Although I'm a poor hermit, I once woke up in the middle of a dream
where I was rich and famous, with groupies vying for my attention.

According to you ( it seems ),
I made this “ the physical world �, not “ confined to my mind �.
Not bloody likely, I say.

Physical processes determine absolutely everything.
I'm a physicalist; I believe in physicalism.
My main hope is: “ I'll remain happy, no matter my losses. �.

Just as over- eating / 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 doners � get an automatic ( computerized )
life-long irrevocable lien ( no judge can touch it )
accruing at 12 percent A.P.R. ( in “ interest and penalties � )..

General tax money is used to pay the medical expenses of single mothers,
and to house / feed them in fine style, and to give them free day-care,
and free schooling for the mothers ( college ) and kids.

Is this a good idea ? I wonder. Certainly, it's attracting the immigrants.

You wrote:
“ Crackpotter ! How you doin' ?
BTW, this mess makes no sense at all. �.

In your little world, a “ Kook � is:
anyone who doesn't restrain his comments to single-line potty humor.

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Apr 19, 1:51 am, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"Paul Mays" wrote in message

...





"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On Apr 18, 12:52 pm, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message


...

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

Perhaps you'll become the first to know the answer, because
Einstein
didn't have a clue.

I might care to rethink of those photons we see and of all those
photons we can't see as simply slow moving gravitons, or perhaps
as
somewhat quantum string like items. Of course, this still
doesn't
tell us specifically as to "what is light".

Is there even any such thing as an original photon, or is each
and
every available photon merely a secondary/recoil result of
gravitons
interacting with other gravitons, or of gravitons interacting
with
mass?

Pure energy seems to create photons, but without available
gravitons
it doesn't hardly matter, does it.
. -BradGuth

I gota definition I like too...

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

I like your interpretation as much as that one provided by '"dlzc".

However, if gravity/gravitons didn't exist, neither would the
quantum
string like photon. In other words, without the spin of atoms, we
got
nothing.
. -BradGuth

Well my interpretation Explains why there no need for gravitons to
denote the Causation of Gravity, What specifically light is and why its
detectable as a Wave or Little ball of stuff (Photon), Why its velocity
will always be independent of source or target, and seemingly a
constant..

Yet allows all existing physical rules to remain valid to a
Intrinsically
Biased observer.

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

Is this "intrinsically biased observer" ever allowed to use good old
deductive formulated logic?

How about allowing for an intrinsic biased form of observationology,
meaning the deductive interpreting of pixels as being those patterns
of whatever's perfectly natural as opposed to what's artificial/
intelligent looking.
. - Brad Guth

Yes he is.. But due to The Intrinsic nature of the Bias the observer
may fail the attempt to formulate logic and perceive the observed in
such a way as to require concepts to be Assumed.

Take two objects that observe each other, How do they observer? They can
only produce Wave Forms that impact the other and return with information
that the other can use for said such a deduction. If as the wave forms both
use to transfer information Heterodyne then the information either gains at
the
observation is Intrinsically Biased so as to skew any deduction attempted
from
said observation.

If you spend a little time looking over the postulate I have posted you may
find I have attempted to do just that. logically contemplate the observed
universe and deducing a Simple rational that allows existing rules to remain
valid while giving Causation weight in the logic, which existing physical
rules ignore.

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:42:00 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

I wrote:
“ Randomness is ignorance; it exists only in the mind.
No matter what else is or isn't known,
metaphysically, we ‘ know ’ the cosmos is fully causal. ”.

And you replied:
“ Randomness is not ignorance.
It is the foundation of probability theory.
Do you argue that probability theory is ignorance as well ? ”.

Plus, probability might just be a way of weighing up which causes are
more likely to happen than others.

In , =?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2
=96=B2Relf?= =?UTF-8?Q? said:
You wrote:
⤽ Crackpotter ! How you doin' ?
BTW, this mess makes no sense at all. �.

Your posts rarely do, =?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=96=B2Relf?=

[...]

--
Kali

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:41:25 -0400, Kali wrote:

In , =?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2
=96=B2Relf?= =?UTF-8?Q? said:
You wrote:
“ Crackpotter ! How you doin' ?
BTW, this mess makes no sense at all. �.

Your posts rarely do, =?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=96=B2Relf?=

[...]

Why does the tardlet use a Unicode font?

What does it do that a simple system font doesn't?
Well...beside making his poasts look like mangled muck.

--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)

COOSN-266-06-02374
Hammer of Thor, April 2005
PIERRE SALINGER MEMORIAL HOOK, LINE & SINKER June 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle X 2
#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine

=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=96=B2Relf?= ?= clouded the waters of pure thought with:
You wrote:
“ Crackpotter ! How you doin' ?
BTW, this mess makes no sense at all. �.

In your little world, a “ Kook � is:
anyone who doesn't restrain his comments to single-line potty humor.

#
# Example fpc.cfg for Free Pascal Compiler
#

# ----------------------
# Defines (preprocessor)
# ----------------------

#
# nested #IFNDEF, #IFDEF, #ENDIF, #ELSE, #DEFINE, #UNDEF are allowed
#
# -d is the same as #DEFINE
# -u is the same as #UNDEF
#

# When not m68k is defined at the commandline, define i386
#IFNDEF m68k
#DEFINE i386
#ENDIF

#
# Some examples (for switches see below, and the -? helppages)
#
# Try compiling with the -dRELEASE or -dDEBUG on the commandline
#

# For a release compile with optimizes and strip debuginfo
#IFDEF RELEASE
-OG2p3
-Xs
#WRITE Compiling Release Version
#ENDIF

# For a debug version compile with debuginfo and all codegeneration checks on
#IFDEF DEBUG
-g
-Crtoi
#WRITE Compiling Debug Version
#ENDIF

# ----------------
# Parsing switches
# ----------------

# All assembler blocks are intel styled by default
#-Rintel

# All assembler blocks are AT&T styled by default
#-Ratt

# Semantic checking
# -S2 switch some Delphi 2 extension on
# -Sc supports operators like C (*=,+=,/= and -=)
# -Sg allows LABEL and GOTO
# -Si support C++ stlyed INLINE
# -Sm support macros like C (global)
# -So tries to be TP/BP 7.0 compatible
# -Ss constructor name must be init (destructor must be done)
# -St allows static keyword in objects

# Allow goto, inline, C-operators, C-vars
-Sgic2

# ---------------
# Code generation
# ---------------

# Uncomment the next line if you always want static/dynamic units by default
# (can be overruled with -CD, -CS at the commandline)
#-CS
#-CD

# Set the default heapsize to 8Mb
#-Ch8000000

# Set default codegeneration checks (iocheck, overflow, range, stack)
#-Ci
#-Co
#-Cr
#-Ct

# Optimizer switches
# -Og generate smaller code
# -OG generate faster code (default)
# -Or keep certain variables in registers (still BUGGY!!!)
# -Ou enable uncertain optimizations (see docs)
# -O1 level 1 optimizations (quick optimizations)
# -O2 level 2 optimizations (-O1 + slower optimizations)
# -O3 level 3 optimizations (same as -O2u)
# -Op target processor
# -Op1 set target processor to 386/486
# -Op2 set target processor to Pentium/PentiumMMX (tm)
# -Op3 set target processor to PPro/PII/c6x86/K6 (tm)

# Optimize always for Size and PII
#-OG2p3


# -----------------------
# Set Filenames and Paths
# -----------------------

# Slashes are also allowed under dos

# path to the messagefile, not necessary anymore but can be used to override
# the default language
#-Fr/boot/home/fpc/msg/errore.msg
#-Fr/boot/home/fpc/msg/errorn.msg

# searchpath for includefiles
#-Fi/pp/inc;/pp/rtl/inc

# searchpath for units and other system dependent things
-Fu/boot/home/fpc/units/$target
-Fu/boot/home/fpc/units/$target/*
-Fu/boot/home/fpc/units/$target/rtl
-Fu/boot/home/fpc/bepascal/source/bepascal/pas/src/be/*
#-Fu~/fpc/packages/*;~/fpc/rtl/linux

# searchpath for libraries
-Fl.
#-Fl/pp/lib
#-Fl/lib;/usr/lib


# -------------
# Linking
# -------------

# generate always debugging information for GDB (slows down the compiling
# process)
#-g

# always pass an option to the linker
#-k-s

# Always strip debuginfo from the executable
-Xs


# -------------
# Miscellaneous
# -------------

# Write always a nice FPC logo
-l

# Verbosity
# e : Show errors (default) d : Show debug info
# w : Show warnings u : Show used files
# n : Show notes t : Show tried files
# h : Show hints m : Show defined macros
# i : Show general info p : Show compiled procedures
# l : Show linenumbers c : Show conditionals
# a : Show everything 0 : Show nothing (except errors)

# Display Info, Warnings, Notes and Hints
-viwn
# If you don't want so much verbosity use
#-vw

#
# That's all folks
#

Other Forte_Agent users have properly quoted the UTF-8 ( 8-bit Unicode )
in my posts. Google always resends proper UTF-8.

Outlook ( Windows Live Mail ) displays proper UTF-8
but it won't resend it unless you explicitly allow:
8-bit characters and Unicode ( i.e. UTF-8 ).

! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; = ? @ A B
C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e
f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ 33 Â* ¡ ¢ £ ¤ Â¥ ¦ §
¨ © ª « ¬ Â* ® ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ ¶ · ¸ ¹ º » ¼ ½ ¾ ¿ À Ã� Â Ã Ä Ã… Æ Ç È É Ê
Ë ÃŒ Ã� ÃŽ Ã� Ã� Ñ Ã’ Ó Ô Õ Ö × Ø Ù Ú Û Ãœ Ã� Þ ß Ã* á â ã ä Ã¥ æ ç è é ê ë ì Ã*
î ï ð ñ ò ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ý þ ÿ
100 Ā � Ă ă Ą ą Ć ć Ĉ ĉ Ċ ċ Č � Ď � � đ Ē ē Ĕ ĕ Ė ė Ę ę Ě ě Ĝ � Ğ ğ
Ä* Ä¡ Ä¢ Ä£ Ĥ Ä¥ Ħ ħ Ĩ Ä© Ī Ä« Ĭ Ä* Ä® į Ä° ı IJ ij Ä´ ĵ Ķ Ä· ĸ Ĺ ĺ Ä» ļ Ľ ľ Ä¿ Å€ Å� Å‚
Ń Å„ Å… ņ Ň ň ʼn ÅŠ Å‹ ÅŒ Å� ÅŽ Å� Å� Å‘ Å’ Å“ Å” Å• Å– Å— Ř Å™ Åš Å› Åœ Å� Åž ÅŸ Å* Å¡ Å¢ Å£ Ť Å¥
Ŧ ŧ Ũ Å© Ū Å« Ŭ Å* Å® ů Å° ű Ų ų Å´ ŵ Ŷ Å· Ÿ Ź ź Å» ż Ž ž Å¿ 18 Æ’ Æ“ 46 Ç‚ 10 Ç�
ǎ � � Ǒ ǒ Ǔ ǔ Ǖ ǖ Ǘ ǘ Ǚ ǚ Ǜ ǜ 24 ǵ 2 Ǹ ǹ Ǻ ǻ Ǽ ǽ Ǿ ǿ
24 Ș È™ Èš È› 52 É� É‘ É’ É“ É” É• É– É— ɘ É™ Éš É› Éœ É� Éž ÉŸ É* É¡ É¢ É£ ɤ É¥ ɦ ɧ ɨ É© ɪ É«
ɬ É* É® ɯ É° ɱ ɲ ɳ É´ ɵ ɶ É· ɸ ɹ ɺ É» ɼ ɽ ɾ É¿ Ê€ Ê� Ê‚ ʃ Ê„ Ê… ʆ ʇ ʈ ʉ ÊŠ Ê‹ ÊŒ Ê� ÊŽ
Ê� Ê� Ê‘ Ê’ Ê“ Ê” Ê• Ê– Ê— ʘ Ê™ Êš Ê› Êœ Ê� Êž ÊŸ Ê* Ê¡ Ê¢ Ê£ ʤ Ê¥ ʦ ʧ ʨ 29 ˆ ˇ ˈ ˉ 2 ËŒ
3 � ˑ 6 ˘ ˙ ˚ ˛ ˜ � ˞ 6 ˥ ˦ ˧ ˨ ˩ 22 ̀ � ̂ ̃ ̄ 1 ̆ 1 ̈ 2 ̋ ̌ 2 � 2 ̒
2 Ì• 2 ̘ Ì™ Ìš 1 Ìœ Ì� Ìž ÌŸ Ì* 3 ̤ Ì¥ ̦ 2 Ì© ̪ 1 ̬ 2 ̯ Ì° 3 Ì´ 4 ̹ ̺ Ì» ̼ ̽ 35 Í¡
18 ʹ ͵ 4 ͺ 3 ; 5 ΄ ΅ Ά · Έ Ή Ί 1 Ό 1 Ύ � �
391 Α Î’ Γ Δ Ε Ζ Η Θ Ι Κ Λ Îœ Î� Ξ Ο Î* Ρ 1 Σ Τ Î¥ Φ Χ Ψ Ω Ϊ Ϋ ά Î* ή ί ΰ
α β γ δ ε ζ η θ ι κ λ μ ν ξ ο π � ς σ τ υ φ χ ψ ω
410 Ð� Б Ð’ Г Д Е Ж З И Й К Л Ðœ Ð� О П Ð* С Т У Ф Ð¥ Ц Ч Ш Щ Ъ Ы Ь Ð* Ю Я
а б в г д е ж з и й к л м н о п р � т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь � ю �
2014 — ― ‖ ‗ ‘ ’ ‚ ‛ “ â€� „ ‟ â€* ‡ • ‣ ․ ‥ … ‧ 
 
 ‪ ‫ ‬ â€* * 1 ‰ ‱
′ ″ ‴ ‵ ‶ ‷ ‸ ‹ › ※ ‼ ‽ ‾ ‿ � � � � � � � � � � 7 � 30 � 3 � � �
â�· â�¸ â�¹ â�º â�» â�¼ â�½ â�¾ â�¿ â‚€ â‚� â‚‚ ₃ â‚„ â‚… ₆ ₇ ₈ ₉ â‚Š â‚‹ â‚Œ â‚� â‚Ž 17 â‚* â‚¡ â‚¢ â‚£ ₤ â‚¥ ₦ ₧ ₨
â‚© ₪ â‚« € â‚* â‚® ₯ â‚° ₱ 78 â„€ â„� â„‚ ℃ â„„ â„… ℆ ℇ ℈ ℉ â„Š â„‹ â„Œ â„� â„Ž â„� â„� â„‘ â„’ â„“ â„” â„• â„– â„—
℘ â„™ â„š â„› â„œ â„� â„ž â„Ÿ â„* â„¡ â„¢ â„£ ℤ â„¥ Ω ℧ ℨ â„© K â„« ℬ â„* â„® ℯ â„° ℱ Ⅎ ℳ â„´ ℵ ℶ â„· ℸ
26 â…“ â…” â…• â…– â…— â…˜ â…™ â…š â…› â…œ â…� â…ž â…Ÿ â…* â…¡ â…¢ â…£ â…¤ â…¥ â…¦ â…§ â…¨ â…© â…ª â…« â…¬
â…* â…® â…¯ â…° â…± â…² â…³ â…´ â…µ â…¶ â…· â…¸ â…¹ â…º â…» â…¼ â…½ â…¾ â…¿ ↀ â†� ↂ
13 â†� ↑ → ↓ ↔ ↕ ↖ ↗ ↘ ↙ ↚ ↛ ↜ â†� ↞ ↟ â†* ↡ ↢ ↣ ↤ ↥ ↦ ↧ ↨ ↩ ↪ ↫ ↬ â†* ↮
↯ ↰ ↱ ↲ ↳ ↴ ↵ ↶ ↷ ↸ ↹ ↺ ↻ ↼ ↽ ↾ ↿ ⇀ � ⇂ ⇃ ⇄ ⇅ ⇆ ⇇ ⇈ ⇉ ⇊ ⇋ ⇌ � ⇎ � � ⇑
⇒ ⇓ ⇔ ⇕ ⇖ ⇗ ⇘ ⇙ ⇚ ⇛ ⇜ â‡� ⇞ ⇟ â‡* ⇡ ⇢ ⇣ ⇤ ⇥ ⇦ ⇧ ⇨ ⇩ ⇪
21eb 21 ∀ � ∂ ∃ ∄ ∅ ∆ ∇ ∈ ∉ ∊ ∋ ∌ � ∎ � � ∑ − ∓ ∔ ∕ ∖ ∗ ∘ ∙ √ ∛
∜ âˆ� ∞ ∟ âˆ* ∡ ∢ ∣ ∤ ∥ ∦ ∧ ∨ ∩ ∪ ∫ ∬ âˆ* ∮ ∯ ∰ ∱ ∲ ∳ ∴ ∵ ∶ ∷ ∸
∹ ∺ ∻ ∼ ∽ ∾ ∿ ≀ � ≂ ≃ ≄ ≅ ≆ ≇ ≈ ≉ ≊ ≋ ≌ � ≎ � � ≑ ≒ ≓ ≔ ≕ ≖ ≗ ≘ ≙ ≚
≛ ≜ â‰� ≞ ≟ â‰* ≡ ≢ ≣ ≤ ≥ ≦ ≧ ≨ ≩ ≪ ≫ ≬ â‰* ≮ ≯ ≰ ≱ ≲ ≳ ≴ ≵ ≶ ≷ ≸ ≹ ≺
≻ ≼ ≽ ≾ ≿ ⊀ � ⊂ ⊃ ⊄ ⊅ ⊆ ⊇ ⊈ ⊉ ⊊ ⊋ ⊌ � ⊎ � � ⊑ ⊒ ⊓ ⊔ ⊕ ⊖ ⊗ ⊘ ⊙ ⊚ ⊛
⊜ âŠ� ⊞ ⊟ âŠ* ⊡ ⊢ ⊣ ⊤ ⊥ ⊦ ⊧ ⊨ ⊩ ⊪ ⊫ ⊬ âŠ* ⊮ ⊯ ⊰ ⊱ ⊲ ⊳ ⊴ ⊵ ⊶ ⊷ ⊸ ⊹ ⊺ ⊻ ⊼ ⊽
⊾ ⊿ ⋀ � ⋂ ⋃ ⋄ ⋅ ⋆ ⋇ ⋈ ⋉ ⋊ ⋋ ⋌ � ⋎ � � ⋑ ⋒ ⋓ ⋔ ⋕ ⋖ ⋗ ⋘ ⋙ ⋚ ⋛ ⋜ � ⋞ ⋟
â‹* â‹¡ â‹¢ â‹£ ⋤ â‹¥ ⋦ ⋧ ⋨ â‹© ⋪ â‹« ⋬ â‹* â‹® ⋯ â‹° ⋱ 16 ⌂ 2 ⌅ ⌆ 9 âŒ� 1 ⌒ 5 ⌘ 7 âŒ* ⌡
156 ⎾ ⎿ � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1 � 84 �
2460 â‘* â‘¡ â‘¢ â‘£ ⑤ â‘¥ ⑦ ⑧ ⑨ â‘© ⑪ â‘« ⑬ â‘* â‘® ⑯ â‘° ⑱ ⑲ ⑳ â‘´
⑵ ⑶ ⑷ ⑸ ⑹ ⑺ ⑻ ⑼ ⑽ ⑾ ⑿ ⒀ � ⒂ ⒃ ⒄ ⒅ ⒆ ⒇ ⒈ ⒉ ⒊ ⒋
â’Œ â’� â’Ž â’� â’� â’‘ â’’ â’“ â’” â’• â’– â’— â’˜ â’™ â’š â’› â’œ â’� â’ž â’Ÿ â’* â’¡ â’¢
â’£ â’¤ â’¥ â’¦ â’§ â’¨ â’© â’ª â’« â’¬ â’* â’® â’¯ â’° â’± â’² â’³ â’´ â’µ â’¶ â’· â’¸ â’¹
Ⓔ Ⓕ Ⓖ Ⓗ Ⓘ Ⓙ Ⓚ � Ⓜ Ⓝ Ⓞ Ⓟ Ⓠ Ⓡ Ⓢ Ⓣ Ⓤ Ⓥ Ⓦ � Ⓨ � �
â“‘ â“’ â““ â“” â“• â“– â“— ⓘ â“™ â“š â“› â“œ â“� â“ž â“Ÿ â“* â“¡ â“¢ â“£ ⓤ â“¥ ⓦ ⓧ
ⓨ â“© ⓪ â“« ⓬ â“* â“® ⓯ â“° ⓱ ⓲ ⓳ â“´ ⓵ ⓶ â“· ⓸ ⓹ ⓺ â“» ⓼ ⓽ ⓾
1 ─ � │ ┃ ┄ ┅ ┆ ┇ ┈ ┉ ┊ ┋ ┌ � ┎ � � ┑ ┒ ┓ └ ┕ ┖ ┗ ┘ ┙ ┚ ┛
├ â”� ┞ ┟ â”* ┡ ┢ ┣ ┤ ┥ ┦ ┧ ┨ ┩ ┪ ┫ ┬ â”* â”® ┯ â”° â”± ┲ ┳ â”´ ┵ ┶ â”·
┸ ┹ ┺ ┻ ┼ ┽ ┾ ┿ ╀ � ╂ ╃ ╄ ╅ ╆ ╇ ╈ ╉ ╊ ╋ ╌ � ╎ � � ║ ╒ ╓ ╔ ╕ ╖ ╗
╘ â•™ â•š â•› â•œ â•� â•ž â•Ÿ â•* â•¡ â•¢ â•£ ╤ â•¥ ╦ ╧ ╨ â•© ╪ â•« ╬ â•* â•® ╯ â•° ╱ ╲ ╳ â•´ ╵ ╶ â•· ╸ ╹ ╺
â•» ╼ ╽ ╾ â•¿ â–€ â–� â–‚ â–ƒ â–„ â–… â–† â–‡ â–ˆ â–‰ â–Š â–‹ â–Œ â–� â–Ž â–� â–� â–‘ â–’ â–“ â–” â–• 10 â–* â–¡ â–¢ â–£ â–¤
â–¥ â–¦ â–§ â–¨ â–© â–ª â–« â–¬ â–* â–® â–¯ â–° â–± â–² â–³ â–´ â–µ â–¶ â–· â–¸ â–¹ â–º â–» â–¼ â–½ â–¾ â–¿ â—€ â—� â—‚ â—ƒ â—„ â—…
â—† â—‡ â—ˆ â—‰ â—Š â—‹ â—Œ â—� â—Ž â—� â—� â—‘ â—’ â—“ â—” â—• â—– â—— â—˜ â—™ â—š â—› â—œ â—� â—ž â—Ÿ â—* â—¡ â—¢ â—£ â—¤ â—¥
â—¦ â—§ â—¨ â—© â—ª â—« â—¬ â—* â—® â—¯ 16 ☀ â˜� ☂ ☃ ☄ ★ ☆ ☇ ☈ ☉ ☊ ☋ ☌ â˜� ☎
â˜� â˜� ☑ ☒ ☓ 2 ☖ ☗ 2 ☚ ☛ ☜ â˜� ☞ ☟ â˜* ☡ ☢ ☣ ☤ ☥ ☦ ☧ ☨
☩ ☪ ☫ ☬ â˜* ☮ ☯ ☰ ☱ ☲ ☳ ☴ ☵ ☶ ☷ ☸ ☹ ☺ ☻ ☼ ☽ ☾ ☿ ♀
� ♂ ♃ ♄ ♅ ♆ ♇ ♈ ♉ ♊ ♋ ♌ � ♎ � � ♑ ♒ ♓ ♔ ♕ ♖ ♗
♘ â™™ ♚ â™› ♜ â™� ♞ ♟ â™* ♡ ♢ ♣ ♤ ♥ ♦ ♧ ♨ ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ â™* â™® ♯
2708 ✈ ✉ 2 ✌ � ✎ � � ✑ ✒ ✓ ✔ ✕ ✖ ✗ ✘ ✙ ✚ ✛ ✜ �
✞ ✟ âœ* ✡ ✢ ✣ ✤ ✥ ✦ ✧ 1 ✩ ✪ ✫ ✬ âœ* ✮ ✯ ✰ ✱ ✲ ✳ ✴
✵ ✶ ✷ ✸ ✹ ✺ ✻ ✼ ✽ ✾ ✿ � � � � � � � � � � � �
1 � 1 � � � � 3 � 1 � � � � � � � 2 � � � � � � �
14 � � � � � � � � � � ➀ � ➂ ➃ ➄ ➅ ➆ ➇ ➈ ➉ ➊ ➋
➌ âž� ➎ âž� âž� âž‘ âž’ âž“ âž” 3 ➘ âž™ âžš âž› âžœ âž� âžž ➟ âž* âž¡ ➢ ➣ ➤
➥ ➦ ➧ ➨ âž© ➪ âž« ➬ âž* âž® ➯ 1 âž± âž² âž³ âž´ âžµ ➶ âž· ➸ âž¹ ➺ âž»
âž¼ âž½ âž¾
ff01 � ＂ ＃ ＄ ％ ＆ ＇ （ ） ＊ ＋ ， � ． � � １ ２ ３ ４ ５
ï¼– ï¼— ８ ï¼™ ： ï¼› ＜ ï¼� ＞ ？ ï¼* Ａ ï¼¢ ï¼£ Ｄ ï¼¥ Ｆ Ｇ Ｈ Ｉ Ｊ Ｋ Ｌ
ï¼* ï¼® Ｏ ï¼° ï¼± ï¼² ï¼³ ï¼´ ï¼µ Ｖ ï¼· Ｘ ï¼¹ Ｚ ï¼» ï¼¼ ï¼½ ï¼¾ ＿ ï½€ ï½� ｂ ｃ
ｄ ｅ ｆ ｇ ｈ ｉ ｊ ｋ ｌ � ｎ � � ｑ ｒ ｓ ｔ ｕ ｖ ｗ ｘ ｙ ｚ
｛ ｜ � ～
ffe3 ￣ ￤ ￥ ￦ 1 ￨ ￩ ￪ ￫ ￬

Jeff?Relf wrote:

Other Forte_Agent users have properly quoted the UTF-8 ( 8-bit Unicode )
in my posts. Google always resends proper UTF-8.

Outlook ( Windows Live Mail ) displays proper UTF-8
but it won't resend it unless you explicitly allow:
8-bit characters and Unicode ( i.e. UTF-8 ).

! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; = ? @ A B
C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e
f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~ 33 * ¡ ¢ £ ? ¥ | §
¨ © ª « ¬ - ® ¯ ° ± 2 3 ´ µ ¶ · ¸ 1 º » ? ? ? ¿ À Á Â Ã Ä Å Æ Ç È É Ê
Ë Ì Í Î Ï ? Ñ Ò Ó Ô Õ Ö * Ø Ù Ú Û Ü ? ? ß à á â ã ä å æ ç è é ê ë ì í
î ï ? ñ ò ó ô õ ö ÷ ø ù ú û ü ? ? ÿ
100 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ž ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ‘ ¦ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? � ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 18 Ÿ ? 46 1 10 X
i e L : P o u e y M c o o t 24 e 2 6 0 . 8 0 1 0
24 s g - D 52 W O . 8 8 s 4 9 7 f 1 9 u e e s r e . o X C m l i t -
: a u e t u d r e s c m N T - o t n - a e a , 1 p 0 8 1 : 4 1
T O g n z t o : T u d r e s D t : S t 9 A r 2 0 29 – � ? ? 2 ?
3 ? ? 6 ˜ ™ š œ — › ? 6 ? ? ? ? ? 22 p y i s 1 1 8 1 a 2 p i 2 o 2 :
2 9 2 l . s 1 n m : 3 8 3 s i p 2 i s 1 l 2 v t 3 5 4 1

B a 35 h
18 a g 4 @ 3 i 5 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? 1 ? ? ?
391 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ‡ ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ¼ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
410 : " a l M y " a . @ a s c m r t n m s a e n w
G h j 4 7 $ L . 4 4 f 1 1 u e e s r e . o . .
2014 ‹ ‹ ? ? Œ ¹ ’ ? ³ ² “ ? Ý ý € ? ? ? Š ?

? ? ? ? ? 1 ” ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ð ð ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ž ? ? ? ? ? 7 ? 30 ? 3 ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 17 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ¤ ? ? ? ? ? 78 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? � ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
26 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
13 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
21eb 21 ? ? � ? ? ? � ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ½ ? … - ? ? / ? * ? ? ˆ ?
? ? ƒ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? † ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ‰ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ‚ ? ? ? ¾ „ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 16 ? 2 ? ? 9 ? 1 ? 5 ? 7 ? ?
156 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? 84 ?
2460 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 10 ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? × ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 16 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? 2 ? ? 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
2708 ? ? 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
1 ? 1 ? ? ? ? 3 ? 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
14 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ?
ff01 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
? ? ? ?
ffe3 ? ? ? ? 1 ? ? ? ? ?

What a mess, JeffglyphRelf.

--
"Classic erroneous presupposition."
-- David Tholen

On Apr 19, 11:34 am, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...



On Apr 19, 1:51 am, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"Paul Mays" wrote in message

.. .

"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On Apr 18, 12:52 pm, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

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

Perhaps you'll become the first to know the answer, because
Einstein
didn't have a clue.

I might care to rethink of those photons we see and of all those
photons we can't see as simply slow moving gravitons, or perhaps
as
somewhat quantum string like items. Of course, this still
doesn't
tell us specifically as to "what is light".

Is there even any such thing as an original photon, or is each
and
every available photon merely a secondary/recoil result of
gravitons
interacting with other gravitons, or of gravitons interacting
with
mass?

Pure energy seems to create photons, but without available
gravitons
it doesn't hardly matter, does it.
. -BradGuth

I gota definition I like too...

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

I like your interpretation as much as that one provided by '"dlzc".

However, if gravity/gravitons didn't exist, neither would the
quantum
string like photon. In other words, without the spin of atoms, we
got
nothing.
. -BradGuth

Well my interpretation Explains why there no need for gravitons to
denote the Causation of Gravity, What specifically light is and why its
detectable as a Wave or Little ball of stuff (Photon), Why its velocity
will always be independent of source or target, and seemingly a
constant..

Yet allows all existing physical rules to remain valid to a
Intrinsically
Biased observer.

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

Is this "intrinsically biased observer" ever allowed to use good old
deductive formulated logic?

How about allowing for an intrinsic biased form of observationology,
meaning the deductive interpreting of pixels as being those patterns
of whatever's perfectly natural as opposed to what's artificial/
intelligent looking.
. -BradGuth

Yes he is.. But due to The Intrinsic nature of the Bias the observer
may fail the attempt to formulate logic and perceive the observed in
such a way as to require concepts to be Assumed.

Take two objects that observe each other, How do they observer? They can
only produce Wave Forms that impact the other and return with information
that the other can use for said such a deduction. If as the wave forms both
use to transfer information Heterodyne then the information either gains at
the
observation is Intrinsically Biased so as to skew any deduction attempted
from
said observation.

If you spend a little time looking over the postulate I have posted you may
find I have attempted to do just that. logically contemplate the observed
universe and deducing a Simple rational that allows existing rules to remain
valid while giving Causation weight in the logic, which existing physical
rules ignore.

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

I may have to read that one a few dozen times before I can make better
sense of your Causation logic.

Are you saying that atoms have nothing to do with photons?
.. - Brad Guth