mass is light.

"Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was
good."
But then that same light shown upon our Art Deco. And, God saw that it
was bad, very bad.
-
Brad Guth


tomcat wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
I'm into thinking if photons are purely 2D quantum string frequency
based items, then perhaps there's a positive photon and a negative
photon per given frequency wave, that's otherwise representing itself
as a single photon to our eyes and instruments. Perhaps this notion
has some bearing on the spin-one/spin-two boson, and of light being
capable of going in reverse.
-
Brad Guth


Light is no ordinary thing.

In the Double Slit Experiment single photons went through both slits
when no one was looking. As soon, however, as a measuring device was
attached to both slits to determine how a single photon could behave
like a wave, the single photon became a single photon and only went
through one slit, not both. The interference pattern disappeared on
the photographic film, on the other side of the slits, and only a tiny
white dot appeared instead.

"Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was
good."


tomcat

Brad Guth wrote:
"Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was
good."
But then that same light shown upon our Art Deco. And, God saw that it
was bad, very bad.
-
Brad Guth


The Creation of 'Good' is certainly one of the tenants of religion.
But we must accept that it follows the necessary conditions for
existence, namely that 'Evil Exists' too. Without Evil there would be
nothing to compare Good to. Everything would be Good as it was in the
Garden of Eden. To have knowledge of Good then, we must have the foil
of Evil.

The same is true of Usenet Posts. For Top Posters to exist there have
to be bottom posters. For Good, informative posters there must be Evil
posters too. And this -- I suspect -- is the Role of Art Deco. His
posts rip and tear at the fabric of knowledge.

He attempts unsuccessfully to destroy every line of thought, every
weave in the fabric of idea creation. And, with him are the Borg.
Destroyers all. They infect the Usenet forcing all of us to do
everything we can to 'ignore', 'sidestep', and 'gloss over' their
unruly posts, their sheer dribble of senseless remarks and sarcasm.


tomcat





tomcat wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
I'm into thinking if photons are purely 2D quantum string frequency
based items, then perhaps there's a positive photon and a negative
photon per given frequency wave, that's otherwise representing itself
as a single photon to our eyes and instruments. Perhaps this notion
has some bearing on the spin-one/spin-two boson, and of light being
capable of going in reverse.
-
Brad Guth


Light is no ordinary thing.

In the Double Slit Experiment single photons went through both slits
when no one was looking. As soon, however, as a measuring device was
attached to both slits to determine how a single photon could behave
like a wave, the single photon became a single photon and only went
through one slit, not both. The interference pattern disappeared on
the photographic film, on the other side of the slits, and only a tiny
white dot appeared instead.

"Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was
good."


tomcat

Brad Guth wrote:
"Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was
good."
But then that same light shown upon our Art Deco. And, God saw that it
was bad, very bad.
-
Brad Guth





Yes, Deco and Bookman have all but ruined this beautiful topic. A very
bad thing, indeed.

Getting back to 'Mass Is Light' it is significant that the gravity of
stars, and planets, can bend light. Gravity normally acts only on Mass
so this is an indication of photons having mass.

As far as photons 'being' mass, is the concept 'hard' hard? Is the
concept of 'weight' heavy. Is the concept of hatred hate? So concepts
oft differ from what they are concepts of. But is light a concept of
mass? A carrier of mass? Or, simply possess a little tiny bit of
mass?

Here is a reference on the possibility of light having or, at least,
having once had mass.

See: http://focus.aps.org/story/v10/st9

It is an interesting article that may have been borne out by scientific
observation. Observation is a breath of fresh air when 'pure' theory
has muddied the waters. It is nice to know facts OUTSIDE of those
little 'math' boxes.


tomcat

tomcat; Yes, Deco and Bookman have all but ruined this beautiful
topic. A very bad thing, indeed.
It simply proves that Usenet crapolla does flow uphill rather nicely.

Gravity normally acts only on Mass so this is an indication of
photons having mass.
Think of photons as zero mass (2D quantum string like) dump-trucks,
thus each capable of hauling a sub-yoctogram speck worth of mass at
whatever's the photon velocity, which seemingly isn't entirely limited
to 'c', but perhaps limited by the terminal velocity of dark matter.

Now all that we have to determine is the given size and thus hauling
capacity of a given photon, such as for getting such mass through ISM
or dark matter. In order to appreciate what's possible to being hauled
from point(A) to point(B), merely add up as to whatever a few 1e100
beams of waveguides or caravans worth of photons should accommodate.

If photons cause atoms to align and to otherwise spin at different
rates, then we clearly have this association of mass that's involved
with the photon.
-
Brad Guth


tomcat wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
"Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was
good."
But then that same light shown upon our Art Deco. And, God saw that it
was bad, very bad.
-
Brad Guth





Yes, Deco and Bookman have all but ruined this beautiful topic. A very
bad thing, indeed.

Getting back to 'Mass Is Light' it is significant that the gravity of
stars, and planets, can bend light. Gravity normally acts only on Mass
so this is an indication of photons having mass.

As far as photons 'being' mass, is the concept 'hard' hard? Is the
concept of 'weight' heavy. Is the concept of hatred hate? So concepts
oft differ from what they are concepts of. But is light a concept of
mass? A carrier of mass? Or, simply possess a little tiny bit of
mass?

Here is a reference on the possibility of light having or, at least,
having once had mass.

See: http://focus.aps.org/story/v10/st9

It is an interesting article that may have been borne out by scientific
observation. Observation is a breath of fresh air when 'pure' theory
has muddied the waters. It is nice to know facts OUTSIDE of those
little 'math' boxes.


tomcat

Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat; Yes, Deco and Bookman have all but ruined this beautiful
topic. A very bad thing, indeed.
It simply proves that Usenet crapolla does flow uphill rather nicely.

Gravity normally acts only on Mass so this is an indication of
photons having mass.
Think of photons as zero mass (2D quantum string like) dump-trucks,
thus each capable of hauling a sub-yoctogram speck worth of mass at
whatever's the photon velocity, which seemingly isn't entirely limited
to 'c', but perhaps limited by the terminal velocity of dark matter.


Yes, the aether theory is being revived, not only by the ZPE people but
also by other sources as well. Michaelson & Morley were looking for a
'solid' aether and found none, but today the aether is thought to be
fluid instead. It could very well be the elusive 'dark matter' that
astrophysicists have theorized.


Now all that we have to determine is the given size and thus hauling
capacity of a given photon, such as for getting such mass through ISM
or dark matter. In order to appreciate what's possible to being hauled
from point(A) to point(B), merely add up as to whatever a few 1e100
beams of waveguides or caravans worth of photons should accommodate.


Today, it is popular to talk of 'wave packets' of light because light
behaves very strangely. But, then again, nearly everything at the
extreme of small behaves strangely.


If photons cause atoms to align and to otherwise spin at different
rates, then we clearly have this association of mass that's involved
with the photon.


There is "association of mass" all over the place with photons. Seems
like a lot of things warp light. Haven't you noticed strong dynamos or
generators causing light distortion? But, in any event, stars and
planets definitely do.


tomcat


tomcat wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
"Let there be light. And, there was light. And, God saw that it was
good."
But then that same light shown upon our Art Deco. And, God saw that it
was bad, very bad.
-
Brad Guth





Yes, Deco and Bookman have all but ruined this beautiful topic. A very
bad thing, indeed.

Getting back to 'Mass Is Light' it is significant that the gravity of
stars, and planets, can bend light. Gravity normally acts only on Mass
so this is an indication of photons having mass.

As far as photons 'being' mass, is the concept 'hard' hard? Is the
concept of 'weight' heavy. Is the concept of hatred hate? So concepts
oft differ from what they are concepts of. But is light a concept of
mass? A carrier of mass? Or, simply possess a little tiny bit of
mass?

Here is a reference on the possibility of light having or, at least,
having once had mass.

See: http://focus.aps.org/story/v10/st9

It is an interesting article that may have been borne out by scientific
observation. Observation is a breath of fresh air when 'pure' theory
has muddied the waters. It is nice to know facts OUTSIDE of those
little 'math' boxes.


tomcat

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Which reminds me. Next time AUK holds their vote for physics k00k of
the month, I must vote for you.
But why of course, especially since you're obviously one of THEM!
-
Brad Guth

tomcat,
The Usenet borgs are also reinforced by way of their secondary birth or
call it the borg recoil worth of "tomcat" and of so many similar
snookered and summarily dumbfounded fool borg like puppets, as having
been so much so uninformed and/or infomercial-disinformed and thereby
summarily dumbfounded that you'll not even accept upon the hard-science
as derived from your own kind, especially if it taints your pagan God's
infomercial accomplishments of having supposedly walked upon our salty
moon that's so gosh darn gamma and hard-X-ray worthy, and otherwise
physically nasty.

Ask yourself and of others; why can't the regular laws of physics
apply equally to our naked moon?

Why can't the best available hard-science that's replicated become used
to further explore and subsequently better explain our salty moon or
other planets?

Ask why have we have ever once established the efficient moon L-1 or
LL-1 science platform?

Ask why there's still no such viable R&D prototype of a form of
fly-by-rocket lander?

Ask why it's taking an extra decade plus so much extra applied energy
with essentially half the payload of getting such back onto orbiting
the moon?

Ask these all-knowing wizards as to why our moon isn't accessed
directly from L-1?

Ask why all the mainstream status quo flak over perfectly good research
and ideas that should work?

Instead of a viable Usenet think-tank of share and share alike, we see
that the usual topic/author stalking ****ology worth of Art Deco and of
those borg clones are still with us, just like their collaboration with
the Third Reich was as reliable as our having invented a cash of
hocus-pocus WMD for the bogus task at hand of knowing thy enemy(the
innocent public at large) so that their continued
snookering/assimilation of humanity and the demise of our environment
could continue.

I believe it's our responsibility as the supposed village idiots to
keep asking tough questions, as well as to be giving our free thoughts
and offering our best SWAG as to our honest interpretation of
whatever's what, as otherwise the incest cloned likes of these
perverted Art Deco's are going to continually run the lower 99.9% of
humanity and whatever's left of our environment down the nearest
space-toilet, just like they'd accomplished on behalf of Hitler.

As per usual, this Usenet of robo-posting e-spooks, MI/NSA moles and
lots of NASA's little brown-nosed minion butt-wipe helpers have been
sharing as much of their malware/****ware into my PC as their
GOOGLE/Usenet can possibly transfer without terminating itself, whereas
I've had to reboot a good dozen times in just the last week, and of
whatever internet my usage remains at a craw due to all of their
tracking and/or blockage (information banishment) that's involved. The
matter of fact that Art Deco keeps trashing whatever's contributed by
honest folks into their personal cesspools of "alt.fan.art-bell" and
"alt.usenet.kooks" is simply proof-positive that the few of us honest
folks have been a whole lot more right than we're being given credit
for.

The likes of "brian a m stuckless", "tomcat" or myself never have to
use such cloak and dagger ****ology tactics of topic/author stalking,
topic drift or much less hijackings into such damage-control groups of
disinformation cesspools as always introduced by the likes of mutant
borg Jews, such as the incest cloned likes of Art Deco. Instead of
robo-posting bigotry and hatred of the truth, we offer honest research
and a fair trade off of perfectly thoughtful and considerate on-topic
information, while the Usenet borg continually fail at constructively
contributing squat that's other than offered by their Skull and Bones
approved scripts, as extracted from their pagan infomercial koran.
-
Brad Guth


tomcat wrote:
Rising-Star8471 wrote:
We, The Borg, resent that remark. Your assimilation is assured. Your
technological and biological distinctiveness will be incorperated into
the collective BOX. Then we will seal said box and sell it on
ebay......MUWAHAHAHAHHAHA


The above is 'hard core' proof of the existence of the Borg on the
Usenet.

tomcat

Brad Guth wrote:
tomcat,
The Usenet borgs are also reinforced by way of their secondary birth or
call it the borg recoil worth of "tomcat" and of so many similar
snookered and summarily dumbfounded fool borg like puppets, as having
been so much so uninformed and/or infomercial-disinformed and thereby
summarily dumbfounded that you'll not even accept upon the hard-science
as derived from your own kind, especially if it taints your pagan God's
infomercial accomplishments of having supposedly walked upon our salty
moon that's so gosh darn gamma and hard-X-ray worthy, and otherwise
physically nasty.

Ask yourself and of others; why can't the regular laws of physics
apply equally to our naked moon?

Why can't the best available hard-science that's replicated become used
to further explore and subsequently better explain our salty moon or
other planets?

Ask why have we have ever once established the efficient moon L-1 or
LL-1 science platform?

Ask why there's still no such viable R&D prototype of a form of
fly-by-rocket lander?

Ask why it's taking an extra decade plus so much extra applied energy
with essentially half the payload of getting such back onto orbiting
the moon?

Ask these all-knowing wizards as to why our moon isn't accessed
directly from L-1?

Ask why all the mainstream status quo flak over perfectly good research
and ideas that should work?

Instead of a viable Usenet think-tank of share and share alike, we see
that the usual topic/author stalking ****ology worth of Art Deco and of
those borg clones are still with us, just like their collaboration with
the Third Reich was as reliable as our having invented a cash of
hocus-pocus WMD for the bogus task at hand of knowing thy enemy(the
innocent public at large) so that their continued
snookering/assimilation of humanity and the demise of our environment
could continue.

I believe it's our responsibility as the supposed village idiots to
keep asking tough questions, as well as to be giving our free thoughts
and offering our best SWAG as to our honest interpretation of
whatever's what, as otherwise the incest cloned likes of these
perverted Art Deco's are going to continually run the lower 99.9% of
humanity and whatever's left of our environment down the nearest
space-toilet, just like they'd accomplished on behalf of Hitler.

As per usual, this Usenet of robo-posting e-spooks, MI/NSA moles and
lots of NASA's little brown-nosed minion butt-wipe helpers have been
sharing as much of their malware/****ware into my PC as their
GOOGLE/Usenet can possibly transfer without terminating itself, whereas
I've had to reboot a good dozen times in just the last week, and of
whatever internet my usage remains at a craw due to all of their
tracking and/or blockage (information banishment) that's involved. The
matter of fact that Art Deco keeps trashing whatever's contributed by
honest folks into their personal cesspools of "alt.fan.art-bell" and
"alt.usenet.kooks" is simply proof-positive that the few of us honest
folks have been a whole lot more right than we're being given credit
for.

The likes of "brian a m stuckless", "tomcat" or myself never have to
use such cloak and dagger ****ology tactics of topic/author stalking,
topic drift or much less hijackings into such damage-control groups of
disinformation cesspools as always introduced by the likes of mutant
borg Jews, such as the incest cloned likes of Art Deco. Instead of
robo-posting bigotry and hatred of the truth, we offer honest research
and a fair trade off of perfectly thoughtful and considerate on-topic
information, while the Usenet borg continually fail at constructively
contributing squat that's other than offered by their Skull and Bones
approved scripts, as extracted from their pagan infomercial koran.
-
Brad Guth


tomcat wrote:
Rising-Star8471 wrote:
We, The Borg, resent that remark. Your assimilation is assured. Your
technological and biological distinctiveness will be incorperated into
the collective BOX. Then we will seal said box and sell it on
ebay......MUWAHAHAHAHHAHA


The above is 'hard core' proof of the existence of the Borg on the
Usenet.

tomcat




Yes, apparently Rising-Star8471 is their Queen. This explains why we
don't see her much. She is busy organizing the Borg 'hive'. The Borg
suitors keep her very busy.


Everything I mention and everything I have seen -- of a non-political
nature -- Brad discuss has been very well accepted scientific fact.
Indeed, both of us normally post references of unimpeachable character
and authority.

In the course of my life I have read many papers and books, including
those of:

Hippocrates
Plato
Aristotle
Archimedes
Descartes
Locke
Da Vinci
Copernicus
Galileo
Kant
Leibnitz
Hegel
Marx
Hitler
Kepler
Harvey
Boyle
Newton -- from whom I have derived my Rocket Formula
Priestley
Adam Smith
Berkeley
Russell
Lavoisier
Jenner
Dalton
Faraday
Tesla
Frege
Darwin
Maxwell
Peirce
Mendeleev
Pasteur
Roentgen
Curie
Tsiolkovsky
Planck
Boole
Venn
Mill
Freud
Sartre
Einstein
Rutherford
Fermi
Wittgenstein
Ryle

And, these are just to name a few off the top of my head. The science
Brad and I discuss is not 'weird' or strange in any way. It has the
depth of 'genuine study'. What is apparently confusing to some is that
our level is CREATIVITY, not BOX.


tomcat

tomcat wrote:
The science Brad and I discuss is not 'weird' or strange in any way.
It has the depth of 'genuine study'. What is apparently confusing to
some is that our level is CREATIVITY, not BOX.
This Usenet anti-think-tank is more or less like a naysay cesspool of a
black hole that only shares their form of infomercial-science, whereas
whatever their mainstream status quo BOX intends to pull off shall be
done, even if it takes another cross. Thus far, their collateral
damage and carnage of the innocent is very much going one-sided and
nearly insurmountable, especially when they've got the likes of
"tomcat" fooled to such an extent, so much so that your denial is in
denial (seven years ago that was myself, now I'm a little smarter about
such matters).
-
Brad Guth

In article . com, Brad
Guth wrote:

tomcat wrote:
The science Brad and I discuss is not 'weird' or strange in any way.
It has the depth of 'genuine study'. What is apparently confusing to
some is that our level is CREATIVITY, not BOX.
This Usenet anti-think-tank is more or less like a naysay cesspool of a
black hole that only shares their form of infomercial-science, whereas
whatever their mainstream status quo BOX intends to pull off shall be
done, even if it takes another cross. Thus far, their collateral
damage and carnage of the innocent is very much going one-sided and
nearly insurmountable, especially when they've got the likes of
"tomcat" fooled to such an extent, so much so that your denial is in
denial (seven years ago that was myself, now I'm a little smarter about
such matters).
-
Brad Guth

What I find funny Brad is that if I take away every OTHER word from
your screeds, I still end up with something equally nonsensical...

This anti-think-tank is or like naysay of
black that shares form infomercial-science,
whatever mainstream quo BOX to off be
, even it another. Thus , their
damage carnage the is much one-sided and
insurmountable, when got likes
"tomcat" to an , so so your is
denial ( years that myself, I'm little about
matters).



--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.