" =?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=96=B2Relf?=
?= 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/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Apr 20, 8:30*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 19, 4:51*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.
*. - Brad Guth

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.
. - Brad Guth

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"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Paul: *You're right on all but one point: "The velocity of
emitted (or reflected) light ALWAYS increases or decreases depending
on the velocity and direction of the source or reflecting surface." *—
NoEinstein —

This is counter to experimental measurement, NoEinstein. Of course,
you could always say that you don't care.

On Apr 20, 8:26*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 19, 4:14*am, "Paul Mays" wrote:



"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.
*. - Brad Guth

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.
. - Brad Guth

Depends on whos Bias you follow..

--
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"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Paul: *"Believing" is the anti-science. *KNOWING is the true
science! *— NoEinstein —

KNOWING is religious faith, NoEinstein. Do you know the difference
between a scientist and a priest?

PD

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


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 —

Good, then kindly reproduce the double slit interference pattern that
is easily observed in an experiment involving a $20 laser pointer, a
bit of glass, a razor blade, and flat black spray paint. Be sure to do
so with PHOTONS only.

PD

Sanny wrote:

When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

It has wavelike properties


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

In physics you cannot *prove* a theory. A theory stands until it is
disproved. The wavelike properties that were demonstrated to you are the
sort of thing which led to the wave theory of light.

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

You should question what you are told. You should ask "if it is a wave
what is the wave propagating IN". The answer you will get is that modern
physics does not attempt to answer those sorts of question. I feel it
should.

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

You should ask what, physically is meant by a 'field'. The answer you
will get is that modern physics does not attempt to answer those sorts
of question.


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

Oersted, Ampere and Faraday between them showed that magnetic and
electric phenomena were not separate phenomena but both are caused by
charge.


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

Yes. Historically light was believed to be an electromagnetic wave
propagated in the all pervading propagation medium they called the
aether (Maxwells wave in aether theory). A field was a stress in that
aether caused by a charge. The interaction between stress patterns
explained how one charge could attract or repel another charge. The
stress could propagate through the aether at the speed of light = light
waves. Two consequences of this are firstly that the speed of light is
constant with respect to the aether so cannot be affected by the motion
of the source. Secondly as the speed of light is constant w.r.t the
aether anyone moving w.r.t the aether will measure a different speed to
someone stationary w.r.t the aether. Basically if light is a wave in the
aether and the earth is belting around the sun at tens of thousands of
miles per hour the earth must be moving w.r.t the aether and this
movement should show itself as a difference in the speed of light. A
famous experiment called the Michelson Morely experiment was done to
demonstrate this and failed to do so. No movement was detected.

This was only the first of a number of experiments which disproved the
idea that light is a wave. It was eventually discovered that light
consists of particles we call photons and these leave the source and
arrive at their destination unchanged.


So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Rather a lot of particles moving at light speed


Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

Absolutely agree. The problem was that followers of Maxwell refused to
accept his theory was wrong despite the overwhelming evidence. What
Einstein did was to totally ignore the fact that he had got a Nobel
prize for showing that light is made of particles and went back to
Maxwell's wave theory. What his relativity theory is based upon
(although physicists vehemently deny it) is that Maxwell's theory is
correct and that therefore what the Michelson Morely experiment showed
was that *every* observer is stationary w.r.t the aether which is why
the experiment failed to show any movement w.r.t the aether. This is
what his second postulate describes.

You might sensibly ask how two observers moving with respect to each
other can both be stationary w.r.t the same aether and I can tell you
that there is no sensible answer. This far from sensible assumption
rescues Maxwell's wave in aether theory from the results of the MM
experiment but not from the glaring inconsistency that light is made up
of particles. It has dire consequences. In order to get the right answer
one has to assume that at different speeds a ruler changes its length,
time slows down, and the mass of an object changes. Note that no
physical processes have been identified which could cause a ruler to
change its length etc. These effects are *assumed* to occur in order to
get the answer required having made the absurd assumption embedded in
the second postulate.

What you will be told, and it isn't true, is that Einstein came up with
a theory which doesn't need an aether. Einstein actually argued in
favour of retaining the idea of the aether. An aether which every
observer can be naturally stationary with, is clearly absurd so
physicists got rid of it from their thinking but they did not rethink
how that affected the very basis of relativity. Its removal was not the
result of experiment nor some clever theoretical argument. It was
removed from physics by the totally arbitrary decision taken by
physicists that physics did not need to explain what is going on in
physical terms, that mathematics will suffice. That modern physics does
not attempt to answer those sorts of question.

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

There are now two branches of physics which deal with light and it
depends what question you are asking.

One will tell you that light is an electromagnetic wave because its
properties can be modelled by Maxwell's wave equation. You will be told
that the aether does not exist and nothing has replaced it for light
waves to be physical waves IN. You may be told that it consists of
electromagnetic fields but fields were stresses in the aether and now
there is no aether for them to be stresses in. Because physics no longer
has to explain anything in physical terms it does not have to explain
what a field is made of as long as they can write an equation describing
its properties.

The other branch of physics will tell you that light is made up of
photons but so as not to encroach on the other branch of physics it
claims that photons have no internal structure. Such a structureless
photon cannot explain the wavelike properties of light.

Essentially by retaining a disproved theory Physics has ended up with
two branches which further down the line disagree. Attempts are being
made to unify these two branches by means of highly complicated
mathematics called string theory. According to Stephen Hawking string
theory may succeed in unifying physics if we assume that the universe
has either 10 or 26 dimensions and even then "only if the infinities
cancel" - whatever that means.

Basically Physics is one hell of a lot more absurd than you thought and
I hope that in your lifetime sanity will be restored.

To me it seems that light is made up of photons which must have an
internal structure such that on mass they give rise to the very
convincing wavelike properties you are familiar with. While Maxwell's
equations cannot be considered as an accurate description of a physical
phenomena the fact that they give very accurate predictions cannot be
dismissed. Essentially they are based on a series of relationships
worked out by Faraday all of which relate to charge. It seems to me
therefore that there has to be a link between charge and light and
therefore between charge and photons. Waldron has suggested that photons
rotate and consist of equal numbers of +ve and -ve charged particles. It
is this rotation which gives rise to the phenomena of frequency and the
other wavelike properties.


Bye
Sanny

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



--
John Kennaugh

Why do you spend so much time on me ? after all..

How many billions of web pages are there ? 16 ?
Usenet spits out 4 tera bytes per day.
How many TV channels do you have ? 800 ?

How big is your campus library system ? your local book store ?
Do you have any face-to-face friends ? a wife ? a job ?

I count 136 people ( Nyms ) who've made 7+ posts to Sci.Physics
in the last 18.5 days.. yet it's me you talk to.

Ignoring all but the most recent 33 posts per Nym..
these Nyms got the most expo$ure ( in order ):
“ 1 Surfer .844 Jerry .797 Tom_Roberts

.707 Sanny .628 wbbrdr_gmail .585 none
.521 uri .52 Tom_Potter .468 George_Hammond
.456 nuny_bid_nes .447 Michael_Helland .447 Pmb

.436 schoenfeld_one .433 David_A_Smith .432 Jeffâ–²Relf
.427 Paul_Mays .404 Henry .404 jimp_specsol
.403 NoEinstein .399 Sam_Wormley .397 Dono

.396 Darwin123 .393 Tom .39 Dr_Henri
.385 Jamie_Morken .381 Eric_Gisse .381 MitchNobel
.369 PD �.

For for Sci.Physics, today, the full list looks like this:
“ www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/_Phy_R.TXT
www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/_Phy_R_TXT.PNG �.

The number before each Nym is its XRank ( like PageRankâ„¢ ),
for more on that, see “ www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/ �.

On Apr 21, 5:32 pm, wrote:
Why do you spend so much time on me ? after all..

How many seconds per day do you estimate that to
be?

I count 136 people ( Nyms ) who've made 7+ posts to Sci.Physics
in the last 18.5 days.. yet it's me you talk to.

If your newsreader is reporting that you are the only person
Eric is responding to, you have a serious defect in your
counting algorithm.

- Randy

I asked Gisse:
“ Why do you spend so much time on me ? after all.. �.

And you replied:
“ How many seconds per day do you estimate that to be ? �.

About 5 seconds.. but that's 5 seconds too many, if you ask me.
Can't you find something more worthy of your time ?

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...]

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


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 —

Unsupported assertion. You might as well be claiming that you have a
working fusion reactor in your garage that supplies all your heat and
electricity for the winter.

PD