#511
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
"tomcat" wrote in message
oups.com Tell me, Rand, what is it that 'you' do in your spare time? I believe this is it, the entire Usenet ****ology mindset of lord Rand and of so many other mutated borgs of their kind. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#512
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Is Light
Brad Guth wrote: "tomcat" wrote in message ups.com When electrons come into contact with positrons they annihilate each other. Enormous amounts of energy are released. "When a matter particle and antimatter particle meet, they annihilate into pure energy!" -- The Particle Adventure. And, yes, this "pure energy" released by the annihilation would be very, very visible -- even from Venus and Mars. Lots of photons, John. Lots and lots of photons, both visible and not visible. I do believe that you're sharing too many complex ideas and forbidden information with the borg. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG Classified information amazes me. The toy sailboat experiment at the Princeton Institute of Advanced Studies was in the newsreels at the movie houses back in the early 50's. It was news media stuff and everyone knew about it. But try to look it up today. When I investigated it I decided to contact the Princeton Institute. I called Princeton University and was told that they did not have a Princeton Institute of Advanced Studies there. So, I did what I should have done in the first place and called the Princeton Institute of Advanced Studies. A secretary answered. She laughed and said that, yes, they were located in the area of Princeton University but it was a government Institute and, therefore, not part of the University. She, of course, knew nothing of the 'toy sailboat experiment'. The newsreels had shown a toy sailboat placed between two large electrical devices. When the knife switch was turned on the sailboat disappeared. There was nothing there at all and the reporters watching actually waved their hands through the empty space where it had been. Then, with the throw of the switch once again, the toy sailboat reappeared. Invisibility using 'external apparatus' had been demonstrated in 1939. With further research I found that the British had done the same thing using a man instead of a toy boat some 4 or 5 years prior. The Canadians had done it 1 year after the British. All of this was out in the open back in the 30's but try to look it up now. It took me several weeks to dig up vague and unsubstantiated references to the experiment. But I had seen the newsreels when I was a kid so I knew it was for real. Now why would a government attempt to hide something that was once a completely unclassified and public event? Certainly every government in the world knew of it. And, most certainly the British and Canadians. I can only conclude that the Borg are not limited to this Usenet. Apparently they have penetrated our government and are controlling our classified documents as well. The Borg think that they can cover up what has already been released and 'change history'. Well, now the Borg are trying to hide what Einstein knew and stated many years ago, viz., E = M C ^2 and nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum. This, by itself, indicates that energy is light is mass. How else could Einstein have known that nothing travels faster than light? He could only know this if light were unique in some way. But what way? Well, light is the only real substance in the Universe so light can't go faster than itself. The Borg, however, will never figure this out and will hurl insults at the mere thought of it. tomcat |
#513
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Is Light
"tomcat" wrote:
John Griffin wrote: "tomcat" wrote: John Griffin wrote: "tomcat" wrote: John Griffin wrote: "tomcat" wrote: Take 1 pound of electron particles, put them in a bowl filled with 1 pound of positron particles. You will see the 'light', John. I guarantee it! Your guarantee is worthless. I wouldn't see it, and not only because the intermediate photon's energy is way out of the visible range. For a good time, look at a site called "The particle adventure." P.S. All rocks are dead. Maybe you can get stoned by messing with parts of "living rock," though. Check it out. When electrons come into contact with positrons they annihilate each other. Enormous amounts of energy are released. Good point, but you don't get it. "When a matter particle and antimatter particle meet, they annihilate into pure energy!" -- The Particle Adventure. And, yes, this "pure energy" released by the annihilation would be very, very visible -- even from Venus and Mars. Lots of photons, John. Enormously energetic photons are not visible to us. Lots and lots of photons, both visible and not visible. "Virtual photons," (not observable) and enormously high-energy photons, like gamma rays. Any light you would see coming from your particle soup would come from the surrounding medium. E = M C ^ 2 regardless of whether it is fission, fusion, or antimatter annihilation. An atomic bomb produces a brilliant blue-white flash. A hydrogen bomb produces a brilliant blue-white flash. And, I suspect, an antimatter bomb would also produce a brilliant blue-white flash. There is no evidence that a fission or fusion device produces visible light. The flash you're talking about comes from air, and maybe from the bomb casing and mechanisms. Whether or not there would be a brilliant flash in the vacuum of Outer Space I don't know, In other words, your statement above is silly. but I suspect that there would be. Probably no mushroom cloud or lingering glow, however. The mushroom cloud is debris from the shock wave, raised by superheated air and forced upward by cold air rushing in to fill the void evacuated by the explosion, and the glow comes from superheated stuff, including the air, that survived the detonation. A firecracker can make the same mushroom cloud. As for mushroom clouds in space, note that there is no mushroom cloud around the sun or any of the other 300 billion continuous nuclear "explosions" in the galaxy. It is interesting to note that nuclear weapons produce the entire gamut of radiation when they explode. Where did you get that idea? The Sun gives off 'sunlight' and we use this to see objects. The hydrogen-burning core of the sun does not produce visible photons. It produces high-energy photons which don't reach us for a million years, and the atmosphere eats them when they get here. But if this isn't enough then check this out: Evidence for direct photons from quarks in electron-positron annihilation I don't need to see that. I didn't say the process doesn't produce photons. I said it produces gamma rays, agreeing with your mention of "enormous energy." In case you don't know, a photon's energy is directly proportional to its frequency, and enormously energetic photons' frequencies are a long way out of the visible light region of the spectrum. Gamma rays and x-rays are photons, but they go through your eyeballs like **** through a guth. Journal Zeitschrift für Physik C Particles and Fields Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg ISSN 0170-9739 (Print) 1431-5858 (Online) Subject Engineering and Physics and Astronomy Issue Volume 41, Number 3 / September, 1988 DOI 10.1007/BF01585622 Pages 385-393 Online Date Monday, May 16, 2005 tomcat |
#514
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Is Light
"Brad Guth" wrote:
"tomcat" wrote in message ups.com tomcat: The Sun gives off 'sunlight' and we use this to see objects. At best, we can only see 0.0001% of the full spectrum that relates to said photons. The unfiltered Kodak eye can see and thereby records roughly half again as much spectrum as the human eye. But if this isn't enough then check this out: Evidence for direct photons from quarks in electron-positron annihilation Journal Zeitschrift für Physik C Particles and Fields Publisher Springer Berlin / Heidelberg ISSN 0170-9739 (Print) 1431-5858 (Online) Subject Engineering and Physics and Astronomy Issue Volume 41, Number 3 / September, 1988 DOI 10.1007/BF01585622 Pages 385-393 Online Date Monday, May 16, 2005 As per usual, about all that folks like yourself are ever going to get in return from these infomercial spewing rusemasters (such as John Griffin and especially Art Deco) is more of the very same gauntlet of their Old Testament of mainstream status quo flak, and to think it's all derived from those of your very own kind, as in having one and the very same mindset as for having insisted that we have walked moonsuit butt-naked on the moon (where the regular laws of physics simply do not apply). And once again here you are, tomcat, without so much as an honest clue as to how terribly snookered and summarily dumbfounded you've been from the very get go. BTW; I happen to think you're on the right set of tracks, though having been somewhat dumbfounded past the point of no return. - Brad Guth Damn, boy, do you realize what you just said? I'll tell you. You said "yap yap yap yap yap yap yap." Only this and nothing more. |
#515
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Is Light
"tomcat" wrote:
Brad Guth wrote: "tomcat" wrote in message ups.com When electrons come into contact with positrons they annihilate each other. Enormous amounts of energy are released. "When a matter particle and antimatter particle meet, they annihilate into pure energy!" -- The Particle Adventure. And, yes, this "pure energy" released by the annihilation would be very, very visible -- even from Venus and Mars. Lots of photons, John. Lots and lots of photons, both visible and not visible. I do believe that you're sharing too many complex ideas and forbidden information with the borg. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG Classified information amazes me. The toy sailboat experiment at the Princeton Institute of Advanced Studies was in the newsreels at the movie houses back in the early 50's. It was news media stuff and everyone knew about it. But try to look it up today. When I investigated it I decided to contact the Princeton Institute. I called Princeton University and was told that they did not have a Princeton Institute of Advanced Studies there. So, I did what I should have done in the first place and called the Princeton Institute of Advanced Studies. A secretary answered. She laughed and said that, yes, they were located in the area of Princeton University but it was a government Institute and, therefore, not part of the University. She, of course, knew nothing of the 'toy sailboat experiment'. The newsreels had shown a toy sailboat placed between two large electrical devices. When the knife switch was turned on the sailboat disappeared. There was nothing there at all and the reporters watching actually waved their hands through the empty space where it had been. Then, with the throw of the switch once again, the toy sailboat reappeared. Invisibility using 'external apparatus' had been demonstrated in 1939. With further research I found that the British had done the same thing using a man instead of a toy boat some 4 or 5 years prior. The Canadians had done it 1 year after the British. All of this was out in the open back in the 30's but try to look it up now. It took me several weeks to dig up vague and unsubstantiated references to the experiment. But I had seen the newsreels when I was a kid so I knew it was for real. ROTMFFLMMFAO! Now why would a government attempt to hide something that was once a completely unclassified and public event? Certainly every government in the world knew of it. And, most certainly the British and Canadians. I can only conclude that the Borg are not limited to this Usenet. Apparently they have penetrated our government and are controlling our classified documents as well. The Borg think that they can cover up what has already been released and 'change history'. Naturally you come to the most illogical possible conclusion. The borg actually made that newsreel. Not only that, they made it next year (2007) and used a couple of giant electronic devices and a knife switch to send it back to 1950 along with the 1950 Studebaker, which was an experiment to see how dumb humans are. (No borg would drive a car that looked like the front and rear were accidentally swapped on the assembly line.) All newsreels were given to the Smithsonian or something like that years ago. Try to find that one for us. You and the 55 others in the theater are the only ones who ever saw it. If that isn't right, there's an even better explanation. While you were out getting some more popcorn, the newsreel ended and that week's fifteen minute episode of the "Batman and Robin" serial started. Batman was showing how the evil Dr. Looselips sinks ships. Well, now the Borg are trying to hide what Einstein knew and stated many years ago, viz., E = M C ^2 and nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum. This, by itself, indicates that energy is light is mass. How else could Einstein have known that nothing travels faster than light? He could only know this if light were unique in some way. But what way? Well, light is the only real substance in the Universe so light can't go faster than itself. That would get you a D- in a sixth grade science test. The expression you need to incorporate into your goofy nonsense is m=M/(1-v^2/c^2), where M is the rest mass and m is the relativistic mass. Of course this says the mass of your imaginary non-massless photon is infinite, since v=c...heh! MC^2 is the energy released by particle interactions where the new stuff has less mass than the old stuff. The Borg, however, will never figure this out and will hurl insults at the mere thought of it. The borg don't need to figure out anything. Whenever you and guth present a new whimsy, they just assimilate it and file it under "earthling tomfoolery." Speaking of you and guth, have you heard that borg twins are always born with their heads up each other's asses? |
#516
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Is Light
"tomcat" wrote in message
oups.com Well, now the Borg are trying to hide what Einstein knew and stated many years ago, viz., E = M C ^2 and nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum. This, by itself, indicates that energy is light is mass. How else could Einstein have known that nothing travels faster than light? He could only know this if light were unique in some way. But what way? Well, light is the only real substance in the Universe so light can't go faster than itself. Physical travel at or faster than 'c' is in fact limited because of such having to involve mass. You simply would not want to run yourself into another atom if merging at 'c', much less if the combined head on impact is 2X 'c'. However, information can and has in fact traveled at FTL velocity. Unfortunately, anything FTL is kept all taboo/nondisclosure, as X-rated physics because it's involving the truth and nothing but the truth. Of course, you'll obviously believe in anything our Old Testament controlled government prints on their used toilet paper, and especially as infomercial hyped to death like their NASA/Apollo crapolla that you and most other village idiot fools 100% believe in. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#517
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Is Light
"John Griffin" wrote in message
. 1.4 Ask me if I know where non sequiturs and incoherent verbal gas jets come from. For spewing infomercial jewspeak, you're certainly damn good at it. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#518
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Is Light
"John Griffin" wrote in message
. 1.4 The expression you need to incorporate into your goofy nonsense is m=M/(1-v^2/c^2), where M is the rest mass and m is the relativistic mass. Of course this says the mass of your imaginary non-massless photon is infinite, since v=c...heh! MC^2 is the energy released by particle interactions where the new stuff has less mass than the old stuff. Taking out your intentional flatulence of naysay physics, and lo and behold we're more than half way there, wouldn't you say? Obviously our "John Griffin" got himself an official MIB/spook browny point for having contributed that one. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#519
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Is Light
"tomcat" wrote in message
oups.com Classified information amazes me. At least this reply isn't classified, it's just offering more of the same proof positive as to how extensively folks like yourself are still being snookered at every possible turn in their Old Testament thumping and infomercial spewing road. For some darn silly reason(s), this alternate version of the Mailgate/Usenet listed topic of ""Green" warfare" is entirely empty of any replies. Why exactly is this the very same or rather a worse off situation than the following topic which thus far within Mailgate includes only replies to/from one another of the author and myself? "Green" warfa Increasing blackout risk in the USA too http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sci/sci.energy/faTch.25325$E02.10326%40newsb.telia.net?order=smar t&p=2/255 "Green" warfa Increasing blackout risk in the USA too http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...766b3dfdebbad2 How much of Usenet is actually public and thus offering the very same topic and reply regardless of which Usenet service is used for reading such? How much of Usenet is being stealth moderated per each individual client? This is essentially what I'd posted: I agree as you and others should, that the vast bulk of oil (much the same as coal) isn't fossil, and that we'll not so easily run ourselves out of said oil, it'll just cost us consumers $1000/gallon soon after WW-III that'll be fought almost exclusively over the limited oil, coal and yellowcake reserves, especially those currently owned by Muslims or even by those yellowcake hoarding heathens downunder (we're merely saving Canada for our last supper). Of course, the BTU $value of natural gas is going to unavoidably match up with the very same BTU $value of fuel oil, or that of whatever's obtained via the spendier oily-sand and/or the spendier yet thermal units of gasified coal. BTW; what's your CO2 comfort zone? (how cozy does 10,000 ppm sound?) What's wrong with burning h2o2 by itself or along with whatever else? What's wrong with utilizing spare wind, solar-PV and of solar-stirling derived energy as going into the nifty energy storage products of becoming LH2 and h2o2? BTW No.2; why is so much of this ""Green" warfare" topic as having been listed within GOOGLE/Usenet, and yet there's next to nothing of replies getting posted as into the likes of Mailgate/Usenet? http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sci/sci.energy/WuTch.25326$E02.10282%40newsb.telia.net?order=smar t&email=bradguth%40yahoo.com&p=1/1 http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sci/sci.energy/faTch.25325$E02.10326%40newsb.telia.net?order=smar t&p=2/255 Why are certain Usenet readers becoming so deathly afraid of their own shadow? - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG |
#520
|
|||
|
|||
Mass Is Light
Brad Guth wrote: "tomcat" wrote in message oups.com Well, now the Borg are trying to hide what Einstein knew and stated many years ago, viz., E = M C ^2 and nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum. This, by itself, indicates that energy is light is mass. How else could Einstein have known that nothing travels faster than light? He could only know this if light were unique in some way. But what way? Well, light is the only real substance in the Universe so light can't go faster than itself. Physical travel at or faster than 'c' is in fact limited because of such having to involve mass. You simply would not want to run yourself into another atom if merging at 'c', much less if the combined head on impact is 2X 'c'. However, information can and has in fact traveled at FTL velocity. Unfortunately, anything FTL is kept all taboo/nondisclosure, as X-rated physics because it's involving the truth and nothing but the truth. Of course, you'll obviously believe in anything our Old Testament controlled government prints on their used toilet paper, and especially as infomercial hyped to death like their NASA/Apollo crapolla that you and most other village idiot fools 100% believe in. - Brad Guth -- Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG Photons have mass or they couldn't be a particle. It is my view that photons are -- as all else in the Universe -- snarls, eddies, perturbances, in the EM probability waves, waves that travel at the speed of light because they are light. This explains why everything squirts photons when squeezed. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkeness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day." So here the Bible states that there is day and night, light and non-light. Modern physics tells us that probability waves exist until observed and when 'observed' they become particles, which are but snarls, eddies, perturbances of light. Science says, then, that there is light and observation of that light. This, in turn, fits Ontology in Metaphysics which denotes a tripartite relation of observed, observer, and the relation of the observed to the observer, viz., 'observation'. Which, in turn, fits the Holy Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Or, the scientific Obeserver observing the observed. tomcat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[sci.astro] Galaxies (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (8/9) | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 3rd 06 12:35 PM |
[sci.astro] Stars (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (7/9) | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 3rd 06 12:35 PM |
UFO Activities from Biblical Times | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 25th 03 05:21 AM |
Electric Gravity&Instantaneous Light | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 8 | August 31st 03 02:53 AM |