On Jul 6, 4:54 pm, "hanson" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

Physics FAQs -- The Twin Paradox

http://edu-observatory.org/physics-f...inParadox/twin...

[hanson]
.... Sam, that link of yours sports 3 different explanations AND
.... Sam, that link of yours sports 3 different objections for the
Twin Paradox... So, do such pedagogic 6-fold-needs not raise
a red flag in you?... .... Oh, these unconditional believers aka
Einstein Dingleberries... They remind me more and more of
the interpreters of holy scriptures where anything goes to
con the flock... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs... ahahanson

BTW: If you look very closely you can even convince yourself
that by/thru & with the twin paradox that your idol Albert allows
you to run an over-unit gismo... perpetual motion aux Einstein!
ahahaha.....

Mr. Wormley is totally speechless getting caught as a piece of
Einstein dingleberry. Please allow me to laugh with you. ahahaha...

The absurd ridiculousness does not end here in SR and in its nemesis
known as the twin's paradox. Similar bullsh*t also resides in GR. As
I have pointed out in the previous few posts, the observations
predicted by GR represent a total joke. Any serious scholars trained
in logic and consistency should easily identify the crap coming out of
GR, and yet again the whole field is dominated by Einstein
dingleberries. ahahaha...

On Jul 5, 8:40 pm, Ian Parker wrote:
On 5 Jul, 01:38, wrote:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html

Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
this planet.

There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people who
conspire the greater the possibility of a leak.

Actually, the correct law is "the greater the lie the more they'll
believe". That's an Adolf Hitler quote. Take 5 mins from your idealism
and take a look around.

On Jul 6, 8:59 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 10:14 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:32 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:32 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
There's more than sufficient DR in that Kodak film.
Venus is not a star, and there's a few other items to boot, although
Sirius would certainly have been impossible to have excluded.
BTW, are you being a silly Zion too?
-
BradGuth
Too bad sufficiently bright objects (within the dynamic range of
the films used) weren't in the image field. The fact is they were
not.
Too bad that your such an incest cloned Zion of a liar, in that most
any fully interactive 3D orbital simulator proves me right, as
otherwise you folks above all could have had those Old Testament
certified solar system simulators and even having tossed in with a few
of those pesky bright stars as being unavoidably shown to us from that
physically dark surface of our nasty moon, that's also a whole lot
more anticathode worthy of sharing gamma and hard-Xrays than any Van
Allen belt, whereas at some time or another within thoseApolloEVAs
is when such film DR capable items were in fact situated above their
local horizon.
Venus for its size was and still is simply a whole lot brighter than
Earth, and even the likes of Saturn, Jupiter or even Mars isn't
exactly invisible to the dynamic range of such unfiltered Kodak film.
You silly folks don't even admit to realizing what the "unfiltered"
advantage means to having easily recorded such items, especially
Venus.
The fact is, that you'd have to work pretty gosh darn hard at keeping
such items out of all the thousands of those frames of whatever that
Kodak film had supposedly recorded, such as exposed from the
unavoidably gamma and hard-Xray populated surface environment of our
terribly anticathode and otherwise electrostatic charged moon.
As of decades ago, if the likes of I were even the least bit wrong,
you'd be right in there with that Zion certified simulator that's
supposedly better than anythingNASA, ESA or of whatever else has to
offer, thus easily proving that as per viewed at the time, as obtained
from that moon is where absolutely nothing of sufficient brightness
was ever within a given FOV. But since you're all nothing but an
infested swarm of Zion liars and cold-war perpetrators, you can't but
fart.
-
BradGuth
Like I said, too bad sufficiently bright objects (within the dynamic
range of the films used) weren't in the image field. The fact is they
were not.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Too bad you've got less than your pro-Zion squat for backing that up.
-
Brad Guth
I would just love you to prove me wrong with credible data, Guth!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Just down-load, install and run with most any good 3D interactive
solar system simulator. It'll put the moon and other planets exactly
where they were, hour by hour if need be, along with displaying such
items in their proper albedo.

Otherwise, contact Kodak Corporate for all the film expertise you'll
ever need, and then some. Then look at published images of our moon
along with other planets and even a few stars showing up within the
very same FOV and exposure.

Too bad Sirius was apparently hiding out along with Venus, as
otherwise the vibrant speck of Sirius would also have been rather
impressive on film.
-
Brad Guth

I already use such software. Like I said, too bad sufficiently bright
objects (within the dynamic range of the films used) weren't in the
image field. The fact is they were not.

We are waiting, Brad Guth, for you to cite credible data to the contrary.
I would just love you to prove me wrong with credible data, Guth!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Put up or shut up.

What hocus-pocus solar system simulator software has our Venus and
other planets plus even a few stars invisible? (as hidden by what?)
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 6, 9:17 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 8:01 pm, pico wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Venus for its size was and still is simply a whole lot brighter than
Earth,
Uh... was Venus even within the scene they could photograph? And how
much brighter was it than the surface of the moon? Let's be specific.
Was it a range of possibly 10,000:1? (It was greater, actually).

My God, what a infomercial spewing liar, and pagan to boot. Do you
also suck private parts for a living?
-
Brad Guth

Guth can't answer the question!

Such silly and usually loaded questions are not the point.

Venus was per it's given visual size offering a brighter item per
grain of film than Earth. You folks are absolutely pathetic Zions,
without any speck of remorse or sense of humor none the less.

There have long been multiple examples of our moon and Venus side by
side, as recorded on film, as having essentially the same photographic
DR as was available to those NASA/Apollo missions. Photographs of our
moon along with Jupiter, Saturn and even a dim little Mars showing up
within the very same FOV and given exposure. Even the NASA/Apollo
archives has a telephoto enhanced Mars along with our moon as obtained
from one of their lunar orbits.

If Sirius were ever situated anywhere above that physically dark lunar
horizon (of which it clearly was), it too would have been unavoidably
recorded on film as a nifty little fuzzy speck of a somewhat dim
violet/bluish light.

All you MIB folks of NASA's swarm of damage-control have got to work
with are those hocus-pocus conditional laws of physics, of skewed
science that simply can not be independently replicated, and otherwise
as much excluded and/or lost evidence as you silly Jewish folks can
possibly muster as the official rusemasters and naysayers of defending
your Skull and Bones mainstream status quo butts.
-
Brad Guth

On 5 Jul, 17:02, "Androcles" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message

oups.com...
: On 5 Jul, 01:38, wrote:
: http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
:
: Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
: eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
: this planet.
:
: There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people who
: conspire the greater the possibility of a leak. With the large number
: of people who participated in Apollo a leak would be virually certain.
:
: Conspiracies are posible iff (2 fs deliberate) you have a very small
: tightly knit group of people.
:
:
: - Ian Parker

Or to put it another way, two people can keep a secret iff one of
them is dead.

If all the conspirators except you are dead, only you can leak. What
about another conspiracy! I seem to remember you believe this one.

NASA has discovered that the precession of 43" per century of Mercury
is in fact wrong. Everyone who works in the deep space tracking
department has been told to keep mum. It is classified as more secret
even than the Moon landing fakes.

Similarly all the engineers at CERN are part of a conspiracy. The
hadrons are NOT moving at 99%c their speed is above that of light.
Somehow there have been no leaks. This is a surprise.


- Ian Parker

On Jul 7, 2:55 am, wrote:
On Jul 5, 8:40 pm, Ian Parker wrote:

On 5 Jul, 01:38, wrote:

http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html

Those who were deceived by theApolloHoaxwill be remembered, for
eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
this planet.

There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people who
conspire the greater the possibility of a leak.

Actually, the correct law is "the greater the lie the more they'll
believe". That's an Adolf Hitler quote. Take 5 mins from your idealism
and take a look around.

I agree, as when if ever hasn't our government lied to us?

Didn't the USSR/Russia also have to lie their perpetrated cold-war
butts off?

Lieism is almost as Skull and Bones proof tested as anything Third
Reich and of anything their Zion Hitler is ever going to get. Atheism
is just their usual cloak of what such Jewish liars of spewing
infomercial ****ology have to utilize in order to accomplish their
inside jobs of snookering humanity for all it's worth.
-
Brad Guth

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 6, 4:54 pm, "hanson" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:xizji.1012$Xa3.602@attbi_s22...
Koobee Wublee wrote:
...the twin's paradox was identified as a paradox since 1911 and
and still is not yet resolved because there is no resolution due to
the nature of the Lorentz transform. Time dilation and the principle
of relativity together manifest this paradox. You need to study and
understand the Lorentz transform for a change. Approach it from the
logical deduction and mathematical reasoning instead of the usual crap
such as religious faith. shrug

[Sam]
Physics FAQs -- The Twin Paradox
http://edu-observatory.org/physics-f...n_paradox.html

[hanson]
..... Sam, that link of yours sports 3 different explanations AND
..... Sam, that link of yours sports 3 different objections for the
Twin Paradox... So, do such pedagogic 6-fold-needs not raise
a red flag in you?... .... Oh, these unconditional believers aka
Einstein Dingleberries... They remind me more and more of
the interpreters of holy scriptures where anything goes to
con the flock... ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs... ahahanson

BTW: If you look very closely you can even convince yourself
that by/thru & with the twin paradox that your idol Albert allows
you to run an over-unit gismo... perpetual motion aux Einstein!
ahahaha.....

[KooBee]
Mr. Wormley is totally speechless getting caught as a piece of
Einstein dingleberry. Please allow me to laugh with you. ahahaha...

The absurd ridiculousness does not end here in SR and in its nemesis
known as the twin's paradox. Similar bullsh*t also resides in GR. As
I have pointed out in the previous few posts, the observations
predicted by GR represent a total joke. Any serious scholars trained
in logic and consistency should easily identify the crap coming out of
GR, and yet again the whole field is dominated by Einstein
dingleberries. ahahaha...

[hanson]
The way I see GR, agreeing with your take, I up the ante and raise
the stake as in google/groups GR BFD ]-
wherein I said:
.... as long as Einstein and/or his Dingleberries do use
[1] Newton's G and steps of [2] Newtonian mechanics,
in their relativistic pursuit and their equations, all their little
relativity vignettes remain merely mental masturbations.
Them using [1 &2], forces to carry with them, by necessity, any
and all problems, baggage, short comings and defects attributed
to [1 &2], that Einstein & his Dingelberries are trying to get
(unsuccessfully) rid of.
So, GR = BFD. It's a circular dance by Einstein Dingleberries
..... and it doesn't change that fact no matter how much they twist
and convolute the situation with frame dragging, matrices or barks
& cries that "GPS works", somenthing that so many loudmouthed
Einstein Dingleberries do... Whether the Einstein Dingleberries
like it or not,...All of them will remain by definition under the towering
influence & governing hand of Newton and his G, from which they
so far have tried to escape in absolute, not relative, vain... ahaha..

..... ahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, KooBee. You are alright!
ahahaha.... ahahanson

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On 5 Jul, 17:02, "Androcles" wrote:
: "Ian Parker" wrote in message
:
: oups.com...
: : On 5 Jul, 01:38, wrote:
: : http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
: :
: : Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
: : eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
: : this planet.
: :
: : There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people who
: : conspire the greater the possibility of a leak. With the large number
: : of people who participated in Apollo a leak would be virually certain.
: :
: : Conspiracies are posible iff (2 fs deliberate) you have a very small
: : tightly knit group of people.
: :
: :
: : - Ian Parker
:
: Or to put it another way, two people can keep a secret iff one of
: them is dead.
:
: If all the conspirators except you are dead, only you can leak. What
: about another conspiracy! I seem to remember you believe this one.
:
: NASA has discovered that the precession of 43" per century of Mercury
: is in fact wrong. Everyone who works in the deep space tracking
: department has been told to keep mum. It is classified as more secret
: even than the Moon landing fakes.
:
: Similarly all the engineers at CERN are part of a conspiracy. The
: hadrons are NOT moving at 99%c their speed is above that of light.
: Somehow there have been no leaks. This is a surprise.

You still believe the Sun goes around the Earth because you can
see it does. Have fun with your make-believe, ****head.

BradGuth wrote:

Let's get to specifics. First of all, tell me what "Kodak" film they
were using and we will work from there.

I've been there and done that a thousand times. Go fish.

No you have not.


You a fully functional Zion borg of a Third Reich minion, arnt you.

You've seen way too many comic books and Star Trek shows.

BradGuth wrote:

My God, what a infomercial spewing liar, and pagan to boot.

If you knew anything of the original "pagans" you would be embarrassed
by what you wrote. Unless you are some kind of seething Roman Catholic
crusader (in the original meaning.)