#21
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
Brad Guth wrote: "Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was good." But then that same light shown upon our Art Deco. And, God saw that it was bad, very bad. - Brad Guth The Creation of 'Good' is certainly one of the tenants of religion. But we must accept that it follows the necessary conditions for existence, namely that 'Evil Exists' too. Without Evil there would be nothing to compare Good to. Everything would be Good as it was in the Garden of Eden. To have knowledge of Good then, we must have the foil of Evil. The same is true of Usenet Posts. For Top Posters to exist there have to be bottom posters. For Good, informative posters there must be Evil posters too. And this -- I suspect -- is the Role of Art Deco. His posts rip and tear at the fabric of knowledge. He attempts unsuccessfully to destroy every line of thought, every weave in the fabric of idea creation. And, with him are the Borg. Destroyers all. They infect the Usenet forcing all of us to do everything we can to 'ignore', 'sidestep', and 'gloss over' their unruly posts, their sheer dribble of senseless remarks and sarcasm. tomcat tomcat wrote: Brad Guth wrote: I'm into thinking if photons are purely 2D quantum string frequency based items, then perhaps there's a positive photon and a negative photon per given frequency wave, that's otherwise representing itself as a single photon to our eyes and instruments. Perhaps this notion has some bearing on the spin-one/spin-two boson, and of light being capable of going in reverse. - Brad Guth Light is no ordinary thing. In the Double Slit Experiment single photons went through both slits when no one was looking. As soon, however, as a measuring device was attached to both slits to determine how a single photon could behave like a wave, the single photon became a single photon and only went through one slit, not both. The interference pattern disappeared on the photographic film, on the other side of the slits, and only a tiny white dot appeared instead. "Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was good." tomcat |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
Brad Guth wrote: "Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was good." But then that same light shown upon our Art Deco. And, God saw that it was bad, very bad. - Brad Guth Yes, Deco and Bookman have all but ruined this beautiful topic. A very bad thing, indeed. Getting back to 'Mass Is Light' it is significant that the gravity of stars, and planets, can bend light. Gravity normally acts only on Mass so this is an indication of photons having mass. As far as photons 'being' mass, is the concept 'hard' hard? Is the concept of 'weight' heavy. Is the concept of hatred hate? So concepts oft differ from what they are concepts of. But is light a concept of mass? A carrier of mass? Or, simply possess a little tiny bit of mass? Here is a reference on the possibility of light having or, at least, having once had mass. See: http://focus.aps.org/story/v10/st9 It is an interesting article that may have been borne out by scientific observation. Observation is a breath of fresh air when 'pure' theory has muddied the waters. It is nice to know facts OUTSIDE of those little 'math' boxes. tomcat |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
tomcat; Yes, Deco and Bookman have all but ruined this beautiful
topic. A very bad thing, indeed. It simply proves that Usenet crapolla does flow uphill rather nicely. Gravity normally acts only on Mass so this is an indication of photons having mass. Think of photons as zero mass (2D quantum string like) dump-trucks, thus each capable of hauling a sub-yoctogram speck worth of mass at whatever's the photon velocity, which seemingly isn't entirely limited to 'c', but perhaps limited by the terminal velocity of dark matter. Now all that we have to determine is the given size and thus hauling capacity of a given photon, such as for getting such mass through ISM or dark matter. In order to appreciate what's possible to being hauled from point(A) to point(B), merely add up as to whatever a few 1e100 beams of waveguides or caravans worth of photons should accommodate. If photons cause atoms to align and to otherwise spin at different rates, then we clearly have this association of mass that's involved with the photon. - Brad Guth tomcat wrote: Brad Guth wrote: "Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was good." But then that same light shown upon our Art Deco. And, God saw that it was bad, very bad. - Brad Guth Yes, Deco and Bookman have all but ruined this beautiful topic. A very bad thing, indeed. Getting back to 'Mass Is Light' it is significant that the gravity of stars, and planets, can bend light. Gravity normally acts only on Mass so this is an indication of photons having mass. As far as photons 'being' mass, is the concept 'hard' hard? Is the concept of 'weight' heavy. Is the concept of hatred hate? So concepts oft differ from what they are concepts of. But is light a concept of mass? A carrier of mass? Or, simply possess a little tiny bit of mass? Here is a reference on the possibility of light having or, at least, having once had mass. See: http://focus.aps.org/story/v10/st9 It is an interesting article that may have been borne out by scientific observation. Observation is a breath of fresh air when 'pure' theory has muddied the waters. It is nice to know facts OUTSIDE of those little 'math' boxes. tomcat |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
Brad Guth wrote: tomcat; Yes, Deco and Bookman have all but ruined this beautiful topic. A very bad thing, indeed. It simply proves that Usenet crapolla does flow uphill rather nicely. Gravity normally acts only on Mass so this is an indication of photons having mass. Think of photons as zero mass (2D quantum string like) dump-trucks, thus each capable of hauling a sub-yoctogram speck worth of mass at whatever's the photon velocity, which seemingly isn't entirely limited to 'c', but perhaps limited by the terminal velocity of dark matter. Yes, the aether theory is being revived, not only by the ZPE people but also by other sources as well. Michaelson & Morley were looking for a 'solid' aether and found none, but today the aether is thought to be fluid instead. It could very well be the elusive 'dark matter' that astrophysicists have theorized. Now all that we have to determine is the given size and thus hauling capacity of a given photon, such as for getting such mass through ISM or dark matter. In order to appreciate what's possible to being hauled from point(A) to point(B), merely add up as to whatever a few 1e100 beams of waveguides or caravans worth of photons should accommodate. Today, it is popular to talk of 'wave packets' of light because light behaves very strangely. But, then again, nearly everything at the extreme of small behaves strangely. If photons cause atoms to align and to otherwise spin at different rates, then we clearly have this association of mass that's involved with the photon. There is "association of mass" all over the place with photons. Seems like a lot of things warp light. Haven't you noticed strong dynamos or generators causing light distortion? But, in any event, stars and planets definitely do. tomcat tomcat wrote: Brad Guth wrote: "Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was good." But then that same light shown upon our Art Deco. And, God saw that it was bad, very bad. - Brad Guth Yes, Deco and Bookman have all but ruined this beautiful topic. A very bad thing, indeed. Getting back to 'Mass Is Light' it is significant that the gravity of stars, and planets, can bend light. Gravity normally acts only on Mass so this is an indication of photons having mass. As far as photons 'being' mass, is the concept 'hard' hard? Is the concept of 'weight' heavy. Is the concept of hatred hate? So concepts oft differ from what they are concepts of. But is light a concept of mass? A carrier of mass? Or, simply possess a little tiny bit of mass? Here is a reference on the possibility of light having or, at least, having once had mass. See: http://focus.aps.org/story/v10/st9 It is an interesting article that may have been borne out by scientific observation. Observation is a breath of fresh air when 'pure' theory has muddied the waters. It is nice to know facts OUTSIDE of those little 'math' boxes. tomcat |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light--Brad Guth, moon, Venus
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: Which reminds me. Next time AUK holds their vote for physics k00k of the month, I must vote for you. But why of course, especially since you're obviously one of THEM! - Brad Guth |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
tomcat,
The Usenet borgs are also reinforced by way of their secondary birth or call it the borg recoil worth of "tomcat" and of so many similar snookered and summarily dumbfounded fool borg like puppets, as having been so much so uninformed and/or infomercial-disinformed and thereby summarily dumbfounded that you'll not even accept upon the hard-science as derived from your own kind, especially if it taints your pagan God's infomercial accomplishments of having supposedly walked upon our salty moon that's so gosh darn gamma and hard-X-ray worthy, and otherwise physically nasty. Ask yourself and of others; why can't the regular laws of physics apply equally to our naked moon? Why can't the best available hard-science that's replicated become used to further explore and subsequently better explain our salty moon or other planets? Ask why have we have ever once established the efficient moon L-1 or LL-1 science platform? Ask why there's still no such viable R&D prototype of a form of fly-by-rocket lander? Ask why it's taking an extra decade plus so much extra applied energy with essentially half the payload of getting such back onto orbiting the moon? Ask these all-knowing wizards as to why our moon isn't accessed directly from L-1? Ask why all the mainstream status quo flak over perfectly good research and ideas that should work? Instead of a viable Usenet think-tank of share and share alike, we see that the usual topic/author stalking ****ology worth of Art Deco and of those borg clones are still with us, just like their collaboration with the Third Reich was as reliable as our having invented a cash of hocus-pocus WMD for the bogus task at hand of knowing thy enemy(the innocent public at large) so that their continued snookering/assimilation of humanity and the demise of our environment could continue. I believe it's our responsibility as the supposed village idiots to keep asking tough questions, as well as to be giving our free thoughts and offering our best SWAG as to our honest interpretation of whatever's what, as otherwise the incest cloned likes of these perverted Art Deco's are going to continually run the lower 99.9% of humanity and whatever's left of our environment down the nearest space-toilet, just like they'd accomplished on behalf of Hitler. As per usual, this Usenet of robo-posting e-spooks, MI/NSA moles and lots of NASA's little brown-nosed minion butt-wipe helpers have been sharing as much of their malware/****ware into my PC as their GOOGLE/Usenet can possibly transfer without terminating itself, whereas I've had to reboot a good dozen times in just the last week, and of whatever internet my usage remains at a craw due to all of their tracking and/or blockage (information banishment) that's involved. The matter of fact that Art Deco keeps trashing whatever's contributed by honest folks into their personal cesspools of "alt.fan.art-bell" and "alt.usenet.kooks" is simply proof-positive that the few of us honest folks have been a whole lot more right than we're being given credit for. The likes of "brian a m stuckless", "tomcat" or myself never have to use such cloak and dagger ****ology tactics of topic/author stalking, topic drift or much less hijackings into such damage-control groups of disinformation cesspools as always introduced by the likes of mutant borg Jews, such as the incest cloned likes of Art Deco. Instead of robo-posting bigotry and hatred of the truth, we offer honest research and a fair trade off of perfectly thoughtful and considerate on-topic information, while the Usenet borg continually fail at constructively contributing squat that's other than offered by their Skull and Bones approved scripts, as extracted from their pagan infomercial koran. - Brad Guth tomcat wrote: Rising-Star8471 wrote: We, The Borg, resent that remark. Your assimilation is assured. Your technological and biological distinctiveness will be incorperated into the collective BOX. Then we will seal said box and sell it on ebay......MUWAHAHAHAHHAHA The above is 'hard core' proof of the existence of the Borg on the Usenet. tomcat |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
Brad Guth wrote: tomcat, The Usenet borgs are also reinforced by way of their secondary birth or call it the borg recoil worth of "tomcat" and of so many similar snookered and summarily dumbfounded fool borg like puppets, as having been so much so uninformed and/or infomercial-disinformed and thereby summarily dumbfounded that you'll not even accept upon the hard-science as derived from your own kind, especially if it taints your pagan God's infomercial accomplishments of having supposedly walked upon our salty moon that's so gosh darn gamma and hard-X-ray worthy, and otherwise physically nasty. Ask yourself and of others; why can't the regular laws of physics apply equally to our naked moon? Why can't the best available hard-science that's replicated become used to further explore and subsequently better explain our salty moon or other planets? Ask why have we have ever once established the efficient moon L-1 or LL-1 science platform? Ask why there's still no such viable R&D prototype of a form of fly-by-rocket lander? Ask why it's taking an extra decade plus so much extra applied energy with essentially half the payload of getting such back onto orbiting the moon? Ask these all-knowing wizards as to why our moon isn't accessed directly from L-1? Ask why all the mainstream status quo flak over perfectly good research and ideas that should work? Instead of a viable Usenet think-tank of share and share alike, we see that the usual topic/author stalking ****ology worth of Art Deco and of those borg clones are still with us, just like their collaboration with the Third Reich was as reliable as our having invented a cash of hocus-pocus WMD for the bogus task at hand of knowing thy enemy(the innocent public at large) so that their continued snookering/assimilation of humanity and the demise of our environment could continue. I believe it's our responsibility as the supposed village idiots to keep asking tough questions, as well as to be giving our free thoughts and offering our best SWAG as to our honest interpretation of whatever's what, as otherwise the incest cloned likes of these perverted Art Deco's are going to continually run the lower 99.9% of humanity and whatever's left of our environment down the nearest space-toilet, just like they'd accomplished on behalf of Hitler. As per usual, this Usenet of robo-posting e-spooks, MI/NSA moles and lots of NASA's little brown-nosed minion butt-wipe helpers have been sharing as much of their malware/****ware into my PC as their GOOGLE/Usenet can possibly transfer without terminating itself, whereas I've had to reboot a good dozen times in just the last week, and of whatever internet my usage remains at a craw due to all of their tracking and/or blockage (information banishment) that's involved. The matter of fact that Art Deco keeps trashing whatever's contributed by honest folks into their personal cesspools of "alt.fan.art-bell" and "alt.usenet.kooks" is simply proof-positive that the few of us honest folks have been a whole lot more right than we're being given credit for. The likes of "brian a m stuckless", "tomcat" or myself never have to use such cloak and dagger ****ology tactics of topic/author stalking, topic drift or much less hijackings into such damage-control groups of disinformation cesspools as always introduced by the likes of mutant borg Jews, such as the incest cloned likes of Art Deco. Instead of robo-posting bigotry and hatred of the truth, we offer honest research and a fair trade off of perfectly thoughtful and considerate on-topic information, while the Usenet borg continually fail at constructively contributing squat that's other than offered by their Skull and Bones approved scripts, as extracted from their pagan infomercial koran. - Brad Guth tomcat wrote: Rising-Star8471 wrote: We, The Borg, resent that remark. Your assimilation is assured. Your technological and biological distinctiveness will be incorperated into the collective BOX. Then we will seal said box and sell it on ebay......MUWAHAHAHAHHAHA The above is 'hard core' proof of the existence of the Borg on the Usenet. tomcat Yes, apparently Rising-Star8471 is their Queen. This explains why we don't see her much. She is busy organizing the Borg 'hive'. The Borg suitors keep her very busy. Everything I mention and everything I have seen -- of a non-political nature -- Brad discuss has been very well accepted scientific fact. Indeed, both of us normally post references of unimpeachable character and authority. In the course of my life I have read many papers and books, including those of: Hippocrates Plato Aristotle Archimedes Descartes Locke Da Vinci Copernicus Galileo Kant Leibnitz Hegel Marx Hitler Kepler Harvey Boyle Newton -- from whom I have derived my Rocket Formula Priestley Adam Smith Berkeley Russell Lavoisier Jenner Dalton Faraday Tesla Frege Darwin Maxwell Peirce Mendeleev Pasteur Roentgen Curie Tsiolkovsky Planck Boole Venn Mill Freud Sartre Einstein Rutherford Fermi Wittgenstein Ryle And, these are just to name a few off the top of my head. The science Brad and I discuss is not 'weird' or strange in any way. It has the depth of 'genuine study'. What is apparently confusing to some is that our level is CREATIVITY, not BOX. tomcat |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
tomcat wrote:
The science Brad and I discuss is not 'weird' or strange in any way. It has the depth of 'genuine study'. What is apparently confusing to some is that our level is CREATIVITY, not BOX. This Usenet anti-think-tank is more or less like a naysay cesspool of a black hole that only shares their form of infomercial-science, whereas whatever their mainstream status quo BOX intends to pull off shall be done, even if it takes another cross. Thus far, their collateral damage and carnage of the innocent is very much going one-sided and nearly insurmountable, especially when they've got the likes of "tomcat" fooled to such an extent, so much so that your denial is in denial (seven years ago that was myself, now I'm a little smarter about such matters). - Brad Guth |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
In article . com, Brad
Guth wrote: tomcat wrote: The science Brad and I discuss is not 'weird' or strange in any way. It has the depth of 'genuine study'. What is apparently confusing to some is that our level is CREATIVITY, not BOX. This Usenet anti-think-tank is more or less like a naysay cesspool of a black hole that only shares their form of infomercial-science, whereas whatever their mainstream status quo BOX intends to pull off shall be done, even if it takes another cross. Thus far, their collateral damage and carnage of the innocent is very much going one-sided and nearly insurmountable, especially when they've got the likes of "tomcat" fooled to such an extent, so much so that your denial is in denial (seven years ago that was myself, now I'm a little smarter about such matters). - Brad Guth What I find funny Brad is that if I take away every OTHER word from your screeds, I still end up with something equally nonsensical... This anti-think-tank is or like naysay of black that shares form infomercial-science, whatever mainstream quo BOX to off be , even it another. Thus , their damage carnage the is much one-sided and insurmountable, when got likes "tomcat" to an , so so your is denial ( years that myself, I'm little about matters). -- The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience. Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
mass is light.
Brad Guth wrote: tomcat wrote: The science Brad and I discuss is not 'weird' or strange in any way. It has the depth of 'genuine study'. What is apparently confusing to some is that our level is CREATIVITY, not BOX. This Usenet anti-think-tank is more or less like a naysay cesspool of a black hole that only shares their form of infomercial-science, whereas whatever their mainstream status quo BOX intends to pull off shall be done, even if it takes another cross. Thus far, their collateral damage and carnage of the innocent is very much going one-sided and nearly insurmountable, especially when they've got the likes of "tomcat" fooled to such an extent, so much so that your denial is in denial (seven years ago that was myself, now I'm a little smarter about such matters). - Brad Guth According to the Goddard Space Flight Center all that is known for certain is that the mass of light is less than 4 times 10 to the power of minus 48. 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 |