Our 0.11% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 /Brad Guth

look at the surface of rock that's been sitting around.

It's hard to figure where you're coming from, or headed towards.

thus:
ask doctor David Deutsch,
whether or not he is in this (here) universe;
you'll probably draw a blank. I mean,
what would you expect from a Russellian "paradox,"
of redefining a word, Universe?

's what I call,
messing with Schroedinger's pussy!

Or perhaps its not our brains 'collapsing the wave function'. Maybe we
are all just rats in some high school science experiment of some Thetan
kid. And when he seeds our environment with yet another dual slit
experiment, its his conciousness that assigns us to one universe or
another.

thus:
ah, yes; the old "no stars in the sky" dilemma.... also,
his take on Watergate completely avoids the elephant,
http://tarpley.net/bushb.htm -- just as
did messieurs "follow the money" and
"the half-brain-dead former #2 FBI did it!"

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/

thus:
well, look: phonons!
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42019

thus:
we look to Bell's theorem and Aspect's experiment, but
with the jaundiced notion of some sort of rock o'light,
insisted to be the definition of the word, quantum; as in,
"reifiying a wave-function probability with a fuzzy particle?"

what do photons be orbiting, and what is the shape
of their orbits?

Like a model where 'scientists' (i.e. mathematicians) do not
understand what occurs physically in nature and confuse a 'wave
function probability' with a physical wave?
How about instantaneous action at a distance? What happened to the
model of conservation of momentum? How does the the downgraded photon
pair having exact opposite angular momentums in order to maintain the
original photons momentum get 'lost' in order to have a model where
there is instantaneous action at a distance?

thus:
don't forget the ones, who are trying to get us
to launch the 3rd British invasion of Sudan; well,
they seem to be mostly British.
and are trying to get America and England into
a war with Iran, as they did with Iraq.

thus:
the modeling is of very limited use;
nothing like this has ever occurred, if
you think that is different from "a trashfire in a skyscraper,"
or Trickier Dick Cheeny lighting his bed on fire, on purpose (or,
he just didn't have time, running down the stairs,
to phone the NYFD).
by "inelastic," do you refer to the fact that
almost none of the mass of the planes, left the area?
Only very, very roughly, though. You ignored the energy lost to the
system by virtue of the fact that the collisions were inelastic.

thus:
yes, but if we can take the elaborations & more correct formulations
of "energy is the mass times the second power of the rate of light,"
then where do "gravitons" come into it?... anyway,
no need to bring "photons" into it, what so ever.

How do you know a gravity quanta and a light quanta are not the same?
The angular momentum of light quanta is 1xPlanck's constant, and that
of the gravitational quanta is 2xPlanck's constant.

thus:
every student of relativity knows that
the the last 3/4 is much more difficult
than the first 3/4; perhaps,
because all of matter is "going" at lightspeed,
internally, already.
not only is there no vacuum,
there is therefore no need of an aether;
Pascal is dead -- long-live Pascal!
ttp://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

thus:
simply reject the picture of "quantum" as a "photon," and
go with Young's original essay -- or what ever he called it --
about the noncorpuscularity of lightwaves.
second step, pretend that there is no aether;
what's left?

thus:
I don't have audio at this terminal;
what is the jist of this "economists's" theory?
LaRouche is an ecomist, two, and that doesn't mean
that he is correct about "controlled demo/
Cheeny scrounging in the basement."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=18188

thus:
Young proved, a humdred years after Newton espoused
his "theory" of corpuscles, that light is simply waves
(in the air, if you will, viz permeability & permitivity);
among his proofs was the "two pin-hole experiment" --
2PHX? -- which gave a loveley moire' pattern
on the photographic (silver oxide?) emulsion. (his source
of light was another pinhole in the far wall,
admitting sunlight, quite coherently !-)

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/

On Mar 18, 5:28*pm, spudnik wrote:
look at the surface of rock that's been sitting around.

Been there, done that many times over.


It's hard to figure where you're coming from, or headed towards.

thus:
ask doctor David Deutsch,
whether or not he is in this (here) universe;
you'll probably draw a blank. *I mean,
what would you expect from a Russellian "paradox,"
of redefining a word, Universe?

's what I call,
messing with Schroedinger's pussy!

What topic other than "Our 0.11% hollow moon" are you going on about?


Or perhaps its not our brains 'collapsing the wave function'. Maybe we
are all just rats in some high school science experiment of some Thetan
kid. And when he seeds our environment with yet another dual slit
experiment, its his conciousness that assigns us to one universe or
another.

thus:
ah, yes; the old "no stars in the sky" dilemma....

What "no stars in the sky" dilemma? (Venus isn't a star)

Ever heard of dynamic range?


*also,
his take on Watergate completely avoids the elephant,http://tarpley.net/bushb.htm-- just as
did messieurs "follow the money" and
"the half-brain-dead former #2 FBI did it!"

http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/

thus:
well, look: phonons!http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42019

thus:
we look to Bell's theorem and Aspect's experiment, but
with the jaundiced notion of some sort of rock o'light,
insisted to be the definition of the word, quantum; as in,
"reifiying a wave-function probability with a fuzzy particle?"

what do photons be orbiting, and what is the shape
of their orbits?

Like a model where 'scientists' (i.e. mathematicians) do not
understand what occurs physically in nature and confuse a 'wave
function probability' with a physical wave?
How about instantaneous action at a distance? What happened to the
model of conservation of momentum? How does the the downgraded photon
pair having exact opposite angular momentums in order to maintain the
original photons momentum get 'lost' in order to have a model where
there is instantaneous action at a distance?

thus:
don't forget the ones, who are trying to get us
to launch the 3rd British invasion of Sudan; well,
they seem to be mostly British.

and are trying to get America and England into
a war with Iran, as they did with Iraq.

thus:
the modeling is of very limited use;
nothing like this has ever occurred, if
you think that is different from "a trashfire in a skyscraper,"
or Trickier Dick Cheeny lighting his bed on fire, on purpose (or,
he just didn't have time, running down the stairs,
to phone the NYFD).
* * by "inelastic," do you refer to the fact that
almost none of the mass of the planes, left the area?

Only very, very roughly, though. *You ignored the energy lost to the
system by virtue of the fact that the collisions were inelastic.

thus:
yes, but if we can take the elaborations & more correct formulations
of "energy is the mass times the second power of the rate of light,"
then where do "gravitons" come into it?... *anyway,
no need to bring "photons" into it, what so ever.

How do you know a gravity quanta and a light quanta are not the same?
The angular momentum of light quanta is 1xPlanck's constant, and that
of the gravitational quanta is 2xPlanck's constant.

thus:
every student of relativity knows that
the the last 3/4 is much more difficult
than the first 3/4; perhaps,
because all of matter is "going" at lightspeed,
internally, already.
* * not only is there no vacuum,
there is therefore no need of an aether;
Pascal is dead -- long-live Pascal!

ttp://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

thus:
simply reject the picture of "quantum" as a "photon," and
go with Young's original essay -- or what ever he called it --
about the noncorpuscularity of lightwaves.
* * second step, pretend that there is no aether;
what's left?

thus:
I don't have audio at this terminal;
what is the jist of this "economists's" theory?
* * LaRouche is an ecomist, two, and that doesn't mean
that he is correct about "controlled demo/
Cheeny scrounging in the basement."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=18188

thus:
Young proved, a humdred years after Newton espoused
his "theory" of corpuscles, that light is simply waves
(in the air, if you will, viz permeability & permitivity);
among his proofs was the "two pin-hole experiment" --
2PHX? -- which gave a loveley moire' pattern
on the photographic (silver oxide?) emulsion. *(his source
of light was another pinhole in the far wall,
admitting sunlight, quite coherently !-)

--Light: A History!http://wlym.com

--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/

thus:
Are you per chance related to that other Usenet contributor "Warhol"?

~ BG