Claim of evidence for primordial black holes

Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/25/10 1:03 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:
Gravity is,
fundamentally, electromagnetic in nature.

Paul Stowe


Sad. Very sad.

I am looking forward to playing in zero-gravity
in a Faraday cage! Not.

On 12/26/10 9:43 AM, Greg Neill wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/25/10 1:03 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:
Gravity is,
fundamentally, electromagnetic in nature.

Paul Stowe


Sad. Very sad.

I am looking forward to playing in zero-gravity
in a Faraday cage! Not.



It would be more fun to put a ball in a constraining
cage and watch what happens if Planck's constant
could be turned up to a value close to 1 m^2 kg/s

On Dec 26, 7:43*am, "Greg Neill" wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/25/10 1:03 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:
Gravity is,
fundamentally, electromagnetic in nature.

Paul Stowe

* *Sad. Very sad.

I am looking forward to playing in zero-gravity
in a Faraday cage! *Not.

Ypu're right, you, NOT... You've got to understand HOW gravity comes
about from the E field...

Paul Stowe

On Dec 25, 9:54*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/25/10 1:03 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:

Gravity is,
fundamentally, electromagnetic in nature.

Paul Stowe

* *Sad. Very sad.

Don't worry about is Sam you don't need to understand. I doubt you
have the capacity of being able TO even attempt it.

Paul Stowe

On 12/26/10 6:25 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:
On Dec 25, 9:54 pm, Sam wrote:
On 12/25/10 1:03 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:

Gravity is,
fundamentally, electromagnetic in nature.

Don't worry about is Sam you don't need to understand. I doubt you
have the capacity of being able TO even attempt it.

Paul Stowe

Paul, why do gravitation and the electromagnetic force have different
coupling constants, in your opinion?

On Dec 26, 4:34*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/26/10 6:25 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:

On Dec 25, 9:54 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 12/25/10 1:03 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:

Gravity is,
fundamentally, electromagnetic in nature.
Don't worry about is Sam you don't need to understand. *I doubt you
have the capacity of being able TO even attempt it.

Paul Stowe

* *Paul, why do gravitation and the electromagnetic force have different
* *coupling constants, in your opinion?

The same reason EM has both attractive and repulsive forces and
gravity only attractive. Gravity is a second order effect, EM first
order.

On 12/26/10 6:51 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:
On Dec 26, 4:34 pm, Sam wrote:
On 12/26/10 6:25 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:

On Dec 25, 9:54 pm, Sam wrote:
On 12/25/10 1:03 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:

Gravity is,
fundamentally, electromagnetic in nature.
Don't worry about is Sam you don't need to understand. I doubt you
have the capacity of being able TO even attempt it.

Paul Stowe

Paul, why do gravitation and the electromagnetic force have different
coupling constants, in your opinion?

The same reason EM has both attractive and repulsive forces and
gravity only attractive. Gravity is a second order effect, EM first
order.


You used to post a lot more intelligently in these USENET forums
in years past. What happened? Is it time for you to retire to the
countryside and paint flowers?

------[ Paul Stowe 5 : Sam Wormley 0 ]------

.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha....

"Sam Wormley" wrote:
On 12/26/10 6:51 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:
On Dec 26, 4:34 pm, Sam wrote:
On 12/26/10 6:25 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:
On Dec 25, 9:54 pm, Sam wrote:
On 12/25/10 1:03 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:

Paul wrote:
Gravity is, fundamentally, electromagnetic in nature.
Don't worry about it, Sam, you don't need to understand.
I doubt you have the capacity of being able TO even attempt it.

Sam wrote:
Paul, why do gravitation and the electromagnetic force have
different coupling constants, in your opinion?

Paul wrote:
The same reason EM has both attractive and repulsive forces and
gravity only attractive. Gravity is a second order effect, EM first
order.

Aggrieved Einstein Dingleberry Sam wrote
Paul, you used to post a lot more intelligently in these USENET
forums in years past. What happened? Is it time for you to
retire to the countryside and paint flowers?

hanson wrote:
Fathom this: -- Paul reasons -- Sam believes & parrots ---
Nothing wrong with neither stance, but when Einstein
Dingleberry Sam says he is "Sad. Very sad", because
he didn't get to hear the tributes of worship that he, Wormley,
himself pays to Einstein's sphincter... Yes, that is sad!
AHAHAHAHA... Thanks for the laughs though, guys
http://tinyurl.com/Planck-over-Einstein-anytime
ahahahaha... ahahahanson

On Dec 26, 5:51*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/26/10 6:51 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:



On Dec 26, 4:34 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 12/26/10 6:25 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:

On Dec 25, 9:54 pm, Sam * *wrote:
On 12/25/10 1:03 PM, Paul Stowe wrote:

Gravity is,
fundamentally, electromagnetic in nature.
Don't worry about is Sam you don't need to understand. *I doubt you
have the capacity of being able TO even attempt it.

Paul Stowe

* * Paul, why do gravitation and the electromagnetic force have different
* * coupling constants, in your opinion?

The same reason EM has both attractive and repulsive forces and
gravity only attractive. *Gravity is a second order effect, EM first
order.

* *You used to post a lot more intelligently in these USENET forums
* *in years past. What happened? Is it time for you to retire to the
* *countryside and paint flowers?

to be honest, I quit caring about trying to explain details to those
that it became clear have/had no ireal interest in trying to
understand what was being said. Those like you already have their
minds made up. I doubted that the above comment would mean anything
to you. Over the years you have only demonstrated superficial
knowledge and almost alway post and display only rote responses. Do
you even know way first order/second order effects are???

Here's a subtle hint,,

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q6hpj4778432r872/

Abstract

"Recently we demonstrated theoretically that the carriers of quantized
angular momentum in superconductors are not the Cooper pairs but the
lattice ions, which must execute coherent localized motion consistent
with the phenomenon of superconductivity. We demonstrate here that in
the presence of an external magnetic field, the free superelectron and
bound ion currents largely cancel providing a self-consistent
microscopic and macroscopic interpretation of near-zero magnetic
permeability inside superconductors. The neutral mass currents,
however, do not cancel, because of the monopolar gravitational charge.
It is shown that the coherent alignment of lattice ion spins will
generate a detectable gravitomagnetic field, and in the presence of a
time-dependent applied magnetic vector potential field, a detectable
gravitoelectric field."

Ask yourself a fundamental question, if, G and E and M are NOT!
related, or relatable, how would the above ever be possible?

Show some comprehension and other than sarcastic interest and I might
get more interested in discussing details. I am simply tired of
arrogant know-it-alls and I don't care if you or others comprehend,
thus my original post

"As long as one 'believes' that gravity is not the result of an actual
field gradient but, instead, is some sort of magical geometric
deformation that answer will alway elude them."

So, let it elude them/you...

Paul Stowe

Paul Stowe