mass is light.

tomcat wrote:
". . . a photon is nothing but the transporter of the energy . . ."
And, E = M C ^ 2. Energy and Mass are two sides of the same coin. The
particles are but forms that energy takes.

I think photons and atoms are acting/reacting somewhat AI (God particle
like).

And, the most basic and profuse form is the photon. It squirts out of
all the particles. It is smaller and has less mass than the other
particles. It is, therefore, the fastest of the particles; the most
fundamental of the waves.

Including those all important gravity waves (extremely long photons)
that seem to exceed 'c' on a regular basis.
-
Energy does not rely entirely on mass for it's kinetic energy
performance. Speed is much more important ( KE = M V^2 ). Speed
increases energy by a square factor.

At the speed of light even the tiniest mass denotes enormous energy.
But a real genuine 0 mass factor would yield no energy at all ( KE = 0
V^2 = 0 ). So, that photons are energetic renders mathematical proof
of mass. It does not, however, tell us what the mass is.

It so happens that I totally agree, which means the mainstream status
quo of all that sucks and blows has to disagree, as in no matters what.

If two sources of mass or energy that's hauling a touch of mass are each
headed directly towards one another at the speed of light, thus 2X 'c',
perhaps the near impossible formula becomes ( KE = M + M V^2^2 ).

Question/subquestion of the quantum day:
How the heck do such unavoidable 'c' to 'c' collisions manage to
survive, or do they nullify into something of a black hole?
-
Mailgate.org/Usenet is a touch screwed up once again. I either get my
reply moderated to death or it simply doesn't get applied to the
intended target, at least not as listed in the Mailgate index which
normally updates itself on the fly.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Brad Guth wrote:
"tomcat" wrote in message
oups.com

". . . a photon is nothing but the transporter of the energy . . ."
And, E = M C ^ 2. Energy and Mass are two sides of the same coin. The
particles are but forms that energy takes.

I think photons and atoms are acting/reacting somewhat AI (God particle
like).

And, the most basic and profuse form is the photon. It squirts out of
all the particles. It is smaller and has less mass than the other
particles. It is, therefore, the fastest of the particles; the most
fundamental of the waves.

Including those all important gravity waves that seem to exceed 'c' on a
regular basis.

-

Energy does not rely entirely on mass for it's kinetic energy
performance. Speed is much more important ( KE = M V^2 ). Speed
increases energy by a square factor.

At the speed of light even the tiniest mass denotes enormous energy.
But a real genuine 0 mass factor would yield no energy at all ( KE = 0
V^2 = 0 ). So, that photons are energetic renders mathematical proof
of mass. It does not, however, tell us what the mass is.

I totally agree, which means the mainstream status quo, of all that
sucks and blows, has to disagree, as in no matters what.

If two sources of mass or energy that's hauling a touch of mass are each
headed directly towards one another at the speed of light, thus 2X 'c',
perhaps the near impossible formula becomes ( KE = M + M V^2^2 ).

How the heck do such unavoidable 'c' to 'c' collisions manage to
survive, or do they nullify?
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG




Relative velocities make no difference to the one velocity -- or to the
other. Rather it is the 'relation' of one velocity with the other that
becomes relativistic. Such R velocities, should they exceed 'c', will
cause temporal alteration, viz., going backward in time.

So, it is possible to be on a planet going in one direction at a
relative velocity much faster than 'c' to another planet going in the
opposite direction. Nothing will change on your planet. All is well.
The other planet -- if it is capable of being obeserved at all -- will
do all kinds of crazy things, however.

"How the heck do such unavoidable 'c' to 'c' collisions manage to
survive, or do they nullify?" -- Brad Guth

With that question, Brad, I can't help but think of poor Alice:

"Alice laughed: 'There's no use trying,' she said; 'one can't believe
impossible things.'"

"I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was
younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've
believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.'" --
Through the Looking-Glass

Certainly, there is time dilation at speeds slower than light. This
has been shown with atomic clocks. When the speed of light is exceeded
it has been shown, with light in ebrium doped glass fiber, that it will
go backwards.

The common interpretation of relativity is that light + speeds result
in a kind of warp where there is little or no interaction between
bodies.

"Alice looked round in great surprise. 'Why, I do believe we've been
under this tree all the time! Everything's just as it was!'"

" 'Of course it is,' said the Queen; 'what would you have it?'" --
Through the Looking-Glass


tomcat

"tomcat" wrote:


Wayne Throop wrote:
: "tomcat"
: ". . . a photon is nothing but the transporter of the
: energy . . ." And, E = M C ^ 2. Energy and Mass are two
: sides of the same coin. The particles are but forms that
: energy takes.
:
: And, the most basic and profuse form is the photon. It
: squirts out of all the particles. It is smaller and has
: less mass than the other particles. It is, therefore, the
: fastest of the particles; the most fundamental of the
: waves.

Wrong, of course. The photon is not the least energetic (and
hence, according to your claims, least massive). There are
photons with much more energy than, say, electrons, or even
positrons.

It's also demonstrably the case that some photons are larger
than some other particles. Indeed, most visible light phtons
are larger than atoms. Which is why it's useless to try to
look at atoms with a visible-light microscope.

So, basically, 0 for 2, in terms of how well your theory
matches observation.

But then, that seems to be par for the tomcat course.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw




The 'Photon' is not well understood, and understandably so.
The speed of photons in a vacuum has been discovered, but not
it's mass. The use of 0 for a photon's mass is simply a
convention used because it's mass has yet to be measured but
is known to be extremely, vaporously, small.

"Vaporously," my ass.

"The photon is not the least energetic (and hence, according
to your claims, least massive). There are photons with much
more energy than, say, electrons, or even positrons." -- Wayne
Throop

Energy does not rely entirely on mass for it's kinetic energy
performance. Speed is much more important ( KE = M V^2 ).
Speed increases energy by a square factor.

At the speed of light even the tiniest mass denotes enormous
energy. But a real genuine 0 mass factor would yield no energy
at all ( KE = 0 V^2 = 0 ). So, that photons are energetic
renders mathematical proof of mass. It does not, however,
tell us what the mass is.

Those two paragraphs, among others, tell us that you need to
spend all your time learning and none of it expounding. Still,
it would be lots of fun to see your mathematical proof of mass.
I'm trying really hard to avoid believing that you think your
comments above constitute such a proof, but...oh, ****...you do,
don't you? Holy ****.

Does Guth pay you to embarrass yourself like this so as to take
the laughs away from him now and then?

"Brad Guth" wrote:

tomcat wrote:
". . . a photon is nothing but the transporter of the energy
. . ." And, E = M C ^ 2. Energy and Mass are two sides of
the same coin. The particles are but forms that energy
takes.

I think photons and atoms are acting/reacting somewhat AI (God
particle like).

And, the most basic and profuse form is the photon. It
squirts out of all the particles. It is smaller and has less
mass than the other particles. It is, therefore, the fastest
of the particles; the most fundamental of the waves.

Including those all important gravity waves (extremely long
photons) that seem to exceed 'c' on a regular basis.
-
Energy does not rely entirely on mass for it's kinetic energy
performance. Speed is much more important ( KE = M V^2 ).
Speed increases energy by a square factor.

At the speed of light even the tiniest mass denotes enormous
energy. But a real genuine 0 mass factor would yield no energy
at all ( KE = 0 V^2 = 0 ). So, that photons are energetic
renders mathematical proof of mass. It does not, however,
tell us what the mass is.

It so happens that I totally agree, which means the mainstream
status quo of all that sucks and blows has to disagree, as in
no matters what.

If two sources of mass or energy that's hauling a touch of
mass are each headed directly towards one another at the speed
of light, thus 2X 'c', perhaps the near impossible formula
becomes ( KE = M + M V^2^2 ).

Just the fact that you treat M as a constant in that nonsense
while talking about light-speed motion is funny enough.

Question/subquestion of the quantum day:
How the heck do such unavoidable 'c' to 'c' collisions manage
to survive, or do they nullify into something of a black hole?

Who told you they survive? Who told you the collisions are
unavoidable? Would you produce a shower of **** and noise if
someone told you such a collision would produce a shower of
particles?

-
Mailgate.org/Usenet is a touch screwed up once again. I
either get my reply moderated to death or it simply doesn't
get applied to the intended target, at least not as listed in
the Mailgate index which normally updates itself on the fly.
-
Brad Guth

"Brad Guth" wrote:

"John Griffin" wrote in message
. 1.4

Anyway, the moon landings were all timed to occur while Venus
was on the other side of the sun so the Venusians couldn't
watch. You can use a web-based solar system simulator to
verify that if you care to build it into your goofy raving.
The Venusians watch our chemical rockets' exhaust trails and
ask one another "What do you suppose those ****ing things
eat?!"

Wow! You shouldn't go Usenet postal with a lose cannon like
"moon landings were all timed to occur while Venus was on the
other side of the sun so the Venusians couldn't watch".

BTW; "a web-based solar system simulator" more than proves
that you're an extremely sick old fart of a liar, like all the
others of your kind.

Thanks. I only wanted you to find out where Venus was at the
time. It would have been pretty disappointing to find that it was
too near the sun for Earth- or moon-based photography, because
then your stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid claims about the idea of
photographing it from the moon wouldn't be so pathetic and
entertaining.

Besides that, it would be impossible to capture an image of
Venus over a sunlit foreground.

More of the same old LLPOF infomercial ****ology that's easily
proven as being otherwise.

You've been there and tried that, Brad. You failed. What I said
is true, however loudly or continually you yap about it.

Why are you and others of your kind being such incest
cloned pagan born-again liars?

"Born-again" is one of the stupidest expressions ever
fabricated. It's almost too bad the world didn't wait for you
to author it.

If you're a member in good standing with the Skull and Bones
cult, being born-again as a pagan Third Reich borg (aka
brown-nosed minion) is about all that matters to those of your
kind.

What a stupid load of gobble.

BTW; your spermware/****ware is into doing it's thing once
again -
Brad Guth

Maybe, just maybe, it would be fun to see an explanation of that
dumb remark.

"John Griffin" wrote in message
. 1.4

Thanks. I only wanted you to find out where Venus was at the
time. It would have been pretty disappointing to find that it was
too near the sun for Earth- or moon-based photography, because
then your stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid claims about the idea of
photographing it from the moon wouldn't be so pathetic and
entertaining.

You're still a serial born-again liar, whereas I've always known exactly
where Venus was, and Kodak as well as I've always known that good old
Venus (especially as of A11, A14 and A16) would have been technically as
well as scientifically impossible for that unfiltered film to have
excluded such a pesky nearby orb of such a downright vibrant (brighter
spectrum worthy than Earth) item in that otherwise black sky, that is
unless you were into pulling off the grand ruse/sting of the century.

BTW; your spermware/****ware is into doing it's thing once
again -

Maybe, just maybe, it would be fun to see an explanation of that
dumb remark.

Since my poor old PC nor myself are liars, I guess the ball of truth is
still somewhere in your court.

Oddly, my Usenet access is at best getting picked up by so many that at
times it hardly operates (meaning that it's either responding extremely
slow or at nearly at a dead stop). Weird things (entirely out of my
control) keep happening, and from time to time my PC goes absolutely
postal in spite of my best efforts to defend it. Of course you folks
wouldn't know about any of that, nor much less how to orchestrate such
ISP/Usenet interactive malware that's actually more mainstream
spermware/****ware than not. (I'm thinking it's another Jewish thing,
simply because I've ****ed them off and because they're way smart enough
to get away with such)

But then, since you are another one of the official born-again LLPOF
minions to the new and improved Third Reich (aka Skull and Bones), as
such why should it be any other way.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

: "Brad Guth"
: I've always known exactly where Venus was,

Really? Why then, you can help me out.
What was Venus' elevation above the lunar horizon on each of the
alleged lunar missions? I've asked that before, but nobody stepped up.
But you say you know. Care to share?


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

"Wayne Throop" wrote in message


: "Brad Guth"
: I've always known exactly where Venus was,

Really? Why then, you can help me out.
What was Venus' elevation above the lunar horizon on each of the
alleged lunar missions? I've asked that before, but nobody stepped up.
But you say you know. Care to share?

Glad to share and share alike, even by way of using the rather pathetic
internet and thus somewhat wussy/limited simulators is being more than
good enough for placing that vibrant orb of Venus as clearly above the
physically dark lunar horizon and that of good old mother Earth.

A much better simular can be externally run on your PC or MAC, and of
course of far less than a CRAY supercomputer driven simulator can offer
the full 3D visulization as though situated from any specific location
upon the moon, or even while in orbit about the moon for any given date,
hour and second you'd care to view (including the spectrums of light
which we see poorly if at all compared to that of the unfiltered Kodak
eye).

How much of a certified LLPOF rusemaster would you and those of your
kind like to be known as?

There's obviously good cloak and dagger reasons why "nobody stepped up"
to the simple quest of placing big old and bright Venus as of missions
A11, A14 and A16.

Why don't you point us village idiots to whatever simulator that somehow
keeps the likes of Venus, a few other planets and Sirius as perfectly
stealth/invisible, as were all of those WMD that you and others of your
kind had insisted such big and nasty items existed.
-
Brad Guth



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

: "Brad Guth"
: Glad to share and share alike, even by way of using the rather pathetic
: internet and thus somewhat wussy/limited simulators is being more than
: good enough for placing that vibrant orb of Venus as clearly above the
: physically dark lunar horizon and that of good old mother Earth.

So, that'd be a "no", then? You don't have the list of angles I asked for?


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

"Brad Guth" wrote:

"John Griffin" wrote in message
. 1.4

Thanks. I only wanted you to find out where Venus was at the
time. It would have been pretty disappointing to find that it
was too near the sun for Earth- or moon-based photography,
because then your stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid claims about
the idea of photographing it from the moon wouldn't be so
pathetic and entertaining.

You're still a serial born-again liar, whereas I've always
known exactly where Venus was, and Kodak as well as I've
always known that good old Venus (especially as of A11, A14
and A16) would have been technically as well as scientifically
impossible for that unfiltered film to have excluded such a
pesky nearby orb of such a downright vibrant (brighter
spectrum worthy than Earth) item in that otherwise black sky,
that is unless you were into pulling off the grand ruse/sting
of the century.

Say what?

BTW; your spermware/****ware is into doing it's thing once
again -

Maybe, just maybe, it would be fun to see an explanation of
that dumb remark.

Since my poor old PC nor myself are liars, I guess the ball of
truth is still somewhere in your court.

Truth doesn't come in balls.

Oddly, my Usenet access is at best getting picked up by so
many that at times it hardly operates (meaning that it's
either responding extremely slow or at nearly at a dead stop).

It could be one or the other of those, but not without the other.

Weird things (entirely out of my control) keep happening, and
from time to time my PC goes absolutely postal in spite of my
best efforts to defend it.

Could be you should say "because of."

Of course you folks wouldn't know
about any of that, nor much less how to orchestrate such
ISP/Usenet interactive malware that's actually more mainstream
spermware/****ware than not. (I'm thinking it's another Jewish
thing, simply because I've ****ed them off and because they're
way smart enough to get away with such)

I really don't believe you've ****ed them off, Brad. Imagine
them snickering with anger.

But then, since you are another one of the official born-again
LLPOF minions to the new and improved Third Reich (aka Skull
and Bones), as such why should it be any other way.

I would really like to know what the hell you mean by repeating
that lunacy. You would too, I reckon.

Brad Guth

You have no idea where Venus was during any of the events you're
questioning. It's unlikely that it was positioned to appear on
any of those pictures you yap about. Regardless of that, it
wouldn't have shown up. By the way, what would its angular
diameter have been on those days? I say it was less than the
minimum resolution of whatever gear they were using. That's a
wild guess, not a lie.