what does that have to do with the questions that I asked --
are you afraid to get out of your simsuit --
was it made under a DARPA contract?

if you're going to say that I lied about some thing, then
just say what it was, and we'll see if I can defend myself.

Are you suggesting that our warm and fuzzy government and of its many
cloak and dagger agencies such as DARPA never lie to us, or otherwise
never infowar hype via disinformation or merely exclude pertinent
evidence in order to suit their ulterior motives or hidden agendas?

thus:
Joe Whom Said THAT?... you shouldn't identify
such "critics," unless you want to blow their covers off.

I presume that this is quite preliminary, because
no-one's going to be ble to steal it!

when you configure the deployment of "induced struts,"
you'll be able to meaningfully cite a Buckypat. otherwize,
perhaps, some body will frame the question, and
get an actual technique out of the general idea.

for instance, I'm pretty sure that there is no such simple way
of going from a "360-degree solid angle 'semi' sphere"
to the "angular deficit" to make your cones, other than
the special case of the floor cone hint.

maybe, if you tried to make Joe Clinton's ridiculous NASA idea
fit to your cones, you'd get some thing. I mean,
did any Selenites build any of them?

use "hemisphere," and everyone will know, it's a half!

http://uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/w...-20080624.html
Wondering just because of our minor history, Euler, Descarte, and Gauss/Bonnet.

--Seargent Barracks Soros McCheeny Pepper,
"Give jihad a chance in The Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial moments -- Yahoo!TM;
you're going to feel my computerized draft,
boys'n'girls."
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3526...ros_pamph.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/35...parasites.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3526zim_brit_op.html

hey, what is "up?"

--Seargent Barracks Soros McCheeny Pepper,
"Give jihad a chance in The Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial moments -- Yahoo!TM;
you're going to feel my computerized draft,
boys'n'girls."
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3526...ros_pamph.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/35...parasites.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3526zim_brit_op.html

On Jul 3, 2:52 pm, spudnik wrote:
what does that have to do with the questions that I asked --
are you afraid to get out of your simsuit --
was it made under a DARPA contract?

if you're going to say that I lied about some thing, then
just say what it was, and we'll see if I can defend myself.

Are you suggesting that our warm and fuzzy government and of its many
cloak and dagger agencies such as DARPA never lie to us, or otherwise
never infowar hype via disinformation or merely exclude pertinent
evidence in order to suit their ulterior motives or hidden agendas?

thus:
Joe Whom Said THAT?... you shouldn't identify
such "critics," unless you want to blow their covers off.

I presume that this is quite preliminary, because
no-one's going to be ble to steal it!

when you configure the deployment of "induced struts,"
you'll be able to meaningfully cite a Buckypat. otherwize,
perhaps, some body will frame the question, and
get an actual technique out of the general idea.

for instance, I'm pretty sure that there is no such simple way
of going from a "360-degree solid angle 'semi' sphere"
to the "angular deficit" to make your cones, other than
the special case of the floor cone hint.

maybe, if you tried to make Joe Clinton's ridiculous NASA idea
fit to your cones, you'd get some thing. I mean,
did any Selenites build any of them?

use "hemisphere," and everyone will know, it's a half!


Spoken like a true brown-nosed minion/clown of your DARPA mainstream
status quo, just the way a devout diehard Zionist/Nazi would have it.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

we got ya. "Hi, I'm 'Brad Guth.' Please,
don't bother me with any question at all
about my '60s occupation at the NASA Skunkworks Studio
in the Mojave Desert; it was all just too traumatic
to recall!"

so, how would *you* plan a mission to Moon,
supposedly starting from scratch?

I mean, you're supposed to be serious about wanting
to get that "Whistler's Mother's Moonscape
with Teeny-tiny Venusian Cresecnt at the End of Her Nose;"
are you not?

of cuorse, even if Venus was adequately exposed,
the stars might not be.

Spoken like a true brown-nosed minion/clown of your DARPA mainstream
status quo, just the way a devout diehard Zionist/Nazi would have it.

thus:
the quickest path between two places is a slalom
(brachistochrone or tautachrone per Liebniz' calculus.

I always thought that the efficient "burn" of fuel,
required burning throughout the trip,
halfway in acceleration & deceleration. it seems that
such speeds on the approach to Mars,
might strip its atmosphere, before you stopped (or,
the aerobrakeing'd take longer than the trip, or
cover a significant portion of Mars with the 'chute !-)

If you don't want to think about taking the trip to
the top of the mountain and the trip back will
be "basically free" then you don't get the fact about
shortest distance will use least fuel all the time.

thus:
I should add that these may be really important features
in the bugset:
your cones are not generally quadric surfaces, and
Joe's facets are not generally convex.

just because you guys tried to hide that, or
merely averted your eyes
in the patent-pending or paper-pretending,
doesn't mean it isn't "all good."

like, I'd call yours,"post-whacked dickonoids, " or
"flying funny shingles" or some thing; seriously ...
after a *lot* more of math, or at least systematic experiment
(that is to say, with a good write-up of observables,
not just a virtual tour of the latter-day shack).
http://uspto.gov/web/patents/patog/w...-20080624.html

--Seargent Barracks Soros McCheeny Pepper,
"Give jihad a chance in The Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial moments -- Yahoo!TM;
you're going to feel my computerized draft,
boys'n'girls: NO AMERICAN MIDDLESCHOOLER LEFT BEHIND;
NO RHODESIA SCHOLARS IN HARM'S WAY!"
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3526...ros_pamph.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/35...parasites.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3526zim_brit_op.html

On Jul 5, 1:25 pm, spudnik wrote:
we got ya. "Hi, I'm 'Brad Guth.' Please,
don't bother me with any question at all
about my '60s occupation at the NASA Skunkworks Studio
in the Mojave Desert; it was all just too traumatic
to recall!"

so, how would *you* plan a mission to Moon,
supposedly starting from scratch?

I'd first do a somewhat Clarke Station or Boeing Oasis (except far
better shielded plus outfitted with an artificial shade) as situated
within the moon's L1. The Guth LSE-CM/ISS is for later on, but we
could certainly make good use of either Clarke Station or the Boeing
Oasis in the mean time.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Jul 5, 3:25 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 5, 1:25 pm, spudnik wrote:

we got ya. "Hi, I'm 'Brad Guth.' Please,
don't bother me with any question at all
about my '60s occupation at the NASA Skunkworks Studio
in the Mojave Desert; it was all just too traumatic
to recall!"

so, how would *you* plan a mission to Moon,
supposedly starting from scratch?

I'd first do a somewhat Clarke Station or Boeing Oasis (except far
better shielded plus outfitted with an artificial shade) as situated
within the moon's L1. The Guth LSE-CM/ISS is for later on, but we
could certainly make good use of either Clarke Station or the Boeing
Oasis in the mean time.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Where did DARPA spook/mole "spudnik" go?

had to poop;
looked just like your ****!

personally, I don't do *any* research within the googolplex,
other than looking at links given if the newsgroups
by my fellow DARPAnauts. the stuff I need is only in books.

I'd first do a somewhat Clarke Station or Boeing Oasis (except far
better shielded plus outfitted with an artificial shade) as situated
within the moon's L1. *The Guth LSE-CM/ISS is for later on, but we
could certainly make good use of either Clarke Station or the Boeing
Oasis in the mean time.

Where did DARPA spook/mole "spudnik" go?

ths:
only that there is no absolute vacuum per Blaise Pascal's experiment
-- he didn't know about partial pressures --
so no "final" value of c, unless it can be calculated
from other known constants & "an ideal region of perfectly empty
space;"
ours is close-enough for all work.

Newton's corpuscles were sum-totally alleviated
by Young's experiments: all essential properties are those
of waves, aside from the seeming ballisticness of the photoelectric
effect, or
when Moon hits your eye like that.

Roswell is strictly a psychological "denial" of the people
of the area about its two elements of cache from around WW2,
as well as a sort of tourist attraction (couldn't be that large,
though .-)

"faster than light" is an idea that is required
by no known physical principles, other than "hard SF,"
the same as multiverses et al ad vomitorium.

If the light postulate is true, then miraculous effects (time
dilation, length contraction etc.) do exist and Einstein is at least
one of the discoverers of the fantastic world we live in. However if
the light postulate is false, that is, if the speed of light obeys
Newton's model presenting light as discontinuous bullet-like particles
and disobeys Maxwell's model presenting light as discontinuous field,
then Einstein's 1954 confession resolves all remaining problems:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...0-433a-b7e3-4a...
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."

thus:
he didn't get that with my example of slaloms,
that he applied to skiing, either, but you have to realize that
the "straight line," even if it exists in a particular stretch,
is also a slalom/brachistochrone/tautochrone. so, I just realized,
the fact that it takes longer to fall from a higher heighth,
is partly a result of "terminal velocity" with air drag.

It seems that the theory from which his "laws of inertia" are derived
excludes the Sun's gravity as a "physical cause". If it works anywhere
at all, that could only be in a very small box.

thus:
well, obviously, the gallilean principle of relativity;

--Seargent Barracks Soros McCheeny Pepper,
"Give jihad a chance in The Sudan, Rhodesia, and
other former colonial moments -- Yahoo!TM;
you're going to feel my computerized draft,
boys'n'girls: NO AMERICAN MIDDLESCHOOLER LEFT BEHIND;
NO RHODESIA SCHOLARS IN HARM'S WAY!"
http://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3526...ros_pamph.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/35...parasites.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3526zim_brit_op.html

In article
,
spudnik wrote:

ths:
only that there is no absolute vacuum per Blaise Pascal's experiment
-- he didn't know about partial pressures --
so no "final" value of c, unless it can be calculated
from other known constants & "an ideal region of perfectly empty
space;"
ours is close-enough for all work.

Well ... I suspect that physicists smashing tiny little things into each
other reeally reaally fast have calculated to a rather high accuracy how
much mass they gain from how fast they go. Numerous other experiments
such as ones having to do with time dilation affecting various nuclear
decay rates have no doubt supplied additional data. So I think that even
though photons in a perfect vacuum haven't had their speed measured, the
speed they would go if such were available is known to a fairly high
precision.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

On Jul 8, 9:53 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

spudnik wrote:
ths:
only that there is no absolute vacuum per Blaise Pascal's experiment
-- he didn't know about partial pressures --
so no "final" value of c, unless it can be calculated
from other known constants & "an ideal region of perfectly empty
space;"
ours is close-enough for all work.

Well ... I suspect that physicists smashing tiny little things into each
other reeally reaally fast have calculated to a rather high accuracy how
much mass they gain from how fast they go. Numerous other experiments
such as ones having to do with time dilation affecting various nuclear
decay rates have no doubt supplied additional data. So I think that even
though photons in a perfect vacuum haven't had their speed measured, the
speed they would go if such were available is known to a fairly high
precision.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

At encountering a few as 1 atom/km3 is where the speed of a photon
could get interesting. However, can photons exist/coexist without
atoms?

The all-inclusive universe isn't likely worth much greater than one
atom per km3, and lord only knows whatever's inside of black holes or
what makes up dark matter and dark energy (if not other photons or
perhaps antimatter).

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Jun 22, 4:04*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Jun 20, 7:06 pm, wrote:





On Apr 24, 2:37 am, BradGuth wrote:

On Apr 23, 9:02 am, BradGuth wrote:

On Apr 23, 7:21 am, wrote:

On Apr 22, 6:02 am, BradGuth wrote:

[...]

So was WWII, the mutually perpetrated cold-war and lo and behold, now
we're looking at WWIII just around the bloody fossil fuel corner.