On Apr 24, 6:08*am, "Tom Potter" wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
...

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.

Congratulations PD!
The list of Bigots grows weekly.

So far the acceptable list includes:
PD
Art Deco
Eric Gisse
with a provisional admission for Uncle Al.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...m/PotterPhotos

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

Dear Tom: I keep hoping that I, or someone, can teach one of these
"old dogs" new tricks. I don't have much hope for PD. Eric Gisse has
periods of lucidity followed by dastardliness. He may have (quite
common) schizophrenia. I've had few replies from 'Art'; but Uncle Al
is all over the place on science. Hard to understand why... —
NoEinstein —

On Apr 24, 6:17*am, "Tom Potter" wrote:
"NoEinstein" wrote in message

...





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 -

I don't know what the "primary reason"
for the lack of acceptance of your "Einstein disproofs" is,
as I have not read your "Einstein disproofs",

but any idea, if it is powerful enough,
can overcome the Jewish bias in media.

Regarding your comment:
"Obama is a "minority" candidate
supported by "minority" Jews."

Although Obama has given lip service to Jews
in order to avoid being "Jimmy Cartered",
there is no doubt that the Clintons, the Bushes,
and McClain are owned lock, stock, and barrel by Jews,
and that Obama is not in their employee,
nor will he be intimidated by them,
once he becomes president.

Considering that Osama is the only threat to
the Jewish agenda, I wouldn't be surprised
if the Mossad finds themselves another
"James Earl Ray", and have him assassinate Obama,
so the deed can be blamed on Rednecks in general,
in order to instigate an enormous conflict between
Blacks and Whites, and get Jews back into control,
pulling the strings on either Clinton or McClain,
as they did on the Bushes.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...m/PotterPhotos

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

- Show quoted text -

Dear Tom: Shame on you! Don't put violent ideas into anyone's head!
The most divisive thing would be for any of our candidates for any
office to be harmed. America must not let that sort of "remedy" be
part of her legacy! — NoEinstein —

On Apr 26, 11:29Â*pm, doug doug@none wrote:
NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 23, 11:57 am, wrote:
Mr. NoEinstein writes:

“ Jews are the primary reason
Â* my Einstein disproofs haven't gotten to the front pages. â€�.

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.

Dear Jeff: Â*Einstein wasn't a boogieman. Â*He was just a naive,
mentally deficient, hard worker with an ego problem. Â*

He was also correct which seems to give you a problem with
your ego.

You describe how

your mother is expecting the... Second Coming of Christ. Â*Yet, you
talk like a Jew. Â*Don't blame me for telling it like it is that TIME
magazine, owned by Jews, won't consider my disproofs of Einstein,

The other possible reason is that you are a clueless crank who
has idea of what physics is about and are only a source of
amusement to the people who come here.

but

WILL list Lisa Randall, a Jew, as one of the top scientists—because
she contrived... "branes', or tiny universes and etc.
Â* Â* Â*I wanted you to help model the M-M experiment, but you keep
letting your "thinking" get in the way. Â*Stay on science, and leave
sociology to other news groups. Â*— NoEinstein —

I note that your knowledge of sociology is as deficient as your
physics knowledge.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Doug: Is your ego hurting? Make a contribution without trying
to bring others down to your level. — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:08 am, "Tom Potter" wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
...
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.
Congratulations PD!
The list of Bigots grows weekly.

So far the acceptable list includes:
PD
Art Deco
Eric Gisse
with a provisional admission for Uncle Al.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...m/PotterPhotos

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

Dear Tom: I keep hoping that I, or someone, can teach one of these
"old dogs" new tricks. I don't have much hope for PD. Eric Gisse has
periods of lucidity followed by dastardliness. He may have (quite
common) schizophrenia. I've had few replies from 'Art'; but Uncle Al
is all over the place on science. Hard to understand why... —
NoEinstein —
Uncle Al understands that you do not know any physics as do the rest of
the posters.
People are open to new truths but you have found none.

John Kennaugh wrote:
jem wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
jem wrote:
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.

PD overestimated your ability to extract the point from his
example. Try this. A US quarter "gives an impeccable
impression" of being a picture of a president,

so using Kennaugh "logic" it's impossible, or at least
exceedingly difficult, for it to "give an impeccable
impression" of being a picture of an eagle too.
It has a picture of a president on one side and a picture of an
eagle on the other. If it was cubic it could have six pictures
one on each side. A 'picture' is not fundamentally different to
another 'picture' physically they are built up using the same
technique of raised bits of metal. They differ only in which
bits of metal are raised and by how much and what is done on one
side in no way puts constraints on what is done on the other and
you cannot distort "Kennaugh's logic" to imply that it says it
does.

In order to learn from an analogy, Kennaugh, you need to look to
the similarities, not the dissimilarities.

The statement "light is a wave and particles" is a paradox.

Definition "Paradox" -A statement which is seemingly absurd but may
nevertheless be true.

Any useful analogy must include a paradox. There is nothing even
vaguely paradoxical about two sides of a coin having different images
on them. There are no similarities to look for in the so called an
analogy.

Paradoxes are in the eye of the beholder. The light case is just as
trivially non-contradictory as the coin case - just not to you.

(Incidentally, don't presume that logically impossible occurrences can't
happen. Our logic is just another model that's based on past
observations of Nature - it's as subject to falsification as any other
model.)



A wave on the other hand is a function of continuous fields and a
photon is definitely not continuous. Now if you watch a film it
looks to be a continuously moving picture but you know that it
is made up of a series of fixed images. It doesn't mean we have
to accept that it IS a continuously moving picture and IS also a
series of fixed images. It IS a series of fixed images which give
an impeccable impression of being a moving picture. Light is not
both waves AND photons - although it might be neither. The most
promising approach is that light IS made up of photons which
together give an impeccable impression of being waves. Just as we
understand how a series of fixed images can give rise to an
impression of continuously moving pictures it might be possible
to understand how photons can give the impression that they are
waves.

Light IS something* that exhibits *both* wave-like AND
particle-like behavior, but if it makes you happier to think that
light IS a particle which also "gives an impeccable impression" of
being a wave,

I do.

or IS a wave which also "gives an impeccable impression" of being a
particle,

I cannot see how that would work.


go right ahead, because such distinctions are entirely irrelevant
to Science.


* Having discussed related issues with you before, I know it's
necessary to point out that light isn't something that exists in
Nature with properties that Science attempts to discover

I'm afraid it is. The fact that physics has redefined itself to the
point where is can no longer be considered "science" is not my
problem.

The construction of predictive logical systems to compare against
observation is what *defines* Science. Your inability to understand
that, is your problem.


- it's something that exists in models of Nature where *what* it
is, is *exactly* what it's *defined* to be.


R.A.Waldron has suggested [1] a structural model of a photon with
which explains the wavelike properties of light but physics
doctrine has declared that a photon has no internal structure
which is rather limiting. Like trying to explain how one gets the
impression of detailed moving pictures from a series of blank
frames rather than assuming that something in the nature of the
frames gives rise to the impression of detailed moving pictures.


Your goal for physical models, Kennaugh, is to get them to conform
to your common-sense notions, but the modern view of Science is
that the proper goal for physical models is the accurate prediction
of experimental outcomes

So provided you can mathematically generate accurate tide tables
there is no need to enquire and try to understand the real physical
processes in nature which makes the tides go in and out. What a
truly degenerate view of science.

It's not that there's "no need to" - there's /no way to/ - there's
simply nothing about Nature that can be verified other than the outcomes
of repeatable experiments (i.e. measurements). The ontological
descriptions (i.e. models) which facilitate thinking about and talking
about the logical systems (i.e. the math) that Science creates to mirror
natural phenomena, simply *can't* be tested by observing Nature.

Case in point: LET and SRT are two distinct ontological models that are
based on the same mathematics (i.e. both models predict exactly the same
phenomenological behavior). However, since Nature provides no
information except phenomenological behavior, it's clear that Nature
*can't* tell us which is the better model.

Understand? The math is testable - the "ontologics" aren't. Your quest
to understand Nature by discovering its driving mechanisms, is
pie-in-the-sky.



- common-sense needs to conform to accurate models.

[1] "The Spinning Photon" R.A.Waldron 1983 - Speculations in
Science and Technology Vol6 No2

On Apr 27, 2:20*pm, jem wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
jem wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
jem wrote:
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.

PD overestimated your ability to extract the point from his
example. Try this. *A US quarter "gives an impeccable
impression" of being a picture of a president,

so using Kennaugh "logic" it's impossible, or at least
exceedingly difficult, for it to "give an impeccable
impression" of being a picture of an eagle too.
It has a picture of a president on one side and a picture of an
eagle on *the other. If it was cubic it could have six pictures
one on each side. A 'picture' is not fundamentally different to
another 'picture' physically they are built up using the same
technique of raised bits of *metal. They differ only in which
bits of metal are raised and by how *much and what is done on one
side in no way puts constraints on what is *done on the other and
you cannot distort "Kennaugh's logic" to imply *that it says it
does.

In order to learn from an analogy, Kennaugh, you need to look to
the similarities, not the dissimilarities.

The statement "light is a wave and particles" is a paradox.

Definition "Paradox" -A statement which is seemingly absurd but may
nevertheless be true.

Any useful analogy must include a paradox. There is nothing even
vaguely paradoxical about two sides of a coin having different images
on them. There are no similarities to look for in the so called an
analogy.

Paradoxes are in the eye of the beholder. *The light case is just as
trivially non-contradictory as the coin case - just not to you.

(Incidentally, don't presume that logically impossible occurrences can't
happen. *Our logic is just another model that's based on past
observations of Nature - it's as subject to falsification as any other
model.)







A wave on the other hand is a function of continuous fields and a
*photon *is definitely not continuous. Now if you watch a film it
looks to be a continuously moving picture but *you know that it
is made up of a series of fixed images. It doesn't mean *we have
to accept that it IS a continuously moving picture and IS also a
series of fixed images. It IS a series of fixed images which give
an *impeccable impression of being a moving picture. Light is not
both waves AND photons - although it might be neither. The most
promising approach is that light IS made up of photons which
together give an impeccable impression of being waves. Just as we
*understand how a series of fixed images can give rise to an
impression of continuously moving pictures it might be possible
to understand how photons can give the impression that they are
waves.

Light IS something* that exhibits *both* wave-like AND
particle-like behavior, but if it makes you happier to think that
light IS a particle which also "gives an impeccable impression" of
being a wave,

I do.

or IS a wave which also "gives an impeccable impression" of being a
*particle,

I cannot see how that would work.

go right ahead, because such distinctions are entirely irrelevant
to Science.

* Having discussed related issues with you before, I know it's
necessary to point out that light isn't something that exists in
Nature with properties that Science attempts to discover

I'm afraid it is. The fact that physics has redefined itself to the
point where is can no longer be considered "science" is not my
problem.

The construction of predictive logical systems to compare against
observation is what *defines* Science. *Your inability to understand
that, is your problem.







- it's something that exists in models of Nature where *what* it
is, is *exactly* what it's *defined* to be.

R.A.Waldron has suggested [1] a structural model of a photon with
*which *explains the wavelike properties of light but physics
doctrine has *declared that a photon has no internal structure
which is rather limiting. Like trying to explain how one gets the
impression of detailed *moving pictures from a series of blank
frames rather than assuming that *something in the nature of the
frames gives rise to the impression of *detailed moving pictures.

Your goal for physical models, Kennaugh, is to get them to conform
to your common-sense notions, but the modern view of Science is
that the proper goal for physical models is the accurate prediction
of experimental outcomes

So provided you can mathematically generate accurate tide tables
there is no need to enquire and try to understand the real physical
processes in nature which makes the tides go in and out. *What a
truly degenerate view of science.

It's not that there's "no need to" - there's /no way to/ - there's
simply nothing about Nature that can be verified other than the outcomes
of repeatable experiments (i.e. measurements). *The ontological
descriptions (i.e. models) which facilitate thinking about and talking
about the logical systems (i.e. the math) that Science creates to mirror
natural phenomena, simply *can't* be tested by observing Nature.

Case in point: LET and SRT are two distinct ontological models that are
based on the same mathematics (i.e. both models predict exactly the same
phenomenological behavior). *However, since Nature provides no
information except phenomenological behavior, it's clear that Nature
*can't* tell us which is the better model.

Understand? *The math is testable - the "ontologics" aren't. *Your quest
to understand Nature by discovering its driving mechanisms, is
pie-in-the-sky.





- common-sense needs to conform to accurate models.

[1] "The Spinning Photon" R.A.Waldron 1983 - Speculations in
Science and *Technology Vol6 No2- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Electricty and magnetism of light becomes the mass of electromagnetic
matter; the proton and the electron.

Birth is the leading cause of death.
Given enough time, any immune system will give out,
and cancer is the result.

Consuming more ( especially alcohol and legal / illegal drugs )
makes one's immune system prematurely decrepit... that's called AIDS.

We have but one “ choice �:
“ Live faster ( consuming more ) or live longer. �.

This is true on a global level too, not just personally.
As I've said before..

Just as over-eating and over-drinking ruins one's health,
nations birthing too many kids and consuming too much crude oil
have ruined the health of the global economy.

To improve our health, we need more taxes and regulations,
especially child support “ taxes �.

While “ sperm donors � get an automatic ( computerized )
life-long irrevocable lien ( no judge can touch it )
accruing at 12 percent A.P.R. ( in “ interest and penalties � )..

The mothers with young kids that I know get:
1,200 apartments for 120 dollars per month, free medical, free food,
free cash, free day care, free schooling ( college ), etc., etc.

No wonder people will do anything to immigrate to the U.S. !
“ able-bodied males � ( like me ) get the bill.. nothing more.

On Apr 27, 12:04*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 24, 6:08*am, "Tom Potter" wrote:



"PD" wrote in message
....

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.

Congratulations PD!
The list of Bigots grows weekly.

So far the acceptable list includes:
PD
Art Deco
EricGisse
with a provisional admission for Uncle Al.

--
Tom Potter

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

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

Dear Tom: *I keep hoping that I, or someone, can teach one of these
"old dogs" new tricks. *I don't have much hope for PD. *EricGissehas
periods of lucidity followed by dastardliness. *He may have (quite
common) schizophrenia. *I've had few replies from 'Art'; but Uncle Al
is all over the place on science. *Hard to understand why... *—
NoEinstein —

Remember kids - I'm crazy, not stupid.

A photon is a field.. not a particle, not a wave.
Each photon has a super-tiny 4-D gravitational field
that's invisible, unblockable and infinite in extent.

Your attemps to model photons as waves of billiard balls ( an aether )
fails completely.

All you've done is:
A. Failed to understand General Relativity.

B. Claimed G.R. is wrong.

C. Failed to offer a better way to mode what is, empirically,
the super-tiny 4-D gravitational field of a photon.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:41:11 +0000 (UTC), Jeff?Relf
wrote:

A photon is a field.. not a particle, not a wave.
Each photon has a super-tiny 4-D gravitational field
that's invisible, unblockable and infinite in extent.

You're making Einstein look like an idiot, so stop trying to help.
--

"I want to fight religion as the root of all
human lying and the only excuse for suffering."
Ayn Rand, militant atheist