Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT

From AA, quoting one of the duckie-droids:

No. There is no aether.

That statement is certainly correct when it's defined as the immobile,
rigid-lattice 'ether' of Lorentz and Einstein. It simply don't exist, as
MMX and stellar aberration demonstrate.
But the MMX null result is consistent with a *vertical*,
entrained flow field and would in fact be expected (same with stellar
aberration).

The void-droids recite the 'no medium' mantra, implying space to be
"no-thing" or pure void. Yet with the very next breath they'll intone
"space-time" and its "curvature" as being omnipotently causal. They
don't seem to see the conflict here. It's like saying "There is no air.
But there is atmosphere." It's totally irrational, yet apparently
normal, otherwise-intelligent people subscribe to it. The dynamic is not
one whit different than the groundless faith in some litany of medievel
religion.

Hrrumph. (-:

oc

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:07:25 -0600, honestjohn wrote:
"The God of Odd Statements" wrote...
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:52:33 +0000, Painius did most oddly state:
"Bookman" wrote...
"Painius" wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote...
Painius wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
"Painius" wrote:

Yes, but i'm not familiar with the poster, Honest. What do you
suppose it means?

Is Mother Goose actually challenging Einstein?

Is the unchallengable leader of all coffee boys just being
obtuse to expect that "all _Models_ describe it that way ?"

Is Art Deco really and truly Phineas T. Puddleduck in DRAAAG ???

Yes its true.

I'm also Mother Theresa, The Pope and Steve Jobs.

Is this truly the level of debate you have left?

Lighten up, Mother...

It's just that we're nearing the "end" once again.

You've been so busy that you probably haven't noticed. You see, we
can only take this whole thing just so far. The void-spacers chide
us
to answer questions that they know we can't really answer. And we
[tinu-or-w] chide them to do the same. I suppose the void-spacers
eventually get bored and they sneak away.

This leaves the rest of us to stay behind, knock the CBB and other
stuff around for awhile, and wait for new meat like yourself to
challenge the CBB and flowing space.

In other words, you don't give a whit about truth or reality, all
you live for are the lip flappings.

In other words, you don't give a whit about truth or reality, all you
live for are the honkings.

In other words, you don't give a whit about truth or reality, all you
live for are the imaginary geese you are obsessed with.

You seem pretty real to me, gooseling.

Imagine that!

Can you at least get the lame right? It's "gosling". Gaaaahhh...

Art Deco is "Mother Goose".

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.l...2?dmode=source

Are you a "gooseling"?

You just like to make up non-existent words, don't you.

"Roger Wittekind" wrote in message
newsan.2007.01.21.20.21.16.500832@finalprotectiv efire.com...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:07:25 -0600, honestjohn wrote:
"The God of Odd Statements" wrote...
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:52:33 +0000, Painius did most oddly state:
"Bookman" wrote...
"Painius" wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote...
Painius wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
"Painius" wrote:

Yes, but i'm not familiar with the poster, Honest. What do you
suppose it means?

Is Mother Goose actually challenging Einstein?

Is the unchallengable leader of all coffee boys just being
obtuse to expect that "all _Models_ describe it that way ?"

Is Art Deco really and truly Phineas T. Puddleduck in DRAAAG
???

Yes its true.

I'm also Mother Theresa, The Pope and Steve Jobs.

Is this truly the level of debate you have left?

Lighten up, Mother...

It's just that we're nearing the "end" once again.

You've been so busy that you probably haven't noticed. You see,
we
can only take this whole thing just so far. The void-spacers
chide
us
to answer questions that they know we can't really answer. And we
[tinu-or-w] chide them to do the same. I suppose the void-spacers
eventually get bored and they sneak away.

This leaves the rest of us to stay behind, knock the CBB and other
stuff around for awhile, and wait for new meat like yourself to
challenge the CBB and flowing space.

In other words, you don't give a whit about truth or reality, all
you live for are the lip flappings.

In other words, you don't give a whit about truth or reality, all
you
live for are the honkings.

In other words, you don't give a whit about truth or reality, all
you
live for are the imaginary geese you are obsessed with.

You seem pretty real to me, gooseling.

Imagine that!

Can you at least get the lame right? It's "gosling". Gaaaahhh...

Art Deco is "Mother Goose".


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.l...2?dmode=source

Are you a "gooseling"?

You just like to make up non-existent words, don't you.

Painius calls Art Deco by his early sock name of "Mother Goose" and anyone
that follows Art, Painius calls a "gooseling", just like little gooselings
following Mother Goose.

I on the other hand call Art Deco by his real name of "Pederast Art".

HJ

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:24:57 -0600, honestjohn attempted to confuse the
issue further by squeaking:
"Roger Wittekind" wrote...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:07:25 -0600, honestjohn wrote:
"The God of Odd Statements" wrote...
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:52:33 +0000, Painius did most oddly state:
"Bookman" wrote...
"Painius" wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote...
Painius wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
"Painius" wrote:

Yes, but i'm not familiar with the poster, Honest. What do
you suppose it means?

Is Mother Goose actually challenging Einstein?

Is the unchallengable leader of all coffee boys just being
obtuse to expect that "all _Models_ describe it that way ?"

Is Art Deco really and truly Phineas T. Puddleduck in DRAAAG
???

Yes its true.

I'm also Mother Theresa, The Pope and Steve Jobs.

Is this truly the level of debate you have left?

Lighten up, Mother...

It's just that we're nearing the "end" once again.

You've been so busy that you probably haven't noticed. You see,
we
can only take this whole thing just so far. The void-spacers
chide
us
to answer questions that they know we can't really answer. And
we [tinu-or-w] chide them to do the same. I suppose the
void-spacers eventually get bored and they sneak away.

This leaves the rest of us to stay behind, knock the CBB and
other stuff around for awhile, and wait for new meat like
yourself to challenge the CBB and flowing space.

In other words, you don't give a whit about truth or reality,
all you live for are the lip flappings.

In other words, you don't give a whit about truth or reality, all
you
live for are the honkings.

In other words, you don't give a whit about truth or reality, all
you
live for are the imaginary geese you are obsessed with.

You seem pretty real to me, gooseling.

Imagine that!

Can you at least get the lame right? It's "gosling". Gaaaahhh...

Art Deco is "Mother Goose".


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.l...2?dmode=source

Are you a "gooseling"?

You just like to make up non-existent words, don't you.

Painius calls Art Deco by his early sock name of "Mother Goose" and anyone
that follows Art, Painius calls a "gooseling", just like little
gooselings following Mother Goose.

I on the other hand call Art Deco by his real name of "Pederast Art".

Painius is a k00k, Outhouse. Making up non-existent words is a k00ky
trait. As for your nick for him, it's entirely typical of you, as a
k00k, to make a k'lame about someone that you cannot actually back up
with any facts.

--
__________________________________________________ ______________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069
The God of Odd Statements, the Ugliest Pig****er In The Universe
Stupidity Takes Its Toll. Please Have Exact Change.

"I say you are out of your ****ing mind." -- Ying Guo, posting as
"SameAsB4" , tells PorchMonkey4Life, posting
as the same nick but a slightly different morph, the score, in MID:


"in the holy spirit i know you would satisfy every single person in a
room if you were the only person present." -- ~tanya, to Crazy Andy II,
in MID: . com

If you never read anything else in any of my sigs, read this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167/
http://borealin.livejournal.com/15104.html
Or watch it he
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqxmPjB0WSs
Then, if you manage to read/watch all that, try this:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf
And Molly Ivins had a few choice words to say about it, weeks befo
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092906B.shtml
Here's Chris Floyd: Fatal Vision: The Deeper Evil Behind the Detainee
Bill: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100206A.shtml

"Q: What's the difference between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War?
A: George W. Bush had a plan to get out of the Vietnam War." -- Anon.

Thread where outing begins: http://tinyurl.com/hojf8
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart,
and the Order of the Holey Sockpuppet winner on
outing personal contact info in x-poasted subject lines:
"Plenty of people post under their real names and do not attempt to hide
their contact info. You are scared of being 'outed' because you are a
pathological abuser of usenet, and people rightly despise you for it.
You're afraid of being reported to the authorities or, better, visited
by a couple of guys with baseball bats. Other people don't have this
obsessive fear. Ward Hardman himself has posted plenty of personal
information - nothing that anyone else added was hidden in any way.
You're so ****ing scared you've built up this whole sick mythology about
different categories of bad dudes who 'out' scum like you.

"Meanwhile you are the ugliest pig****er in the universe. You are the
coward without ethics. You call me a 'newbie' - ha! what an asshole you
are. Those who want to remain anonymous do so. There is absolutely no
way you could identify me, not unless you had the sort of subpoena power
that only gets turned on for big-time terrorists. That's because I chose
to be anonymous. Some people don't. Only really stupid dicks like you
choose the sort of semi-anonymity which leaves you in constant fear.

"What a dickless wonder you are 'Snarky' you fat asshole."
-- in MID: . com

"I am the only one who has outer filthed Ward" -- James C. "Crackhead"
Cracked voluntarily self-immolates, in MID:


"When I told Abbie Hoffman that he was the first one who made me laugh
since Lenny Bruce died, Hoffman said, "Really? He was my god." The
combination of satirical irreverence and sense of justice that Bruce and
Hoffman shared was the real spirit behind the Yippies--a term I coined
to describe a phenomenon that already existed: an organic coalition of
stoned hippies and political activists who engaged in such actions as
throwing money on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, then
explaining to reporters the meaning of that symbolism. Folksinger Phil
Ochs summed it up: "A demonstration should turn you on, not turn you
off." So when journalists link the Yippies with misleading bedfellows,
at best it's careless shorthand; at worst it's deliberate demonization.
Osama bin Laden wanted an aircraft to crash into the Pentagon. Abbie
Hoffman merely wanted to levitate it." -- Paul Krassner,
http://tinyurl.com/ehu3v

"Demon Lord of Confusion" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 19:24:57 -0600, honestjohn attempted to confuse the
issue further by squeaking:
"Roger Wittekind" wrote...
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 20:07:25 -0600, honestjohn wrote:
"The God of Odd Statements" wrote...
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:52:33 +0000, Painius did most oddly state:
"Bookman" wrote...
"Painius" wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote...
Painius wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
"Painius" wrote:

Yes, but i'm not familiar with the poster, Honest. What do
you suppose it means?

Is Mother Goose actually challenging Einstein?

Is the unchallengable leader of all coffee boys just being
obtuse to expect that "all _Models_ describe it that way ?"

Is Art Deco really and truly Phineas T. Puddleduck in DRAAAG
???

Yes its true.

I'm also Mother Theresa, The Pope and Steve Jobs.

Is this truly the level of debate you have left?

Lighten up, Mother...

It's just that we're nearing the "end" once again.

You've been so busy that you probably haven't noticed. You
see,
we
can only take this whole thing just so far. The void-spacers
chide
us
to answer questions that they know we can't really answer. And
we [tinu-or-w] chide them to do the same. I suppose the
void-spacers eventually get bored and they sneak away.

This leaves the rest of us to stay behind, knock the CBB and
other stuff around for awhile, and wait for new meat like
yourself to challenge the CBB and flowing space.

In other words, you don't give a whit about truth or reality,
all you live for are the lip flappings.

In other words, you don't give a whit about truth or reality, all
you
live for are the honkings.

In other words, you don't give a whit about truth or reality, all
you
live for are the imaginary geese you are obsessed with.

You seem pretty real to me, gooseling.

Imagine that!

Can you at least get the lame right? It's "gosling". Gaaaahhh...

Art Deco is "Mother Goose".



http://groups.google.com/group/alt.l...2?dmode=source

Are you a "gooseling"?

You just like to make up non-existent words, don't you.

Painius calls Art Deco by his early sock name of "Mother Goose" and
anyone
that follows Art, Painius calls a "gooseling", just like little
gooselings following Mother Goose.

I on the other hand call Art Deco by his real name of "Pederast Art".

Painius is a k00k, Outhouse. Making up non-existent words is a k00ky
trait. As for your nick for him, it's entirely typical of you, as a
k00k, to make a k'lame about someone that you cannot actually back up
with any facts.

I certainly appreciate your response. From now on I will use the correct
word: "gosling" in reference to "Mother Goose's" bois. Have a nice night,
D.L.

HJ

Bill Sheppard wrote:
From AA, quoting one of the duckie-droids:

No. There is no aether.

That statement is certainly correct when it's defined as the immobile,
rigid-lattice 'ether' of Lorentz and Einstein. It simply don't exist, as
MMX and stellar aberration demonstrate.
But the MMX null result is consistent with a *vertical*,
entrained flow field and would in fact be expected (same with stellar
aberration).

The void-droids recite the 'no medium' mantra, implying space to be
"no-thing" or pure void. Yet with the very next breath they'll intone
"space-time" and its "curvature" as being omnipotently causal. They
don't seem to see the conflict here. It's like saying "There is no air.
But there is atmosphere." It's totally irrational, yet apparently
normal, otherwise-intelligent people subscribe to it. The dynamic is not
one whit different than the groundless faith in some litany of medievel
religion.

Hrrumph. (-:

oc


It shows the powerful hold that brainwashing has over people, doesn't
it? People are induced to defend all doctrines, even the irrational
ones. Modern science doesn't threaten anyone with burning in Hell or
at the stake for questioning, but public ridicule as a crank, and
shunning by the science establishment are still in play. Criticize an
established theory, and you may never work in science again!

Double-A

nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

Bill Sheppard wrote:

From AA, quoting one of the duckie-droids:


No. There is no aether.

That statement is certainly correct when it's defined as the immobile,
rigid-lattice 'ether' of Lorentz and Einstein. It simply don't exist, as
MMX and stellar aberration demonstrate.
But the MMX null result is consistent with a *vertical*,
entrained flow field and would in fact be expected (same with stellar
aberration).

The void-droids recite the 'no medium' mantra, implying space to be
"no-thing" or pure void. Yet with the very next breath they'll intone
"space-time" and its "curvature" as being omnipotently causal. They
don't seem to see the conflict here. It's like saying "There is no air.
But there is atmosphere." It's totally irrational, yet apparently
normal, otherwise-intelligent people subscribe to it. The dynamic is not
one whit different than the groundless faith in some litany of medievel
religion.

Hrrumph. (-:

oc



It shows the powerful hold that brainwashing has over people, doesn't
it? People are induced to defend all doctrines, even the irrational
ones. Modern science doesn't threaten anyone with burning in Hell or
at the stake for questioning, but public ridicule as a crank, and
shunning by the science establishment are still in play. Criticize an
established theory, and you may never work in science again!

Double-A


nightbat

But that doesn't hold for when you're profoundly right like the
Earth Science Team Officers. We are actually the ones point pushing
science now forward from their relative and quantum field stalemate. The
advanced Space Flow Theory original classic non aether based but the
dimension domain of space understanding itself. Stalemates are like bad
fish, everyone can't wait for the new formulations to arrive and the old
static to be replaced. Remember I was the one who criticized Hawking
about zero outlet no real world possibility of BH. Also Remember
presently mainstream science advances with each old guard scientist's
burial.

Here in alt.astronomy credit is given where credit is due.

ponder on,
the nightbat

nightbat wrote:
nightbat wrote

Double-A wrote:

Bill Sheppard wrote:

From AA, quoting one of the duckie-droids:


No. There is no aether.

That statement is certainly correct when it's defined as the immobile,
rigid-lattice 'ether' of Lorentz and Einstein. It simply don't exist, as
MMX and stellar aberration demonstrate.
But the MMX null result is consistent with a *vertical*,
entrained flow field and would in fact be expected (same with stellar
aberration).

The void-droids recite the 'no medium' mantra, implying space to be
"no-thing" or pure void. Yet with the very next breath they'll intone
"space-time" and its "curvature" as being omnipotently causal. They
don't seem to see the conflict here. It's like saying "There is no air.
But there is atmosphere." It's totally irrational, yet apparently
normal, otherwise-intelligent people subscribe to it. The dynamic is not
one whit different than the groundless faith in some litany of medievel
religion.

Hrrumph. (-:

oc



It shows the powerful hold that brainwashing has over people, doesn't
it? People are induced to defend all doctrines, even the irrational
ones. Modern science doesn't threaten anyone with burning in Hell or
at the stake for questioning, but public ridicule as a crank, and
shunning by the science establishment are still in play. Criticize an
established theory, and you may never work in science again!

Double-A


nightbat

But that doesn't hold for when you're profoundly right like the
Earth Science Team Officers. We are actually the ones point pushing
science now forward from their relative and quantum field stalemate.


Yes, mainstream science has two great theories, each on implying the
other one is wrong! How about that? Haha! Yet they still show great
reluctance to consider any new ideas that might help them find a way to
slip through the horns of their dilemma!


The
advanced Space Flow Theory original classic non aether based but the
dimension domain of space understanding itself. Stalemates are like bad
fish, everyone can't wait for the new formulations to arrive and the old
static to be replaced. Remember I was the one who criticized Hawking
about zero outlet no real world possibility of BH. Also Remember
presently mainstream science advances with each old guard scientist's
burial.


Yes, it wasn't until all the old nineteenth century classical physics
educated professors died out that Einstein's ideas were fully accepted
in academia. It is a good thing that physics professors don't live as
long as Methuselah, or there would be some still teaching Aristotle's
version!


Here in alt.astronomy credit is given where credit is due.

ponder on,
the nightbat


Yes, and even aliens are given credit!

Double-A

From AA:
Criticize an established theory, and you
may never work in science again!

Interestingly, there is one maverik 'mainstreamer' who has managed to
'dodge the bullet' (so far at least). That's Dr. Joao Magueijo of
Imperial College, London. His VSL (varing speed of light) model provides
an alternative to inflation theory. Just let lightspeed drop
precipitously across the 'inflation' spike, and presto-- the *need* for
inflation disappears as if by magic.. and with it all the niggling
little problems with inflation.
Only problem, in order to have his lightspeed drop,
Magueijo has to violate the Lorentz invariance, one of the foremost
taboos in physics, which he freely admits. His original co-author, Andy
Albrecht (one of the founders of inflation) dutifully back-pedaled and
faded back to "approved" academia. But Magueijo soldiers on, apprently
owing his academic survival to a combination of huge brass cajones,
massive ego, and charisma.
But he is a Void-Spacer and doesn't recognize there is
a mechanism for his proposed lightspeed drop that *does not* violate
Lorentz (or any other constant for that matter). That is the
cosmological density gradient (or PDT gradient) of the spatial medium
across the 'inflation' spike.
oc

Double-A wrote:
John Zinni wrote:
Painius wrote:
"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote...
in message news In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

Aspiring astrophysicists ought to know where
they're headed, on which road they will travel.
A few, a very few really great ones, even much
greater than A. Guth (if that's possible) will
officially question the anomalous paradigms.

More than that, the truly great ones will go
searching for reality and truth. They will study
among other things, Einstein and App. 5. And
maybe they'll remember their ko0ky friends
here in alt.astronomy, and how wonderful the
idea of a dynamic, moving, flowing energetic
space zooming into mass and causing gravity
can truly be!

Awesome times ahead for you, Phineas.

I don't subscribe to flowing space at all. My own field of study is
already contentious.

It's fairly obvious that you don't agree with Einstein
about space as a flowing field of energy, Phineas.

Fields don't flow.


What about the flow of the flux in a magnetic field?

"flux, magnetic, in physics, term used to describe the total amount of
magnetic field in a given region. The term flux was chosen because the
power of a magnet seems to "flow" out of the magnet at one pole and
return at the other pole in a circulating pattern, as suggested by the
patterns formed by iron filings sprinkled on a paper placed over a
magnet or a conductor carrying an electric current. These patterns are
called lines of induction. Although there is no actual physical flow,
the lines of induction suggest the correct mathematical description of
magnetism in terms of a field of force."
http://www.answers.com/topic/magnetic-flux



Double-A