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

"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.

"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?

"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

"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

"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

"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

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

"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'.

Can you debunk the physicists' explanation of why that can't
happen?

This universe started when a scientist in the preceding universe
managed to get a proton and an antiproton moving at the speed of
light in opposite directions in separate accelerators and then
let them loose to collide head-on. He was expecting a nobel
prize or something for his work, which was going to explain the
big bang before the most recent one.

However,
information can and has in fact traveled at FTL velocity.

Can you be a bit more specific? Are you referring to that story
about the particle or photon that seemed to come out the other
end of a pipe instantly when one hit the other end? Are you
talking about "spooky action at a distance," as though you've
decided just this once to respect Albert Einstein's "old
testament incest-cloned borg buttology"?

Unfortunately, anything FTL is kept all taboo/nondisclosure,
as X-rated physics because it's involving the truth and
nothing but the truth.

Does this mean you think the scientists are protecting you
because they know that truth pains you?

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

Take pride in the fact that your arguments for your vagaries of
thought and against the present state of human knowledge are
amusing.

By the way, nothing shows up in a photograph until enough photons
hit the film, and nothing shows up after too many hit it. This
means that you couldn't photograph Venus, for example, over a
sunlit moonscape. As soon as you learn that, every human and
every borg will know it.

"Brad Guth" wrote:

"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?

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't say whatever you're trying to say.
This is getting to be a regular occurrence.

Obviously our "John Griffin" got himself an official MIB/spook
browny point for having contributed that one.

Do I get a ****in' engraved plaque or something?

P.S. Did you want to disagree with what I said?