On Aug 17, 10:28 am, Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
wrote:
we don't seem to be having a conversation;
you're just being your usual a-hole-ish you,
yourself & Bradley -- king & queen
of the armchair SIMsuitnauts --
look, Venus is everywhere, everywhen, everyhow
in my stimulator:
the rectal dyslpay unit!

I satnd by just what I said, below, and
you will never even *try* to address that;
so, good bye, fool.



your problem is the opposite to the fact that
Venus if the aviator's most-cited UFO --
except that you *always* see it from your SIMchairsuit,
sort of like a virtual quasar in the machinery.

Moon is the *only* nonsolar object in system Sol,
that is visible during the daytime on Earth; likewise,
it may be that Earht is the only planet that is visible
from Moon, during lunar daytime --
without special equipment or photographical enhancement.
Besides the dozens of links to images posted that proves otherwise,
how many official Kodak images of our moon and other items such as
Venus would you like?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But you're not even a real person. Go figure.
- Brad Guth

On Jul 22, 2:12 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.math, BradGuth

wrote
on Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:41:01 -0000
. com:





On Jul 22, 6:56 am, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.math, BradGuth

wrote
on Sun, 22 Jul 2007 11:40:55 -0000
.com:

Still blowing NASA/Apollo infomercial smoke out your Yiddish butt?

Where's big old Venus above that physically dark and hasty horizon?

Which picture?

Silly boy, you and others of your rusemaster kind know damn good and
well what I mean.

That's just it; there are at least two or three of the
more famous ones that you could be alluding to, and many
others which are less famous but still verifiable.

But there's a more fundamental point. Gene Roddenberry and many others
were able to put stars in their shots; the classic one is the Enterprise
orbiting a planet of various colors, with stars happily in the
background.



Why doesn't your Zion conditional law of anticathode physics apply to
our salty but otherwise naked moon?

Please explain the "conditional law of anticathode physics". I'm not
sure I'm familiar with that particular subbranch.

How about instead, you explain how our terrestrial laws of physics
somehow do not apply off-world.

You'll have to be more specific. All laws apply
everywhere; that is a fundamental postulate of SR.
There are some issues, such as termination velocity, that
need to be adjusted -- or simply not used, since Earthside
conditions do not apply.



How about sharing those Zion approved fly-by-rocket physics?

I thought the most dangerous part of the issue was in fact
the lethal radiation from the salty, anticathode moon.
Compared to that, setting up an orbit-and-landing is
relatively easy, if deadly to all involved if done
improperly.

It's not a significant radiation problem for our frail DNA if you
can't hardly get but to/from the moon's L1 (that's better than 32r)
and the amount of exposure is time limited. Each extra moon radius
cuts that available dosage by the square of that distance, although
it's not actually quite that good because, that big old salty moon
isn't a given point source of gamma and hard-Xrays, whereas instead
while on the deck your moonsuit butt is surrounded by at least 3.14e6
m2 worth of all that's anticathode worthy, plus getting directly
nailed by whatever solar and cosmic influx and not to mention by
whatever's of IR/FIR plus physical debris.

At any rate, if we were to simply give that moon a certain point-
source worth of whatever radiation at 2r, whereas at ten fold the
distance or 20r it would become roughly 1% of that 2r dosage, and so
forth according to those pesky terrestrial laws of physics. That
rather large moon of gamma and of hard-Xrays (especially Xray nasty by
moonshine) is roughly 221r from Earth.

BTW, according to Raytheon and TRW, our USAF uses that moon for
calibrating their various in-flight radiation detectors. Sorry about
that.

Depends on what radiation they're detecting.

-BradGuth

--
#191,
Windows. Multi-platform(1), multi-tasking(1), multi-user(1).
(1) if one defines "multi" as "exactly one".

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We see that you're still a status quo minion, and rather brown nosed
to boot.

Too bad that our environment and so much of humanity has had to pay
the ultimate price because of folks exactly like yourself.
- Brad Guth

born-again (and never,again,born-again) Semites expose Bradley's hoax:
he's still using Ptolemy's "missing epicycle" for his daily horoscope;
waiting for the *next* Age of Aquarius in the JPL simulation?

seriously, unmanned probes are as bad as your SIMsuit;
how will we know if *any* one has any space program,
including ourselves?... unless, you can stimulate the hard suctioning
sensation
of interplanetary space -- not to be confuzed with The Vacuum --
this could be more serious than the classical dichotomy
between the un-fried chicken & the un-soft-boiled egg!

I always get scared, when I can't see Venus --
do you have her phone# !?!

if she walks like a junglefowl,
she tastes like gamey chicken, but
you sitll have to break the eggs
to make the omelette.

(compared to what will be possible in the future, that is).

Apparently it's so simple that you silly folks haven't a freaking clue
as to the required fly-by-rocket physics, the necessary protection of
our frail DNA, or the subsequent science that should have been easily
obtained.

thus:
anyway, since the Apollo landings were not near lunar sunrise or
sunset, how could Venus be visible, without occultation
of Sun by Moon --
*why* is it called the morningstar?

thus:
in night-time photos of "foreground" objects, without specialized
printing;
the foreground stuff is "orders of magnitude" brigther
than those tiny pinpoints of light.

why don't you try to get out of your chair, and
try to take some actual pictures of actual sky-stuff,
that you can see with your naked eye.

as you may know, though I'm not sure about this,
not even a near-quarter Moon is always visible close to noontime,
if it is "out," at all;
kind of limits your viewing opportunites of Venus;
doesn't it?... most newspapers print the sun & moon "rise" and "set"
times;
should they print Venus's two, just for you?

the proof is in the nude Kodak moments,
where the astronauts are sunbathing in the Mojave moviesetting,
a pile of spacesuits to the side.

thus:
as for Pons and Fleischman,
their results have been replicated all over the planet, and
many more besides, although I don't know of a complete theory, yet,
nor do I follow the field. unfortunately, a percieved conflict
with the hot fusion community crushed any USA funding,
at least til recently.

the calorimetric approach precludes the "storing-up
of energy as hydrogen in the electrodes," because
you still have to account for the energy to split the water. golly,
what is so problematic about the idea of fusion being catalyzed
within a metallic lattice -- how do you explain the excess heat and
nuclear products?

* or, it was just too recondite & special of a solution
--wasn't it a rotating cylindrical universe?-- to require an answer.

thus:
the basic problem is that you muzlimfizikists believe that
those planes were not big-enough bombs to topple Earth's
tallest, most-highly-balanced structures. please,
look at the MIT head welder's analysis,
before you commit to this ideal.
http://larouchepub.com/other/2007/34...onspiracy.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2007/34...st_cheney.html

thus:
re http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
why do people believe that
the cartels do not love the Kyoto Protocol, or that
they are against their own statistical data,
known as Peak Oil --
what's missing in the gestalt, here?...
the glacier data that mosnieur Croppock linked,
is completely selective, as you can
tell by reading the encyclopedia-like article;
these glaciers are the ones
that are readily accessible!
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html

thus quoth:
Only fragments of these remarks have been reported in the West, while
in Russia RIA Novosti gave its readers a headline
("Clinton supports placement of BMD in Poland and the Czech
Republic")
that was directly opposite to what President Clinton said.
http://larouchepub.com/other/2007/34..._at_yalta.html

--n~nerfman~n!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2007/07073...each_dick.html
14 Italian Senators Call for Cheney Impeachment
Aug. 1, 2007 (EIRNS)-
The Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee
(LPAC) issued the following release today.
Fourteen members of the Italian Senate have signed a call "to the
Members of Congress to support Rep. Kucinich's House Resolution 333
for the Impeachment of Dick Cheney."
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2007/07080...tors_call.html

yeah, it must be the donuts;
if you'd stop examining my sex life,
you might find Venus in some other direction
than **.

the latest freeware from JPL does not necessarily constitute
"the best science" -- unless you're talking
about xtreem programming for your dataset.

Is it another one of those pesky Jewish things?

--n~nerfman~n!

hte first thing that I found for sims on JPL's site was this,
which seems to show that Venus is very close to Earth (also Mars), so
that
you might not be able to see it, in the actual sky, at all,
whether morming or evening, without special equipment,
if there is any thing like that. maybe not even from Moon,
even if you were on the limb at sunset or sunrise.

of course, this is all hyper-academic, totally of no concern to NASA
et al;
they just want to know where Venus *is* for use in fly-by, not
its relative magnitude compared to Sun. hey, no biggie;
almost two generations of antinauts have been stumped by this,
*without* the use of a stimulator.

kind of an interesting prespective, though, from Pluto,
with a 2-degree field of view.

http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/ws...rbs=1&showsc=1

you might find Venus in some other direction
than **.

the latest freeware from JPL does not necessarily constitute
"the best science" -- unless you're talking
about xtreem programming for your dataset.

thus:
re http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
why do people believe that
the cartels do not love the Kyoto Protocol, or that
they are against their own statistical data,
known as Peak Oil --
what's missing in the gestalt, here?...
the glacier data that mosnieur Croppock linked,
is completely selective, as you can
tell by reading the encyclopedia-like article;
these glaciers are the ones
that are readily accessible!
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html

thus quoth:
Only fragments of these remarks have been reported in the West, while
in Russia RIA Novosti gave its readers a headline
("Clinton supports placement of BMD in Poland and the Czech
Republic")
that was directly opposite to what President Clinton said.
http://larouchepub.com/other/2007/34..._at_yalta.html

--n~nerfman~n!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2007/07073...each_dick.html
14 Italian Senators Call for Cheney Impeachment
Aug. 1, 2007 (EIRNS)-
The Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee
(LPAC) issued the following release today.
Fourteen members of the Italian Senate have signed a call "to the
Members of Congress to support Rep. Kucinich's House Resolution 333
for the Impeachment of Dick Cheney."
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2007/07080...tors_call.html

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 09:24:07 -0700, malibu wrote:

In the more current happening, the film "A Funny Thing Happened On The
Way To The Moon", an amount of footage got into the moon videos that
wasn't supposed to. It shows Armstrong with the camera set up to make
the Earth appear to be as far away as possible (shooting Earth through
the porthole from the *opposite* side of the capsule with all the lights
off.)

Of course anyone who's ever shot more than about 2 pictures would realize
that's silly. If you _back_ _up_ when shooting an object through a
window -- any window, any object -- the effect of the added distance on
the apparent size of the WINDOW (which is necessarily closer to you than
the object) will be MORE PRONOUNCED than the effect on the OBJECT.

So, backing up to the other side of the capsule would make the Earth
appear _closer_, relative to the window, than would taking the picture
from a "more natural" position.

And just what do you think the relative positions of Earth and the
capsule might be, such that a few extra feet of distance would make any
perceptible difference in the apparent image size of Earth? Perhaps
Earth was just a picture pasted to the outside of the window? (Low
budget operation, for sure!) Maybe it was just a painting after all!
(Gosh they must have had some good artists working for Nasa -- concept
paintings by other space artists never come out looking so photo-
realistic!)

"Back, and to the left" .... "if we say it three times, it's true" ...
never mind the elementary physics involved...


--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org

On Aug 24, 3:54 pm, Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
wrote:

anyway, since theApollolandings were not near lunar sunrise or
sunset, how could Venus be visible, without occultation
of Sun byMoon--
*why* is it called the morningstar?

We see that you still haven't got that fully interactive 3D orbital
simulator up and running. What's the excuse this time around?
- Brad Guth -

On Aug 29, 6:23 pm, Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum
wrote:
hte first thing that I found for sims on JPL's site was this,
which seems to show that Venus is very close to Earth (also Mars), so
that
you might not be able to see it, in the actual sky, at all,
whether morming or evening, without special equipment,
if there is any thing like that. maybe not even fromMoon,
even if you were on the limb at sunset or sunrise.

Still no interactive 3D orbital simulator. How downright Yid
pathetic.
- Brad Guth -

On Sep 4, 2:19 pm, sal wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 09:24:07 -0700, malibu wrote:
In the more current happening, the film "A Funny Thing Happened On The
Way To TheMoon", an amount of footage got into themoonvideos that
wasn't supposed to. It shows Armstrong with the camera set up to make
the Earth appear to be as far away as possible (shooting Earth through
the porthole from the *opposite* side of the capsule with all the lights
off.)

Of course anyone who's ever shot more than about 2 pictures would realize
that's silly. If you _back_ _up_ when shooting an object through a
window -- any window, any object -- the effect of the added distance on
the apparent size of the WINDOW (which is necessarily closer to you than
the object) will be MORE PRONOUNCED than the effect on the OBJECT.

So, backing up to the other side of the capsule would make the Earth
appear _closer_, relative to the window, than would taking the picture
from a "more natural" position.

And just what do you think the relative positions of Earth and the
capsule might be, such that a few extra feet of distance would make any
perceptible difference in the apparent image size of Earth? Perhaps
Earth was just a picture pasted to the outside of the window? (Low
budget operation, for sure!) Maybe it was just a painting after all!
(Gosh they must have had some good artists working for Nasa -- concept
paintings by other space artists never come out looking so photo-
realistic!)

"Back, and to the left" .... "if we say it three times, it's true" ...
never mind the elementary physics involved...

The moon's L1 was technically doable (short term survivable), and
robotics accomplished everything else. Got a problem with any of
that?
- Brad Guth -

"bah humbug -- you're not using my stimulator!!!"

you'll never bother to answer these simple questions, but,
as you know, that which is not specifically designed
into software is not "modeled" in it;
in this case, whether or not it is JPL's software,
the matter of "relative brightness" is not
in your silly-ass simwa
is everything transformed in to luminous "zero-dimensional" dots
on little elliptical railroads?

you know, when Venus is presenting its "dark side" --
"not in my God-am stimulator, dood...." yeah,
"Brad Guth" gives a new meaning to the word, mooning --
he don'need no light on his butt, for you to see it and
to take aim!

this is such a simple thing, to base your hoax upon it; I mean,
if you can't figure this out, you're only hoaxing you, "Brad Guth" and
that dumb-ass semite-Wanabi
with his head in the rectal dysplay unit;
you can't talk to him, except via instant massage
through his RDU!

every other exposure to radiation is also relative,
expecially hard ionizing radiation, although the EPA had got
everyone in the USA afraid of fission (or,
in your case, getting through the Van Allen belt -- ohmygod !-)

you might not be able to see Venus, in the actual sky, at all,
whether morming or evening, without special equipment,
if there is any thing like that. maybe not even from Moon,
even if you were on the limb at sunset or sunrise.

Still no interactive 3D orbital simulator. How downright Yid
pathetic.

thus:
well, I'm not going to reveal the name of the theorem, since
I have to prove it & stuff using "Menelaus'" theorem, although
I could give you my initial, obvious, name for it. otherwise,
folks'd say, Nuts!

how fundamental it is, remains to be seen;
I'll have to speak with Bucky about this,
through the appropriate Medium.

thus:
according to Greitzer and Coxeter (Copyr. 20cce),
Menelaus actually proved the theorem
for the spherical trigon, or Archimedes did that,
as if the planar version was well-known, but
no citation.

note that tangents of a sphere map to greatcircles, and
tangential segments to arcs of them.

see trivial exercise to derive Heron's formula
for area of trigon from Brahmagupta's theorem
for the tetragon.... well, anyway,
the formula for the tetragon (abcd) is symmetrical,
A^2 = (s-a)(s-b)(s-c)(s-d), "s" is half of a+b+c+d;
I'd've said, tetragon (ABCD), but the labels
for the sides are not "opposite" the vertices.

further problem to be published in SPAMM-A.
fortunately, the peer-review occurs after the publication,
such as it is!

thus:
re http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
why do people believe that
the cartels do not love the Kyoto Protocol, or that
they are against their own statistical data,
known as Peak Oil --
what's missing in the gestalt, here?...
the glacier data that mosnieur Croppock linked,
is completely selective, as you can
tell by reading the encyclopedia-like article;
these glaciers are the ones
that are readily accessible!
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
thus quoth:
Only fragments of these remarks have been reported in the West, while
in Russia RIA Novosti gave its readers a headline
("Clinton supports placement of BMD in Poland and the Czech
Republic")
that was directly opposite to what President Clinton said.
http://larouchepub.com/other/2007/34..._at_yalta.html

--n~nerfman~n!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2007/07073...each_dick.html
14 Italian Senators Call for Cheney Impeachment
Aug. 1, 2007 (EIRNS)-
The Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee
(LPAC) issued the following release today.
Fourteen members of the Italian Senate have signed a call "to the
Members of Congress to support Rep. Kucinich's House Resolution 333
for the Impeachment of Dick Cheney."
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2007/07080...tors_call.html