing that "they" say is worth a
damn.

Light can be either wave or particle because just like gravity, it is
composed only of space. Gravity is nothing more than a deformation of
space. Why should photons be any different?

Einstein's moronic "space-time" ideas resulted from Lorentz's lame
brain attempt to explain the nil result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley
experiment. *Since all of the optics were rotated in the same PLANE
(horizontal), the supposed TIME change in one light course was always
exactly the same as for the other light course. *Because I discovered
the simple fact that the M-M experiment was designed without an
unchanging CONTROL, there was no need to change the... rulers and
clocks to *******ize science to suit Einstein's whim.

My own X-Y-Z interferometer easily detects Earth's movement in the
cosmos. *Einstein himself said that no Earth based experiment could
detect such movement, but he was so WRONG! *— NoEinstein —

[Snip remaining dribble...]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Congradulations. That is the MOST RIDICULOUS thing that I have EVER
heard.

If only there were a prize befitting of the achievement, some thing
like a softened icecream cone placed upside down on top of your
head.... to be worn like a party hat.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Huang: *Since you are a stupid, obnoxious pest, I'm promoting you
to a persona no grata! *— NoEinstein —

Congratulations, Huang.
The list of "persona no grata" grows weekly. NoEinstein doesn't seem
to find many that he doesn't consider PNGs -- so far his acceptable
list includes Tom Potter with a provisional admission for Jeff Relf.

PD

On Apr 22, 7:40*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 21, 9:51*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:



On Apr 21, 2:18*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
[snip]

My own X-Y-Z interferometer easily detects Earth's movement in the
cosmos. *Einstein himself said that no Earth based experiment could
detect such movement, but he was so WRONG! *— NoEinstein —

Really?

That'd be worth a Nobel - why do you keep it to yourself?

[Snip remaining dribble...]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Eric: *Have you gotten "religion" or something? *You've made
three non-offensive comments in a row. *Keep that up and I will remove
your PNG status!
* * *To answer your question: *My simple experiment has been described
in numerous of my replies. *One guy, Tom Davidson, even asked for, and
got a drawing and a detailed description of the construction.

Tom, I'd be interested in your emailing the drawing and the detailed
description of the construction. I'll take this to be NoEinstein's
"publication" of his paper. Thanks in advance.

*I will
avoid any "PD like" groupies who only want to pass judgment—when they
have zero qualifications to p... on anything. *If you will search my
profile for: X-Y-Z interferometer, one or more of those will describe
the arrangement of the laser, mirrors and target, etc. *But to
understand what is happening all that is needed is to realize that
while the light (of either light course) is in transit, the apparatus
itself keeps moving due to Earth's velocity component. *My
interferometer places the CONTROL light course on the SAME Z axis that
the rest of the apparatus rotates about. *The beam splitter is
perpendicular to the first leg of the laser light. *Since the TIME
required for light to travel to a PERPENDICULAR surface doesn't vary,
even though the mirror is moving, such can act as a CONTROL (something
that doesn't vary, to which something that DOES vary can be compared).
* * *After passing through the 30R, 70T beam splitter, the TEST light
course reflects from a 45 degree first surface mirror; and on to a
perpendicular first surface mirror; back to the 45 degree mirror;
through the BS; and on to the painted metal target bonded to the front
of the laser. *That target has a precision pin hole to allow the laser
light to pass through. *Because the light diverges about .5 degree, by
the time it reflects back to the target, the fringe pattern is a clear
3/8" diameter with about 8 fringes.
* * *The reason my interferometer works, and the M-M didn't, is
because M-M had BOTH light courses reflect from the 45 degree mirror!
So, the lateral motion of the apparatus affected both of its light
courses, identically. *My interferometer has an effective physical
length change of the light course that reflects from the 45 degree
mirror. *The faster the Earth's velocity component, the further off
center the light hits the 45 degree mirror, and the greater is the
physical change in the length of that course. *As Michelson knew, a
physical change of length (via screws) of ONE COURSE of his
interferometer allowed making precise measurements—like the "official"
meter stick. *But when he let Earth's velocity "move" the light, both
courses reflected from the 45 degree BS, and so both TIMES of travel
remained identical…
* * *If any of those two dozen universities that I've sent all of my
information to had been objective, they have had more than enough time
to replicate my results. *So, THAT is the real reason it SEEMS that I
am keeping my experiment to myself. *There just aren't any (ha, ha...)
“scientists” out there objective enough to buck the status quo of
stupidity at ALL USA universities! *Note: Exceptions to the latter are
URGED to ask for my experiment descriptions! *— NoEinstein —

On Apr 23, 6:23*am, John Kennaugh
wrote:
PD wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:00*am, John Kennaugh
wrote:

One cannot prove it is a wave only show evidence that it might be.
Similarly you cannot prove it is particles. What is critical is evidence
that it isn't a wave or evidence that it isn't a particle.
It cannot be both.

Why not?

One has to either explain how a wave can give an
impeccable impression of being a particle, or explain how particles can
give rise to very convincing wavelike properties. To me the former is
impossible the latter exceedingly difficult. You may see it differently..

A US quarter exhibits the properties of a US president. It also
exhibits the properties of a carnivorous bird.

A US quarter is incapable of starting an unnecessary war without having
even the vaguest plan as to what to do after it had been 'won' neither
is it capable of eating flesh so a US quarter exhibits neither the
properties of a president nor of a carnivorous bird.

Well, the electron is incapable of always being localizable, and so it
also fails at exhibiting the properties of a particle. And an electron
is incapable of delivering its momentum in continuous fashion, and so
it also fails at exhibiting the properties of a wave. To Tom's point,
this indicates that an electron is neither a particle or a wave in
this sense, though it exhibits properties of both.

The blame doesn't rest on the electron, of course. The problem is our
assumption that physical entities can be exhaustively and mutually
exclusively characterized as particles or as waves. That assumption
now appears to be poor.

On Apr 23, 6:25*am, John Kennaugh
wrote:
Androcles wrote:
I cannot be a father and a cyclist,

A man can be a father, a man can be a cyclist. A man cannot be both in
one place and everywhere at the same time.

Actually, yes a man can be everywhere at the same time, just like an
electron or a photon can. It just so happens that the measurable
effects of this phenomenon are well outside our ability to detect
them.

A man cannot at the same time
punch a hole in a fence and spread himself evenly along its entire
length.

Well, an electron doesn't do that at the same time, either. But it
does do both in different circumstances.


--
John Kennaugh

On Apr 23, 6:45*am, "Androcles" wrote:
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message

.uk...

If you wish to comment upon what I write, Kennaugh, don't do a
Phuckwit Duck

Like this.

and knee-jerk into mid-sentence

Or even respond precisely at the most appropriate place.

or you will
be snipped in return.

Like what you are likely to see now.

Androcles has rules, you see.


| Androcles wrote:

|
I cannot be a father and a cyclist, a diner and an airline passenger,
an engineer and a clerk? You have a strange idea of what cannot be.
QUESTION MARK * ^
Can you see the question mark, knee-jerk Kennaugh?

Light is a wave and a particle, it can be and it is both.
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm

On Apr 18, 11:19 am, Sanny wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

Without a biological response, light is nothing but less than a god
particle or quantum string of energy, at best a secondary/recoil of
the mostly dark matter that makes up 95% of our universe.

This mostly empty universe of 0.1 atom/m3, and dark matter of 2/m3 is
however chuck full of photons and gravitons, perhaps on average to the
tune of 1e100/atom.

If the Universe were expanding at 'c', the population density of
photons and gravitons will remain forever constant.
.. - Brad Guth

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 6:45 am, "Androcles" wrote:
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"John Kennaugh" wrote in message

.uk...

If you wish to comment upon what I write, Kennaugh, don't do a
Phuckwit Duck

| Like

Knows his name...

On Apr 21, 7:15Â*pm, wrote:
Like idiot savants, most have special talents
which aren't recognizable to the general public.
R. Buckminster Fuller's work was very public, mine much less so.

For example,PMB( a.k.a. Peter Brown in Sci.Physics.Relativity )
shows lots of complex equations, but most here would have to spend
many hours studying it before they could offer
an honest / detailed critique of his work.


Those derivations are posted when I'm confident that the person I'm
responding to understands the physics/math well enough to follow the
derivation.

Pete











Likewise.. even if you understood how OLE2, VC++ 8.0, WinVista,
and VBA ( Visual Basic for Appications ) automate Visual Studio 2005,

you still might have to put in several days of hard study
before you could understand the following code:
“ #undef Â* _DEBUG
Â* #define Â*UNICODE
Â* #define Â*_WIN32_WINNT 0x0501

Â* #include Windows.H
Â* #include Ole2.H

Â* #pragma warning( disable: Â*\
Â* Â* 4189 4244 4305 4430 4508 4554 4701 4702 4706 4709 4996 Â*)

Â* #define Â*Loop( L ) int J = -1, LLL = L; while ( ++J LLL )
Â* #define Â*Zero( X ) Â*memset( & ( X ), 0, sizeof( X ) )

Â* typedef char Â** __LnP ; Â*typedef wchar_t Â** LnP ;
Â* const int Â*SzPtr = sizeof __LnP ;

Â* Â* #define Rel( X ) Â*\
Â* Â* Â* ( ! X ? 0 : (short) X == -1 ? X = 0 : ( X-Release(), X = 0))

Â* Â* #define FrV( X ) Â*\
Â* Â* Â* ( X.vt== VT_DISPATCH Â*\
Â* Â* Â* Â* ? 0 : VariantClear( & X ), memset( & X, 0, sizeof X ) )

Â* Â* typedef Â*IDispatch * Â*OleT ; Â*VARIANT Â*OleRV, Var, BSaveAll_VS ;
Â* Call…(
Â* Â* Â* int IdenType, OleT pDisp
Â* Â* , wchar_t * ptName, int Cnt_Comming, __LnP SP ) {

Â* Â* HRESULT rv ; Â*FrV( OleRV );
Â* Â* if ( ! pDisp || short( pDisp ) == -1 ) Â*return ;
Â* Â* DISPPARAMS Â*ParamList = {}; Â*DISPID IdenID ;
Â* Â* rv = pDisp-GetIDsOfNames(
Â* Â* Â* IID_NULL, & ptName, 1, LOCALE_USER_DEFAULT, & IdenID );

Â* Â* if ( FAILED( rv ) ) { Â*FrV( OleRV ); return ; Â*}

Â* Â* VARIANT Â*
Â* Â* Â* * B_Args = new Â*VARIANT [ Cnt_Comming + 1 ]
Â* Â* , * P_Args = B_Args + Cnt_Comming ;

Â* Â* Loop( Cnt_Comming ) Â*
Â* Â* Â* * -- P_Args = * ( VARIANT * ) SP, SP += sizeof VARIANT ;

Â* Â* ParamList.cArgs = Cnt_Comming, ParamList.rgvarg = B_Args;

Â* Â* if ( IdenType & DISPATCH_PROPERTYPUT ) { Â*ParamList.cNamedArgs = 1 ; Â*
Â* Â* Â* DISPID dispidNamed = DISPID_PROPERTYPUT ; Â*
Â* Â* Â* ParamList.rgdispidNamedArgs = & dispidNamed ; Â*}

Â* Â* rv = pDisp-Invoke(
Â* Â* Â* Â* IdenID, IID_NULL, LOCALE_SYSTEM_DEFAULT
Â* Â* Â* , IdenType, & ParamList, & OleRV, 0, 0 );
Â* Â* delete [] B_Args;
Â* Â* if ( rv 0 || OleRV.vt = 1 || OleRV.vt == VT_ERROR )
Â* Â* Â* FrV( OleRV ); Â*}

Â* Call_Ole…( OleT X, LnP Â*Y, int Z, ... ) { Â*Zero( OleRV );
Â* Â* Call…( DISPATCH_METHOD, X,Y,Z, __LnP( & Z ) + SzPtr );
Â* Â* FrV( Var ); Â*}

Â* int __stdcall WinMain( HINSTANCE, HINSTANCE, char*, int ) { Â*
Â* Â* CoInitialize( 0 );
Â* Â* CLSID Â*clsid ; Â*CLSIDFromProgID( L"VisualStudio.DTE", & clsid );

Â* Â* IUnknown * _VS = 0 ; Â*OleT Â*VS = 0 ;
Â* Â* GetActiveObject( clsid, 0, ( IUnknown * * ) & _VS );
Â* Â* if ( _VS ) Â*_VS-QueryInterface( IID_IDispatch, (void **) & VS );

Â* Â* BSaveAll_VS.vt = VT_BSTR ;
Â* Â* BSaveAll_VS.bstrVal = SysAllocString( L"File.SaveAll" );

Â* Â* Call_Ole…( VS, L"ExecuteCommand", 1, BSaveAll_VS );
Â* Â* Rel( VS ), Rel( _VS ); Â*} Â*â€�.

Mr. NoEinstein writes:
“ Jews are the primary reason
my Einstein disproofs haven't gotten to the front pages. �.

Which Jews, exactly, blocked these “ disproofs � ?
which synagogue do they attend ?

Einstein worried about / helped Jews in NAZI Germany,
but he was only nominally Jewish.. same for Karl Marx.

Yet, for some here, Einstein, Marx and other “ notional Jews �
have been made into very strange looking bogeymen.