Dusnòmia blasts AtomicRocket ( How to deal with the scientifically illiterate)

Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
I've attempted to codify my rebuttals to
scientifically illiterate arguments on
a web page.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3al.html

It is a rough draft so feel free to make
editorial comments and point out flaws
in the reasoning.

Glue is fast; rockets are swift; humans are dolts; folks are nescient.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3al.html
For instance, if you broke the Second Law of Thermodynamics in order to obtain stealth in space, a major unintended consequence is that you simultaneously have allowed perpetual motion machines of the first kind, infinite free energy from nowhere, and all the secondary unintended ripple effects.

The first kind means first law, duh. And the work is still from
something.

Ken Harding says:
A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of
new or better evidence. A theory will always be a theory, a law will
always be a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was
a theory.

A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's
Laws of Planetary Motion are a good example. Those laws describe the
motions of planets. But they do not explain why they are that way. If
all scientists ever did was to formulate scientific laws, then the
universe would be very well- described, but still unexplained and very
mysterious.

This is delusional. Why did you enlist a nobody to tell us what words
mean? Laws are never descriptions; those are /models/. Laws are
/always/ prescriptions; that is why they'v the possibility to be
brokene.

A theory is a scientific explanation of an observed phenomenon. Unlike laws, theories actually explain why things are the way they are. Theories are what science is for. If, then, a theory is a scientific explanation of a natural phenomena, ask yourself this: "What part of that definition excludes a theory from being a fact?" The answer is nothing! There is no reason a theory cannot be an actual fact as well.

Phenomena is plural. fact = make/deed; "What's your make on this?"
So, yes, fact ~ thèory.

The common misconception is that if a budding young scientific theory gets quote "proven" unquote, it graduates and becomes a scientific law. As you see above, theories and laws are two different things. Even worse, it is impossible to prove a scientific theory.

Thèories get provene everywhere to become a law. But "everywhere" and
"proof" are relative. Anyone who says that one can't prove a thèory
is illiterate, and doesn't know what prove means. The same goes for
"bulletproof". However, one can't anforprove/reperprobat such.

There is no unexplained phenomenon that might result in violating thermodynamics

Readdon.

- and if there WERE something that violated thermo, it would radically change the universe as we know it - for instance, stellar processes require thermodynamics, the entire model of cosmology is based off of known properties for thermodynamics. Your car runs on thermodynamic processes. And all of these things work out the same way, and derive from the same knowledge base..

Not by much, as much of the sustem is not accounted for and is assumed
to be losses, so engineers don't care what happens to that heat/work.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3a.html
rocket's exhaust velocity are often given in kilometers per second, instead of meters per second. It doesn't matter which you use, but be sure to use the same units everywhere. (For those readers who actually have some knowledge of rocketry: Yes, I know it is inconvenient to use meters per second with all those annoying zeds.

rockets'
Zeds are letters, not lotters. Ever heard of a nouht?

A one man fighter spacecraft would be a more effective weapon if you removed the fighter pilot, their life support, and their acceleration limits; and replaced them with a computer. You would basically be converting the fighter spacecraft into a roving missile bus, and removing the logical justification for the existence of fighter spacecraft altogether.

The man could be there to watch, let, and fix the computer. And a
pilot has no their. If a pilot were a remote controller, in space, it
would either take too long to signal or one would be open to eventual
strafing. In heavy fire, the pilot can keep oneself safe by
deliberately leakan blanket weapons into the field, then parry with
armor*, so the generator doesn't blow up. *Ablators are also cheapper
than fuel; it's silly to fly jerkily in deep space to avoid shots.
(That is, unless the fuel is near-free.)

Outside the atmosphere, they use anti-matter powered High Drives to drive the ship. (They are also apparently converting normal matter to antimatter on the fly for energy. Nice bit of sorcery there.) So far, so good.

(P+e-)* - P+e- + P-e+ + P+e-

Thirty-ton kinetic-kill torpedoes. And the Sissy carries twenty of them. (Which means half again her mass is weaponry...) Now, the torpedoes accelerate at 12 Gs, which is OK given that their targets only accelerate at 2 G usually...but then Drake goes on to say that the missiles can reach a maximum velocity of 0.6 C in combat conditions. And that they do so in 8 minutes.
[disillusive calculations...]
In one book, two torpedoes miss their target and enter the upper
atmosphere of an inhabited planet....and disappear harmlessly in "a
flash of plasma". Ummm...sorry, don't think so. Even if 30 tons of
missile turn into plasma on contact with the atmosphere (and at 0.6 C I
don't think they'll have time to melt), they are still 30 tons of
plasma moving at 0.6 C! So much for that inhabited planet.

Don't believe everything you read. Maybe the torpedos /start/ at 30
tons and 12 Gs, use that mass to fuel their speed (makes sens), and by
their hit after 8 minuts they are much slihter and fleter.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3v.html
The Light-Speed Barrier
No, this is not like the "sound barrier", it is much more fundamental.

Yes, it is /like/ the sound barrier for proper signals. Translation is
not vibration. Each barrier is dependent on the composition of its
medium: masses, charges, moments, foreign scalar fields, etc. Celerity
is variabil like sonority is.

They hold onto Causality even tighter. Without Causality the entire structure of physics crumbles. Causes must preceed effects, or it becomes impossible to make predictions. If it is impossible to make predictions, it would be best to give up physics for a more profitable line of work.

Therefore, they chose to jettison FTL travel.

Why only two? Relativity proves that FTL travel is identical to Time
travel (to help your research, the technical term for time travel is
"Closed timelike curve"). Time travel makes Causality impossible, since
it can be used to create paradoxes. So if you have Relativity and FTL,
Causality is impossible. If you do not have Relativity, FTL is not Time
travel, so you can have Causality. Or more mundanely you can have
Relativity and Causality, but no FTL/Time travel (the latter is the
opinion of physicist Stephen Hawking, he calls it the chronology
protection conjecture).

I'll settel this. There are elèctric events (liht), gravital events
(weiht), and coloral events (hent). Each is its own happenway; thus,
things cannot happen without them, by definition. So if things are
limited to celerity, whether /other/ things happen slower or swifter
has no bearing on these. With the relativistic formula, ahead liht is
imaginary time, mass, and length. When a body starts with all reals,
and choses to drift swifter than liht, it merely gains complex
components; they don't interact with the reals, so there is no
violation in causality. Thus, there can be two bodies: One that is
slower and two that is swifter. However, the imaginary bodies interact
with other nonlocal imaginary bodies which can drop out into reals.
They do not go back in time; they go side in time; in other words, they
use another force to force in their own forward time. One can swap the
strengths of the different forces to alter celerity for one force; if
one is limited to elèctricity, then one would need to find a vacuum
that is emptier for it to be swifter. (It's near the end of the
univers.) To fare back in time, it's no different than a videotape of
a videotape. Scroll back anything you want, but if you don't scroll
back yourself, the sustem is open and you cannot reach future-rependent
events like your roles so that you can't kill your bearers: You would
need to clone yourself and have the clone scroll you back (which runs
over the cloning memories) then scroll the world back. In any frame,
time travel is the same as a better pendulum, if one has the work.


http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html
Don't còlòniz runons! Do that for interjections and independent
clauses.

It would be a jolly science fictional idea to postulate a break-through that could detect passive sensors, keeping in mind that there doesn't seem to be any basis for this in reality. Wave your hands real hard, and vaguely mutter about "psionics", or something based on a Schrödinger's cat-like collapse of wave function (Captain, the wave function collapsed, it means somebody is peeking at us!) or specially trained experts who feel itchy sensations between their shoulders when somebody is looking at them. But to reiterate, this is strictly science fiction.

Sensors cannot detect everything. And when passive sensors sensat,
they aren't passive anymore. Thus, there are sidewickets.

The "bazooka" part is accurate, but not the "hiding" part. If the spacecraft are torchships, their thrust power is several terawatts. This means the exhaust is so intense that it could be detected from Alpha Centauri. By a passive sensor.

Exhaust outside the sensor's band, even òrthogònic to it (dark/exotic
matter).

Now I know you do not want to accept the fact that stealth in space is all but impossible. This I know from experience (Every day I have new email from somebody who thinks they've figured out a way to do it. So far all of them have had fatal flaws.). The only thing that upsets budding SF writers more is Albert Einstein denying them their faster than light starships. But don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. The good folk on the usenet newsgroup rec.arts.sf.science went through all the arguments but it all came to naught.

naught as in naughty? Wrong, Clarke did a fair job of refutation, to
end the threaddels. The louder users there (1998) show a deep
ignorance of such resorts and concepts as superfluids ("no
superconductors for heat"!), nonMaxwellian or nonPlanckian radiators
such as condensed matter and nonlinear òptics, and heatly transfer:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=stasodunamics.

"Well FINE!!", you say, "I'll turn off the engines and run silent like a submarine in a World War II movie. I'll be invisible." Unfortunately that won't work either. The life support for your crew emits enough heat to be detected at an exceedingly long range. The 285 Kelvin habitat module will stand out like a search-light against the three Kelvin background of outer space.

Outer space is not three kelvins. Outer space is space outside Earth's
orbit; inner space is that inside. The solar wind bathes our junk with
heat. 2000 OO67 with .9 emittance and 90AU distance is about 12 K.
Hèris with .14 and 97AU is 30 K. The stealth blends in with the
background nearby, not with the intergalactic medium. Put a dewar
between the cabin and the engin. As no media are in equilibrium, the
ship can use winds to pump its walls to blend in. Here are some tips:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...77a080b0650911.

According to Dr. John Schilling, the maximum range a ship with its engines blazing away can be detected with current technology is:

Rd = ( 17.8E6 * sqrt( Ms*As*Isp*(1-Nd)*(1-Ns) ) ) * (sqrt(0.04 * p))

These dimensions come out to momentum, so length varies with momentum?
The stealth efficiency Ns is not "magic". Whether hot (jittery) matter
interacts with a detector depends on the nature of their charges and
polar moments. If they are squashed into darker states, like
neutròns, your retarded IRdar can't see them.

The maximum range a ship running silent with engines shut down can be detected with current technology is:

Rd = 13.4 * sqrt(A) * T2

This is rubbish. Instruments detect intensity; they do not directly
detect temperature or radiation. And the barrier between temperature
and radiation is something called emissivity. Only a blackbody has
emittance of 1, which engineers' calculations hang on, and blackbodies
are as real as unicorns. (Engineers are fools, anget that.) I even
designd a perpetual motion makine that exploits the permanence of
greybodies.

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html
Laser beams are not subject to the inverse-square law, but they are subject to diffraction. The radius of the beam will spread as the distance from the laser cannon increases.

You retard, the spread /is/ from the inverse-square law.

Note that laser cannon are notoriously inefficient. Free-electron lasers have a theoretical maximum efficiency of 65%, while others are lucky to get a third of that.

65% how?

Rick Robinson has a more serious concern. You know how it is a very bad idea to look through a telescope at the Sun? Well, for the same reason it is bad to unshutter your laser cannon optics and point them at a hostile ship which might zap you with its laser. Your cannon's optics would funnel their beam right down into the delicate interior of your cannon. The optics would also concentrate their beam to 10x or 100x the intensity. This means that if your lasers are unshuttered and your opponents are shuttered, you have the drop on them. The instant you detect their shutters trembling you give them a zap. Their shutters will still be opening when your bolt scrags their laser.

Wrong!, it's /10 or /100 folds the intensity because their beam focuses
already. But it would melt your solid mirrors. If you keep the
resultant plasma reflective, and run your banks backwards to match
impedance, your cannon will absorb the fire and be the fiercer.

Bomb-pumped lasers do not use lenses or mirrors (because there ain't no such thing as an x-ray mirror).

What are these 80,000 hits for such then?:
http://google.com/search?num=100&q=%...+for+X-rays%22.
They may be deflectors rather than reflectors, but they're still
mirrors. (Ohe, "ain't no" means "aiso some".) And one could build a
resonant cavity for X-rays that isn't pipe-shapene but twiknob-shapene.
You may get a reflector with inducede protonic halos in heavy
nuclides--a regenerator comes to mind.

Ae alternativ reflector is to interfere the waves:
http://aip.org/pnu/2003/split/619-1.html.

Laser guru Luke Campbell thinks it not impossible to make an x-ray laser which does NOT require a nuclear device to pump it. In theory a Free Electron laser can produce any wavelength. And while there ain't no such thing as an x-ray mirror, it is possible approximate an x-ray lens by having the rays make glancing blows off dense materials.

As these skip the material, they are not lenses but mirrors! As is
water a mirror at shallow sihts.

While particles cannot travel at the speed of light, they can get close enough that it is hard to tell the difference. Unfortunately, particle beams do obey the inverse-square law.

I made a wavene argument that these speeds are the same, and wrote a
mathematic proof that matter can reach celerity. It could be
generalised to any wavelength, but I used the Planck length as a last
standard. Look up my "gimme money" post.

a stupid bolder travelling at 2,000 km/sec

bolder than what?

Current particle accelerators are horribly inefficient at generating antimatter, but Dr. Forward says this is because they were designed by physicists, not industrial engineers. He is of the opinion that a dedicated antimatter factory build with current technology could approach 0.01% efficiency (which isn't good but is still about 6000 times better than Fermilab).

Can he prove it?

risk, it

runons!

it's resistance

fool!

If your spacecraft's exhaust is pumping out a few terrawatts, it might occur to you that your enemy would be real unhappy if you hosed them with your tail flame.

a few terrawatts? If the spacecraft exhaustd Terra, then there would
be no flame. Likewise, if Terra experienced a terawatt, as it
regularly does, it would shift the ground, sea, and loft only a bit too
small to feel.

As propulsion systems get more powerful, the more energy they contain, and the worse the damage if an accident occurs. How would you like to have the captain of the Exxon Valdez skippering a tramp freighter with an antimatter drive? That brilliant mushroom cloud you see marks the former location of Clinton-Sherman spaceport. The more devastation a propulsion system can wreck, the shorter the leash the captains will be on. If they are too powerful, there won't be any colorful tramp freighters or similar vessels. This is known as John's Law.

Cretinose engineers don't know about regenerators, cinetic and
mathematic.

Sometimes it works the other way. If you are attacking an Orion drive spacecraft with nuclear warheads, they will just point their pusher plate at the missiles and laugh at you.

bunker-buster

That means you need delta v to get to the objective, then delta v to cancel out your inbound vector, then delta v to get to a rendezvous point, plus delta v for maneuvering in the thick of things.

A rough estimate was that you needed delta v equal to about four times
that of a comparable mass missile that just needs to do a drive-by
shooting.

Four times the delta v means that your fuel fraction just went up by a
factor of something around four (depends on your Isp).

Wrong: +v_in, -v_out, -v_in,out, +v_in,out. In stroke 2, other bodies
do work on the craft to stop it. In strokes 3 and 4, both other bodies
and the craft coast back at some wee speed. The sum would be like
1.2v_in. As badass fihters are supervelocital, they should carry a
host of transducers with field strengths some fair swath of a moon or
planet. And if they were smart, they would catch some of the +v_in so
that the end cost is under .7v_in.

Silly as they are, plasma weapons are a popular SF concept that just won't go away. They are encountered in such diverse places as the orginal Star Trek TV series, the Traveler role playing game, and the Babylon 5 TV series. They play the role of a futuristic flame-thrower.

Their main draw-back is that they won't work.

Plasma is the so-called "fourth state of matter", and is basically hot
air. That is, it is a gas heated to temperatures comparable to the
interior of a star or the center of a thermonuclear explosion so that
all the atoms are ionized. Unfortunately, according to the virial
theorem, the plasma wants to equalize its internal pressure with the
external, i.e., it wants to expand into a diffuse cloud of nothing.

Do flamethrowers work? "Supersoaker + gasoline = fun":
http://youtube.com/profile_favorites...ysdexia&page=2. Then so do
welcthrowers. I would also suggest you look up "ball lightning": They
hop like a ball or bub would, go throuh walls and windows, and scorch
what they hit.

John W. Lewellen says that a "plasma beam" could be thought of as an exceedingly dense, slow-moving particle beam. Personally that seems a little strained, but what do I know?

For a definitive analysis of the worthlessness of plasma weapons, I
refer you to Stardestroyer.net. Executive Summary: they won't work for
the same reason that a gun shooting steam won't work.

Great, you refer us to another engineer who knows **** about science.
First, there's no requirement that the load should fully go off when it
fires; thus, the steam or plasma is still storede and both can work
because they can do work. My rebuttal's at the end.*

I. Weapons systems.
II. Active defense systems.
III. Passive defense systems.

You need active and passive weapons too. "Officer, he ran into my
dagger..."

3c Directed Energy: These weapons transfer energy directly to the target, at range.
3c1 Electromagnetic: Lasers and kin (masers, grasers, etc.)
3c1a Submunitions: Bomb-pumped lasers
3c2 Particle beam: Charged or neutral particles, not to be confused
with small-sized railgun-fired projectiles. Typically limited to atomic
or sub-atomic particles.
3d Chemical: Anti-personnel weapons that attempt to poison the
biological processes of the target to incapacitate or kill.
3e Biological: Anti-personnel weapons that attempt to infect the target
and incapacitate or kill.
3f Radiological: Anti-personnel weapons that attempt to expose the
target to incapacitating amounts of radiation.

3f is 3c2.

4d Command : Weapon

Francish punctuation sucks.

*http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essa...maWeapons.html
Plasma weapons are one of the most popular ideas in sci-fi. Babylon5 uses something called "PPGs", which stands for Phased Plasma Guns. No one knows exactly what's "phased" about it, since a plasmoid is a highly randomized entity, but "phased" is ultimately just another one of those science terms that's become almost meaningless thanks to gratuitous sci-fi abuse. In any case, PPG blasts look like glowing dots and move at markedly subsonic speeds.

They're popular because they're hotter than molecular fire. The plasma
is "phased", dumbass. That is, it's coherent like a Fermi-Dirac
condensat. That's why they're a dot.

I'll also teach you what a phaser is. Short for "phased energy
rectification", and clearly better than lasers, and rather slow and
glowy but versatil, I see the beam analòjic to the difference between
a resistive heatter and a heat pump, where the latter gathers much more
heat for the same work because pumps are not onely thèrmodunamic but
stasodunamic. (Take watter: One device could make watter and leave it,
or one could make the watter brushan and heappan nearby watter to leave
much more than the former.) That's why I think the nadionic (nada =
nouht, a pun) beam is merely a heat pump, whereas a laser is a liht
pump. It takes kèmic, elèctric, and thèrmic bodies and processes,
and amplifies them so that acid-base is more acidic-basic, spring-sink
is more heavy-sliht, and heat-chilt is more hot-cold. For life it
shoves back the clock on the spot, and stuns what can no longer
mètavòliz. For dead junk and in general it exploits structural
defects and pries them asunder.

For those who are not already aware, plasma is usually described as the fourth state of matter, after solid, liquid, and gas. More technically, it is ionized gas, ie- gas in which the energy level is so high that the electrons will not stay confined in their atomic energy shells so they escape. The Earth's Sun is largely composed of plasma, which can also be described as a hot "soup" of free-floating nuclei and electrons. Therefore, a plasma weapon would logically be something that fires plasma at the target.

Fool! Learn the speakka. It's solid, liquid, vapid, formid. (Yet
formid isn't plasma; that would be reformid. I discoverd the state
between gas and plasma, that nobody knew about, and first calld it id;
it's gas that can no longer bond by London forces.) What is ie-?

Indeed, so-called "plasma weapons" in sci-fi generally fire visible "bolts" which move far, far slower than the particles of a hot plasma would move.. For example, a typical hand-held "plasma weapon" in sci-fi will fire a bolt that moves at 1 km/s at the most, or may even be subsonic, yet even a relatively "cold" 1 eV plasma will have an average (root mean squared) particle velocity of 13.8 km/s for nuclei and 593 km/s for electrons (assuming even energy distribution). This is a major impediment to their effectiveness and an incomprehensible "feature"; why would one even want a plasma weapon where the particle velocities are all randomized in a slow-moving confined blob, rather than being directed forward at great velocity as they would be in a particle beam? Such a weapon would be far less penetrative by its nature, hence far less efficient even if it works.

The bolts fire at a compromised speed to lessen losses to the outter
medium. It's like runnan in the rain. So the work should be by heat
rather than by strike. The bolts are sensitive to impact, yes? So
they shouldn't blow out on the way there. Your particul beam suffers
from such blowout because it's supersonic; how retarded are you?

And these weapons generally have one other fascinating on-screen trait: they do not appear to be affected by gravity. This is not a small quibble; dense objects like bullets drop in gravity, and light objects like helium balloon float up due to buoyancy. You can't normally see a bullet dropping because it is too small and fast to see with the naked eye in flight, but the arcing is appreciable and significant, yet it is not present in sci-fi "plasma weapon" blasts, which fly straight and true to their targets as if there is no gravity at all. One could attempt to rationalize this with a projectile that has the density of air, but if it has the density of air, then it would have the aerodynamic properties of a cool air balloon, which would make a poor projectile to say the least.

You doof, there are other forces besides gravity.. like elèctricity.
A rubber band will do the same.

All right, so why don't we just confine the plasma? Well of course, there's the obvious objection that a blob of plasma will not confine itself, so you'd have to create some kind of magical containment field which moves with the bolt and requires no technological apparatus to sustain itself.

It's not plasma yet--it's not /all/ plasma yet.

In short, ask yourself how well a "hot steam gun" would work. Doesn't sound all that impressive, does it? You visualize a cloud of steam shooting out of a gun and promptly dissipating in the air. So why does it sound like such a great idea when you replace "steam" with "plasma", which is just a really hot gas?

H4N2(l*) + O2(v@l) - N2(v) + 2H2O(hhhhot v)

OK, why don't we try solving this problem by using a much lower-energy plasma with increased density? We could try to solve the buoyancy problem by making it colder (say, 1 eV, or 8000K, which is a bit hotter than the surface of the Sun), thus necessitating a thousand times more ions in the same volume, but its density would still be much too low to push it through the atmosphere on momentum alone. It wouldn't necessarily float up, but try throwing a balloon at someone and you can see how well an object with atmospheric density would fly if hurled at the target.

No, if you want it to push its way through atmosphere on momentum, it
must be either much denser than air or moving at extreme velocity,
which sci-fi plasma weapons generally do not (and which would make it
more of a particle beam than a traditional sci-fi "plasma weapon"). So
what if we decrease the volume to make it as dense as a solid
projectile? Well, that takes care of the "can't push its way through
atmosphere"

It's self-drivene, like that rubber band. Plastic wrap will do the
same when you rub it and try to drop it from your hand.

problem, but now you have to make it tiny, and in order to do that, you need to squeeze it with immense pressure. If we squeeze our 1MJ plasmoid into a 1cc volume and apply the ideal gas law (which is a good model for plasmas), we find that the pressure is in the range of 700 GPa! When you consider the fact that this is a thousand times greater than the yield strength of high-grade steel, you can begin to see the problem.

What follows is a string of strawmen, each dumber than the last. Eat
**** and die, Michael Wong.

Even those ions that do strike the surface of the target will achieve poor penetration; most of their kinetic energy is randomized rather than being directed forward, and the gas cloud lacks the characteristics which would allow it to push through solid armour rather than simply heating its surface.

Eh? Ball lihtning seeps throuh walls with almost no forward speed.

"So why do sci-fi writers use "Plasma Weapons?"

Perhaps you should ask them. My suspicion is that they do it because it
sounds neat, and because they don't know any better (one of the ironies
of the sci-fi world is that most of the modern writers barely know
enough science to graduate high school). And whether you like it or
not, that's good enough for most sci-fi writers nowadays. If you could
invent such immensely strong forcefields as to wrap a blob of plasma so
tightly that it can fly through the air like a solid object, then why
not use this fantastic forcefield to carry something more destructive,
such as a small charge of antimatter?"

Yet your science has so many holes in it to drive a hot, loadded
dimethylmercury-carbonsemia beam throuh.

-Aut
Pluto and Hèris are comets. For one, it fizzes every now and then...

Autymn D. C. wrote:

Glue is fast; rockets are swift; humans are dolts; folks are nescient.

Is the next one in this list "Autymn D. C. is incoherent"?

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
-- (an Arab proverb)

Erik Max Francis wrote:
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Glue is fast; rockets are swift; humans are dolts; folks are nescient.

Is the next one in this list "Autymn D. C. is incoherent"?

No, Autymn is refective, litteratimal, and perfectionist.

Autymn D. C. wrote:

Erik Max Francis wrote:
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Glue is fast; rockets are swift; humans are dolts; folks are nescient.
Is the next one in this list "Autymn D. C. is incoherent"?

No, Autymn is refective, litteratimal, and perfectionist.

I rest my case.

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Nature likes to hide herself.
-- Heraclitus

In sci.physics.relativity, Autymn D. C.

wrote
on 10 Jan 2007 14:40:41 -0800
.com:
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Glue is fast; rockets are swift; humans are dolts; folks are nescient.

Is the next one in this list "Autymn D. C. is incoherent"?

No, Autymn is refective, litteratimal, and perfectionist.


And the Ghost is extremely confused as to the purpose of all this. :-)

BTW, for those not able to access dictionaries:

nescient = ignorant
refective = refreshing or restoring
litteratimal = unknown; not even Google can figure that one out
perfectionist = characteristic of an individual striving for an ideal
confused = confused

:-)

--
#191,
Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
important, it's the ability to DO something
with it.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Autymn D. C.

wrote
on 10 Jan 2007 14:40:41 -0800
.com:
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Glue is fast; rockets are swift; humans are dolts; folks are nescient.

Is the next one in this list "Autymn D. C. is incoherent"?

No, Autymn is refective, litteratimal, and perfectionist.

And the Ghost is extremely confused as to the purpose of all this. :-)

BTW, for those not able to access dictionaries:

nescient = ignorant
refective = refreshing or restoring

Fool, you cannot use one word to defin another in the same speakka.
They havn't the same meanning. And refective is the opposit of
defective, dolt.

nescient = a'nowarong
ignorant = a'hedengles
refective = anamekele

I could giv these in manier words if yeneeds.

litteratimal = unknown; not even Google can figure that one out

Learn some Latin and cleave the fitts.

perfectionist = characteristic of an individual striving for an ideal

strivun

-Aut

In sci.physics.relativity, Autymn D. C.

wrote
on 15 Jan 2007 21:34:36 -0800
. com:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Autymn D. C.

wrote
on 10 Jan 2007 14:40:41 -0800
.com:
Erik Max Francis wrote:
Autymn D. C. wrote:
Glue is fast; rockets are swift; humans are dolts; folks are nescient.

Is the next one in this list "Autymn D. C. is incoherent"?

No, Autymn is refective, litteratimal, and perfectionist.

And the Ghost is extremely confused as to the purpose of all this. :-)

BTW, for those not able to access dictionaries:

nescient = ignorant
refective = refreshing or restoring

Fool, you cannot use one word to defin another in the same speakka.

Really? I for one would think it mostly adequate. Or have you never
heard of the concept of synonyms? :-)

They havn't the same meanning. And refective is the opposit of
defective, dolt.

nescient = a'nowarong
ignorant = a'hedengles
refective = anamekele

I could giv these in manier words if yeneeds.

litteratimal = unknown; not even Google can figure that one out

Learn some Latin and cleave the fitts.

Mmm, cleavage. :-)


perfectionist = characteristic of an individual striving for an ideal

strivun

-Aut


--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #104392:
for(int i = 0; i 1000000; i++) sleep(0);

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com