Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT

Double-a The answer to your question is 'no.' A spider web is not the
best scenario that fits. Its just the best I* can come up with. I try
to match something that fits better. Two BH colliding Hmmm is an
interesting thought but my thinking they would not send out waves. My
gravity need no field of waves,and so far all the 100s of millions
looking for gravity waves only proves I'm on firm ground go figure
bert

Art Deco 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

This, of course, is a load of unmitigated horse****. And just because
you don't understand them doesn't imply that cosmology and general
relativity are "irrational". But then again, this is just the usual
saucerhead dicta, so it is to be expected from your lot.

yeah, but retards like that aren't much different from you retards who can't
explain certain documented quantum effects that violate entropy (that i
guess you just can't understand, or else you'd explain them).

get back to work, carl.

http://netkooks.org/osterwald - "art deco" in a disguise! (he is the
walrus)

--
jade hasn't said anything about my new sig, either.

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

From Bert:

LIGO,or LISA will detect no gravity
waves. I base that on a lot of good
science,and it also goes against my
thoughts on gravity....

Two BH colliding Hmmm is an
interesting thought but my thinking they
would not send out waves. My gravity
needs no field of waves,and so far all the 100s of millions looking
for gravity waves only proves I'm on firm ground.

Bert, Einstein predicted 'em. Check out this site (it should come up OK
on your rig, but without the animation) -
http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/lisa_fact2.shtml

While you don't believe in Google or Googling, there's a wealth of
information on this subject, some of very recent date.

There's this Russian expatriate named Eugene Podkletnov who's a sort of
science gadfly. He's been coming up with various whirigig devices to try
to demonstrate anti-gravity effects. One of these devices was even
investigated by the Boeing aircraft company back in '02. But it was
found to be bunkum. Boeing's initial confidence in Podkletnov was stoked
because the year before, in '01, he had demonstrated clear-cut evidence
of gravitic effects at Los Alamos labs (a very prestigious and
accredited insttitution). The effects were predictable and repeatable,
and documented by Los Alamos. But what he had demonstrated there was
*not* a spinning device, but an electrical superconductor that when hit
with a high current spike, emitted a *wave* that had all the earmarks
of a gravitational wave. It would kick a distant pendulum and knock over
distant objects. And it propagated with _LONGITUDINAL POLARIZATION_ (for
db's benefit:-)).

For anyone who's interested, a quick Google under 'Superconduction,
gravity, Los Alamos, Podkletnov' will turn up this fascinating stuff.

Podkletnov's later imbroglio with Boeing, however, pretty well washed
him up as a credible researcher. It was only by sheer chance that his
superconducting-discharge device had worked successfully. Sorta like
Franklin and his kite.

Meanwhile, across the Pond, the European Space Agency has been doing
some gravity research of their own. Their device uses *spinning*
superconductors to generate gravitic effects. And here's the kicker --
the effects occur only during the *acceleration phase* of the spinup.
And what have we been saying here all along about gravity being the
product of acceleration and *only* of acceleration?

A quick Google under 'superconduction, gravity, ESA' will turn up this
equally-fascinating material, some as recent as this year.

By all appearances, it won't be necessary to look to the distant cosmos
for gravitational-wave sources if they can be generated at will in the
lab.

You're missin' a lot of neat stuff by being an anti-Googler, Bert.
oc

On Jan 23, 1:37 pm, (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
From Bert:

LIGO,or LISA will detect no gravity
waves. I base that on a lot of good
science,and it also goes against my
thoughts on gravity....

Two BH colliding Hmmm is an
interesting thought but my thinking they
would not send out waves. My gravity
needs no field of waves,and so far all the 100s of millions lookingfor gravity waves only proves I'm on firm ground.

Bert, Einstein predicted 'em. Check out this site (it should come up OK
on your rig, but without the animation) -http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/lisa_fact2.shtml

While you don't believe in Google or Googling, there's a wealth of
information on this subject, some of very recent date.

There's this Russian expatriate named Eugene Podkletnov who's a sort of
science gadfly. He's been coming up with various whirigig devices to try
to demonstrate anti-gravity effects. One of these devices was even
investigated by the Boeing aircraft company back in '02. But it was
found to be bunkum. Boeing's initial confidence in Podkletnov was stoked
because the year before, in '01, he had demonstrated clear-cut evidence
of gravitic effects at Los Alamos labs (a very prestigious and
accredited insttitution). The effects were predictable and repeatable,
and documented by Los Alamos. But what he had demonstrated there was
*not* a spinning device, but an electrical superconductor that when hit
with a high current spike, emitted a *wave* that had all the earmarks
of a gravitational wave. It would kick a distant pendulum and knock over
distant objects. And it propagated with _LONGITUDINAL POLARIZATION_ (for
db's benefit:-)).

For anyone who's interested, a quick Google under 'Superconduction,
gravity, Los Alamos, Podkletnov' will turn up this fascinating stuff.

Podkletnov's later imbroglio with Boeing, however, pretty well washed
him up as a credible researcher. It was only by sheer chance that his
superconducting-discharge device had worked successfully. Sorta like
Franklin and his kite.

Meanwhile, across the Pond, the European Space Agency has been doing
some gravity research of their own. Their device uses *spinning*
superconductors to generate gravitic effects. And here's the kicker --
the effects occur only during the *acceleration phase* of the spinup.
And what have we been saying here all along about gravity being the
product of acceleration and *only* of acceleration?

A quick Google under 'superconduction, gravity, ESA' will turn up this
equally-fascinating material, some as recent as this year.

By all appearances, it won't be necessary to look to the distant cosmos
for gravitational-wave sources if they can be generated at will in the
lab.

You're missin' a lot of neat stuff by being an anti-Googler, Bert.
oc


NASA had an antigravity project a couple of years ago too based on
this. But they couldn't get it to work.

Double-A

From AA:

NASA had an antigravity project a couple of years ago too based on
this. But they
couldn't get it to work.

Yes, both Boeing (in '02) and NASA were looking for *sustainable*
gravity-modification effects which might be applicable to lift
augmentation. But that obviously was not doable. Gravitic effects can be
produced only in short-duration impulses or bursts, because an
_accelerational period_ is required to produce them.

Podkletnov's demonstrations at Los Alamos in '01 were clearly legitimate
and documented. They were short-duration impulses that had every earmark
of gravitational waves. But this wasn't in any way applicable to lift
augmentation which was Boeing's whole interest.

The European Space Agency's current research is producing 'bursts' of
gravitic effects. But again, the effects are observed only during the
_accelerational period_ of the spinup of the apparatus. This obviously
in not useful for sustained lift augmentation.

You gotta remember that all these researchers are Void-Spacers and do
not understand _WHY_ acceleration is the key.. because they don't
understand that the _accelerating flow of space_ is the cause of
gravity. When they understand this, *then* they will have a working
foundation for developing sustained gravity modification.

As it is, their experiments with tiny bursts of gravitic effects are
like the little 'sparklers' at the end of Franklin's kite string. Like
Franklin, these guys have no working concept of the forces behind what
they're looking at. Yet they're having their very first peek into the
nature of space itself, the 'pneuma' of our age.

Nonetheless, the current level of research *does* have the potential for
generating gravitational waves on demand, without waiting for the
LIGO/LISA facilities to come on line.
oc

On Jan 23, 9:04 pm, (Bill Sheppard) wrote:
From AA:



NASA had an antigravity project a couple of years ago too based on
this. But they
couldn't get it to work.Yes, both Boeing (in '02) and NASA were looking for *sustainable*
gravity-modification effects which might be applicable to lift
augmentation. But that obviously was not doable. Gravitic effects can be
produced only in short-duration impulses or bursts, because an
_accelerational period_ is required to produce them.

Podkletnov's demonstrations at Los Alamos in '01 were clearly legitimate
and documented. They were short-duration impulses that had every earmark
of gravitational waves. But this wasn't in any way applicable to lift
augmentation which was Boeing's whole interest.

The European Space Agency's current research is producing 'bursts' of
gravitic effects. But again, the effects are observed only during the
_accelerational period_ of the spinup of the apparatus. This obviously
in not useful for sustained lift augmentation.

You gotta remember that all these researchers are Void-Spacers and do
not understand _WHY_ acceleration is the key.. because they don't
understand that the _accelerating flow of space_ is the cause of
gravity. When they understand this, *then* they will have a working
foundation for developing sustained gravity modification.

As it is, their experiments with tiny bursts of gravitic effects are
like the little 'sparklers' at the end of Franklin's kite string. Like
Franklin, these guys have no working concept of the forces behind what
they're looking at. Yet they're having their very first peek into the
nature of space itself, the 'pneuma' of our age.

Nonetheless, the current level of research *does* have the potential for
generating gravitational waves on demand, without waiting for the
LIGO/LISA facilities to come on line.
oc


It is amazing that NASA and Boeing actually funded this research,
because I know that all the mainstream physicists were scoffing at it.

I remember reading about some guy way back in the 50's I think who
believed he had created gravity waves. I think their detection was
only possible over a very short range though. I think he was a
corporate research scientist and was also a writer.

There are a lot in interesting things out there if you want to spend
enough time with Google. And don't forget, Google isn't the only
search engine out there. www.scirus.com specializes in only science
searches. Gravitational waves got 107,823 hits on scirus. Remember
that "gravitational waves" is the correct technical term to search on.
"Gravity waves" is a technical term for a weather condition.

Double-A

oc and Double-A It was seen as a fact that there were 4 colors,and Mr.
Land (of Polaroid) proved the fact was there were only 3 Go figure
Little is carved in stone,and it you don't think about the universe in
every direction you are missing a lot. If you let the dim wit parrots in
science groups(there out there) call you stupid,crazy,and don't know
what your talking about,and they shut you up,Than I say to you "hang
your head in shame." Its your universe,and you have the right to show
how you see it. Even without a telescope Bert

oc I'm not anti-Google at all I read a lot of science. I keep up to
date. I have a creative mind told to me by my late friend 'Joe" who was
a math genius. He told me to think things out before looking for answers
in Google. I do just that. You mentioned pendulums,and when one is
brought into a room with another pendulum and their swing is out of
beat,in a very short time they will swing in tune. That has to tell you
some thing,and Mach gave us the answer. It was a Swedish physicist that
loved pendulum clocks that showed this amazing feature. Living closer
to the north pole helps too Go figure I said 25 years ago they are
wasting millions looking for gravity waves,and so far I have been proven
right. Just think we can detect one photon wave,and 6 trillion can sit
on a pin head We can detect just one neutrino,as trillions go
through 10 light year diameter of even lead But not one graviton wave.
If detected it would be as big as Columbus's discovery of the new world.
That's for sure Bert

Double-A You want to create gravity ride an elevator going up. The
only way NASA could create anti-gravity is to cut the elevators cord.and
there is no money in that. My "spin is in theory" is based on the
Revere Beach "tornado' ride(that I loved) Gravities effect like
magnetisim comes out of curved motion,and it shows Einstein was half
right,and I have added to its other half. Best to keep in mid my
concave convex theory. Its the one I will get my Nobel (when I'm long
gone). Bert

"The God of Odd Statements" wrote...
in message news
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...

No, Mr. "I don't live up to my name" coffeeboi, it's...

gooseling !

After all, when you're feelin' frisky, would you really
want someone to "gos" you?

The Mother of all Gooses, Art Deco, and all her cute
li'l gooselings just love to "goose" people, not "gos"
them!

So they're odd-statemently called "gooselings", oh
dearest GOOS.

You din't *really* think i was calling them a bunch
of birds, did you? Why you cute li'l klooless ko0ky
goosling, you!

happy days and...
starry starry nights

--
SMILE... your love for astrogooseing is starting to show!

Indelibly yours,
Paine
http://www.savethechildren.org/
http://www.painellsworth.net