What Hawking REALLY meant and his theory

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...

nightbat

Ooh, oh, make mental note: better get take out star burst
neutrino insurance for my telescope.


the nightbat

Starburst insurance in general would be good, except when faced with
designating a living beneficiary.

Actually it might be possible to survive a radiation onslaught by
staying in a cave or bunker. The guys at the NORAD bunker in Cheyenne
Mountain might well survive the starburst, to continue defending the
wasteland outside!

Double-A

nightbat

Ok Double-A, then start bidding on some US owned surplus now
abandoned for sale underground cold war silo missile compounds. I
understand they are cheap, very large, and fully protective. Still your
telescope would be exposed in order to get those special sky shots as
the bulk of the neutrinos hit Earth.


Double-A
I don't think the neutrinos would have much effect on your telescope,
neither would the gamma rays. It's that particle radiation (cosmic
rays) that shows up years later that might frost your lens!

nightbat

Neutrinos are known to go right through matter, and yes, it's
that dirty, nasty, sub star burst radiation that will get the clueless
above ground wanderers that will receive the bulk of the damage not us.
You and I will be underground in our US surplus abandoned missile silos.
We will be the first to get the super nova shots and sell them to all
the magazines and newspapers and make millions. Years later, as the
nasty radiation arrives we will be in our deluxe fitted and protective
underground bunkers.




Your telescope viewing computer
program could be run from deep underground but the scope itself would be
exposed. It would be a good thing therefore to close the protective bay
doors to protect all the equipment but then the outside viewing would
suffer. Nope, better take out your scope insurance, for heaven knows
they charge enough for any scope and all those must have multiple lenses
and accessories needed.


Double-A
Not that cheap COSTCO Special scope that I have.


nightbat

You don't mean the recalled WalMart 80 Costco Special scope for
$99 normally $149 that the telescope factory put the experimental super
high polished professional quality multi lenses in by mistake?



And knowing those pesky insurance salesmen,
leave it to them to figure out how to survive the arriving star burst
only to try to sell you even more insurance because nothing seems to be
able to get rid of them, especially if they smell a good prospect.


Double-A
And they're counting on the fact that you probably won't be around to
collect that insurance after paying the premiums.

nightbat

Nay, we will have beaten them by being in our underground deluxe
silo bunkers.


And
please don't forget to get actual cost of living replacement rider added
to the policy so at least you can hopefully get the scope replaced of
equal value and not have to settle, you know, for one of those so called
cheaper ones.




Double-A
Again, the insurance company will get the better of you. Cost of
living won't be much when most of what you need will be free to
plunder from all those abandoned superstores.

Double-A

nightbat

Those sneaky insurance salesmen devils, they forget that we are
corresponding alt.astronomy net posters that will be protected by the
reconditioned underground deluxe refitted observatory silo bunkers and
all those millions we made selling the one of a kind space sky shots
before the dirty radiation hits Earth. Then after the main radiation
blows over we can both go to WalMart and get all those great star burst
abandoned Costco cheap scopes but with the experimental titanium
silicate ultra low expansion made flame reactively with the additional
3M alumina flame spray experimental lenses they meant to only put in the
much more expansive priced Costco 9000 scopes. If they only knew you got
your hands on those experimental lenses already.

See: http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/8/9


the nightbat


Your link was interesting. So glass can be made from alumina. I
thought it could only be made from silica.

I wonder if it can be made from ferrous oxide?

If so, tj Frazir's "clear steel" might be a possibility!

Double-A

nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...


See: http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/8/9


the nightbat

Your link was interesting. So glass can be made from alumina. I
thought it could only be made from silica.

I wonder if it can be made from ferrous oxide?

If so, tj Frazir's "clear steel" might be a possibility!

Double-A

nightbat

Science marches on, and to your initial passive questions, yes,
per that article. Regarding ferrous oxide and Tj Frazir and his claimed
clear steel is another matter. What's clear is he is english language
challenged, rambles allot, and makes fantastic claims. Never have seen
any real evidence of his Whale engine or clear steel, pics, maps, full
working diagrams, or schematics of his constant boasted devises. Have
been sent pics of a luxury boat, some purported of himself as a young
sailor, his Father and Mother, but no physical evidence of any of that
which he claims. He has offered me gold, great wealth, position, boats,
his engine to sell, but never allowed the actual engine or operating
plans to be seen as yet. He rattles on how the American Navy and US
Government has cheated him and is very distrustful of them and most. He
was very friendly and respectful to me but quickly changed when pressed
for actual engine sample, attempt at concrete partnership mutual
negotiations and follow-up, or when GM officials and research center
refused meeting his specifics or acceptance of his engine. He can be
very argumentative and quick tempered if challenged for actual facts or
if he doesn't get his way quickly. I have not bothered to reply to him
despite his attempts and replies to other posters in sci.physics to get
me to confirm or affirm personal data because of this and his manner and
flip flop unexplainable behavior. He did disclose that he had been
injured in the head while in service and that may explain allot. Does he
have clear steel, your guess is as good as mine. Is it possible,
remember man made clear diamonds so anything is possible under the right
theoretical conditions and logical applied persistence. However,
achieving those particular real world applications, that's another case
altogether.

ponder on,
the nightbat

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...
nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

nightbat wrote in message ...


See: http://physicsweb.org/article/news/8/8/9


the nightbat

Your link was interesting. So glass can be made from alumina. I
thought it could only be made from silica.

I wonder if it can be made from ferrous oxide?

If so, tj Frazir's "clear steel" might be a possibility!

Double-A

nightbat

Science marches on, and to your initial passive questions, yes,
per that article. Regarding ferrous oxide and Tj Frazir and his claimed
clear steel is another matter. What's clear is he is english language
challenged, rambles allot, and makes fantastic claims. Never have seen
any real evidence of his Whale engine or clear steel, pics, maps, full
working diagrams, or schematics of his constant boasted devises. Have
been sent pics of a luxury boat, some purported of himself as a young
sailor, his Father and Mother, but no physical evidence of any of that
which he claims. He has offered me gold, great wealth, position, boats,
his engine to sell, but never allowed the actual engine or operating
plans to be seen as yet. He rattles on how the American Navy and US
Government has cheated him and is very distrustful of them and most. He
was very friendly and respectful to me but quickly changed when pressed
for actual engine sample, attempt at concrete partnership mutual
negotiations and follow-up, or when GM officials and research center
refused meeting his specifics or acceptance of his engine. He can be
very argumentative and quick tempered if challenged for actual facts or
if he doesn't get his way quickly. I have not bothered to reply to him
despite his attempts and replies to other posters in sci.physics to get
me to confirm or affirm personal data because of this and his manner and
flip flop unexplainable behavior. He did disclose that he had been
injured in the head while in service and that may explain allot. Does he
have clear steel, your guess is as good as mine. Is it possible,
remember man made clear diamonds so anything is possible under the right
theoretical conditions and logical applied persistence. However,
achieving those particular real world applications, that's another case
altogether.

ponder on,
the nightbat


Of course I don't really take tj Frazir seriously. He has about as
much credibility as an authentic persona as Santa Claus or the Easter
Bunny. I think the most telling give away is that there exist tj
posts with almost impeccable spelling, grammar, and construction.

I guess he just forgot himself!

Double-A