mass is light.

"Brad Guth" wrote:

"John Griffin" wrote in message
. 1.4

From: "John Griffin"
Can you? If so, you would have if it didn't shoot down your
goofy Kodak moment claims, eh? By the way, "from the above
data" is a bit optimistic. You'll need some more info. For
example, on July 20, 1969 (Apollo 11), Venus was at its
maximum elongation, about 46 degrees away from the sun. So
was it 32 degrees below the horizon, or was it high over the
shoulder behind the guy with the camera?

One more tine for that old infomercial spewing gipper; Please
offer whatever simulator is so infomercial worthy. Bet you
can't.

I think you got something right. An informercial for a solar
system simulator would probably coset a hell of a lot more than
the total sales it would generate. You can get them free on the
internet, you know. By the way, it doesn't matter whether Venus
would have been in the frame of a picture including any of the
moon's surface. Exposing the film long enough to capture Venus
would have wrecked it because of the massive influx of photons
bouncing off the moon.

As viewed from the moon (especially via the naked unfiltered
Kodak eye), Venus was sufficiently nearby and within view

Not so, but irrelevant.

above that physically dark as coal horizon on more than three
of those missions.

Go outside, look at the moon, notice the contrast, and then tell
yourself the entire surface is black. It isn't.

As I'd said before, there's only so much potential in braille
astronomy, especially of the certified dumb and dumber and
thereby summarily snookered and easily dumbfounded kind, such
as yourself and of all those other brown-nosed kind that you
like to exchange bodily fluids with.

If you said that before, you sure as hell are a slow learner.
Why didn't the pitying and derisive laughter deter you from re-
spewing it?

Oddly in spite of all the hocus-pocus, the regular laws of
physics apply rather nicely to our physically dark moon as
they do to the newish planetology of Venus, whereas only via
your highly conditional laws of physics can those NASA/Apollo
missions have transpired according to that infomercial spewing
bible/koran, that which incest cloned borg like folks as
yourself must go by, or else.

The bible is a collection of cute little stories and 0th-century
state-of-the-art science lessons. The koran is an attempt to
copy it in terms of the still-savage culture that the disgusting,
thieving, homicidal, child-****ing piece of **** Mohammed lived
in. I really don't feel any compulsion to go by such nonsense.

Clue No.1; governments lie their infomercial spewing and
born-again faith based butts off all the time.

Counter clue #1: If you had stopped after the second word, you
wouldn't have sounded like a babbling fool.

Clue No.2; it takes the likes of snookered and thereby easily
dumbfounded minions like yourself, in order to make such
corrupt governments and of their puppeteering religions and
otherwise via their Skull and Bones as born-again Third Reich
cults tick.

Counter clue #2: Even a coherent non-hysterical version of that
would be meaningless.

Clue No.3; that's way too many clues for the likes of
yourself.

Counter clue #3: As clues to the fact that you're out of touch
with anything that's even in touch with reality, those were
superfluous, which is not exactly the same as "too many." You
proved a long time ago that you just don't ****ing get it,
whatever it may be.

-
Brad Guth

"John Griffin" wrote in message
. 1.4

I have a fairly substantial shopping list of absolutely nifty
DNA codes that most of us humans could really use to our
benefit.

X-ray vision, the ability to leap tall buildings in a single
bound, faster than a speeding bullet, the ability to fall off a
horse without breaking your ****ing neck, etc.....?

How about yourself?

You didn't list them, so no one can answer that stupid question.

I'll have to start a new topic, say "Lost DNA" or "DNA where are you"

Obviously you and others of your Old Testament kind think your one and
only form of humanity is every bit as good as it gets, as in never
better, and above all you wouldn't have changed a damn thing even if you
could.
-
Brad Guth


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

"John Griffin" wrote in message
. 1.4

Regarding photons, we have three versions:
1) Bible version (Let there be light)
2) Guth's version (Let there be mass)
3) The way it is.

That's actually good enough, even worthy as on-topic constructive
feedback, and so much better off than anything else you've had to share.

BTW; which kind of clown are you?

Are you a 1) faith-based clown, a 2) science-based clown, or one of
those silly naysay status quo 3) "The way it is" clowns?

I'm obviously confused; Is there such a thing as an Old Testament
Jewish clown, or are they all old brown-nosed borg minion MIB clowns
that have absolutely no actual faith whatsoever?

It seems the faith based clowns don't like those other science clowns,
and worse is that neither of them two opposed species of clowns like me.
I guess that means I'm stuck in the middle, having a serious clown gap
of my own.

Some of these rusemasters must be the anti-intelligent design clowns
from Einstein's DNA. Although come to think about it, no way did
Einstein or others of his intelligent kind accept any singular Big Bang,
or even that of an inflationary theory. I wonder why?

I need more lose cannons because, the clowns, the clowns, they are
absolutely everywhere.

Wow! You folks should see all the clowns that bring in the clowns. The
anti-think-tank Usenet that sucks and blows from hell has become
absolutely alive and vibrant with silly clowns. I suppose intended for
putting Christ back on a stick, and for God's sake, we obviously need
lots more of them clowns.

It's as though I have created my very own nifty posy of such clowns that
follow me everywhere, or follows anyone else that shares an honest
thought with the likes of myself. Being fair minded, these clowns are
acting or rather bady reacting more and more like * Jack in the box *
clowns. I mean it only seems right, since they're all so mainstream
boxed, and all, to start with.
-
Brad Guth


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

Brad Guth wrote:

I'm obviously confused;

This line has now been officially designated as "Understatement of the
Week". Please continue, Brad.

"John Griffin" wrote in message
. 1.4

I've started that new and improved topic: DNA, where are you?

However, I bet you and others of your kind can't share and share alike.

Have at it.
-
Brad Guth


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

"John Griffin" wrote in message
. 1.4

I've started up that new and improved topic: DNA, where are you?

However, I bet that you and others of your kind can't share and share
alike.

Be a good sport, and have at it.
-
Brad Guth



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

Art Deco wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

I'm obviously confused;

This line has now been officially designated as "Understatement of the
Week". Please continue, Brad.




Art, it is a confusing issue that we are confronted with. Photons,
light particles, waves, or whatever, are 'things' and 'things' are
difficult to define and understand.

Obviously you come from a background where everything was black and
white. To some extent we have to view the world that way -- but it is
inaccurate. This is why we run into anomalies, snags, that don't fit
the black and white mold we have put 'things' in.

It is to rid ourselves of these anomalies that we get to the roots of
our perceptions and theories and reevaluate them in the merciless light
of logic.

Everything we understand is, at best, a theory. We can even see a car
coming, jump out of the way, only to find that we were strapped to a
bed in a rubber room suffering from LSD. Or, we can drink a glass of
water and drop like a sack of wheat because it was poison and not pure
water at all. In short, the worst form of anomalies are errors of
judgment, of determining what it is we see and determining the nature
of the world about us.

It is known (theory too I believe) that definitions -- scientific or
not -- consist of yet more words requiring yet more definitions which .
.. . well, you see the problem. Eventually the definitions appear
circular though the language system is really open ended, not closed
like some nice neat mathematical system. Actually, even the math
systems are open in the sense that they require the 'null set' for
completion. The null set cleverly disguises the fact that there is an
'outside' to the system.

Once you Accept the Fact (theory too I believe) that we aren't really
certain of anything, much less scientific dogma coming from
'Authorities' that have the guts to turn gray into clear cut black and
white, then you are 'Out of the BOX'.

In short Planck and Einstein are dangling YOU on a string -- and you
don't even know it, Art. That's because you are blinded by the BOX
they created. Of course, you might still be in Newton's BOX. Not a
bad box, really, except when you run into relativistic anomalies, or
snags, if you will.

When you get on the Public Usenet you are in the Big Leagues. It all
hangs out around here. If you are wearing a BOX it shows up like a
neon sign.

I went to the effort to write this so you will know WHY I am supportive
of several posters that 'think for themselves'. What does that mean?
It means that they are showing, by their writings, that they are aware
of the fraility of our language, mathematical, perception, and belief
systems.

They don't automatically throw out new, creative, ideas because it
violates some box or other. Instead they look at it with open eyes and
get to the nitty gritty with their words and logic.

This is the reason, Art, that I lecture the Borg on their black and
white, in the box, posts. And, this is why the naysay, carry on, and
killfile. They cannot accept anything outside of their respective
boxes. They haven't learned that the world is not all tied up in a
nice neat package under the Christmas Tree. Why? Because they think
that Santa Claus is real and they are waiting for more black and white,
nicely boxed, 'education' that they can feel conceited about.

But this, I learned and now I know attitude, is not of the Real World.
It is a fake world where 'Authorities' tell you what to see and what to
believe. And, you do it out of blind obedience.

Just thought you'd like to know.


tomcat

tomcat wrote:

Art Deco wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:

I'm obviously confused;

This line has now been officially designated as "Understatement of the
Week". Please continue, Brad.




Art, it is a confusing issue that we are confronted with. Photons,
light particles, waves, or whatever, are 'things' and 'things' are
difficult to define and understand.

Obviously you come from a background where everything was black and
white. To some extent we have to view the world that way -- but it is
inaccurate. This is why we run into anomalies, snags, that don't fit
the black and white mold we have put 'things' in.

It is to rid ourselves of these anomalies that we get to the roots of
our perceptions and theories and reevaluate them in the merciless light
of logic.

Everything we understand is, at best, a theory. We can even see a car
coming, jump out of the way, only to find that we were strapped to a
bed in a rubber room suffering from LSD. Or, we can drink a glass of
water and drop like a sack of wheat because it was poison and not pure
water at all. In short, the worst form of anomalies are errors of
judgment, of determining what it is we see and determining the nature
of the world about us.

It is known (theory too I believe) that definitions -- scientific or
not -- consist of yet more words requiring yet more definitions which .
. . well, you see the problem. Eventually the definitions appear
circular though the language system is really open ended, not closed
like some nice neat mathematical system. Actually, even the math
systems are open in the sense that they require the 'null set' for
completion. The null set cleverly disguises the fact that there is an
'outside' to the system.

Once you Accept the Fact (theory too I believe) that we aren't really
certain of anything, much less scientific dogma coming from
'Authorities' that have the guts to turn gray into clear cut black and
white, then you are 'Out of the BOX'.

In short Planck and Einstein are dangling YOU on a string -- and you
don't even know it, Art. That's because you are blinded by the BOX
they created. Of course, you might still be in Newton's BOX. Not a
bad box, really, except when you run into relativistic anomalies, or
snags, if you will.

When you get on the Public Usenet you are in the Big Leagues. It all
hangs out around here. If you are wearing a BOX it shows up like a
neon sign.

I went to the effort to write this so you will know WHY I am supportive
of several posters that 'think for themselves'. What does that mean?
It means that they are showing, by their writings, that they are aware
of the fraility of our language, mathematical, perception, and belief
systems.

They don't automatically throw out new, creative, ideas because it
violates some box or other. Instead they look at it with open eyes and
get to the nitty gritty with their words and logic.

This is the reason, Art, that I lecture the Borg on their black and
white, in the box, posts. And, this is why the naysay, carry on, and
killfile. They cannot accept anything outside of their respective
boxes. They haven't learned that the world is not all tied up in a
nice neat package under the Christmas Tree. Why? Because they think
that Santa Claus is real and they are waiting for more black and white,
nicely boxed, 'education' that they can feel conceited about.

But this, I learned and now I know attitude, is not of the Real World.
It is a fake world where 'Authorities' tell you what to see and what to
believe. And, you do it out of blind obedience.

Just thought you'd like to know.


tomcat

Nice rant, pareidolia-boi, but you used the word "box" only nine times.
Shirley you can do better than this.

"tomcat" wrote in message
ps.com

What did I just tell you about speaking to the borg. By default, you
become one of them.

If you handed over the actual holy grail to the likes of Art Deco, he'd
only use it to wipe his infomercial spewing butt. That's what borgs do
best, especially the born-again Third Reich borg minions that typically
spend their off-time sucking and blowing the private parts of other
borgs.

Get yourself out of their intellectual flatulence bulging box before
it's too late.
-
Brad Guth


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

Brad Guth wrote:

"tomcat" wrote in message
ups.com

What did I just tell you about speaking to the borg. By default, you
become one of them.

If you handed over the actual holy grail to the likes of Art Deco, he'd

*ding*

only use it to wipe his infomercial spewing butt. That's what borgs do
best, especially the born-again Third Reich borg minions that typically
spend their off-time sucking and blowing the private parts of other
borgs.

Get yourself out of their intellectual flatulence bulging box before
it's too late.
-
Brad Guth

Hi, Brad! Still too chicken to reply to me directly?