Speed of gravity

On Nov 21, 7:30 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/21/11 9:09 AM, admformeto wrote:

Why would gravity field gradient detach it self from the source and
propagate away?
Please explain.

Read the work of Hulse and Taylor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita...a l_radiation

Where is the math that shows the alleged gravitational waves travel at
the speed of light? Gee! These guys even said that was assumed.
shrug

The garbage in the math was pewked up by Rosen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Rosen

The math was so fvcking mathemaGical that no serious physicists or
mathematicians would endorse it then. So, this turkey just added the
rising star Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar onto his
published paper. The whole **** is still an amazing moronic play
today. shrug

On Nov 22, 3:36*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Nov 21, 7:30 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 11/21/11 9:09 AM, admformeto wrote:

Why would gravity field gradient detach it self from the source and
propagate away?
Please explain.

* *Read the work of Hulse and Taylor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._decay_from_gr...

Where is the math that shows the alleged gravitational waves travel at
the speed of light? *Gee! *These guys even said that was assumed.
shrug

The garbage in the math was pewked up by Rosen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Rosen

The math was so fvcking mathemaGical that no serious physicists or
mathematicians would endorse it then. *So, this turkey just added the
rising star Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar onto his
published paper. *The whole **** is still an amazing moronic play
today. *shrug

THIS IS OUR MATH FORUM NOT YOUR PHYSICS FORUM

On Nov 21, 11:36*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Nov 21, 7:30 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 11/21/11 9:09 AM, admformeto wrote:

Why would gravity field gradient detach it self from the source and
propagate away?
Please explain.

* *Read the work of Hulse and Taylor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._decay_from_gr...

Where is the math that shows the alleged gravitational waves travel at
the speed of light? *Gee! *These guys even said that was assumed.
shrug

The garbage in the math was pewked up by Rosen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Rosen

The math was so fvcking mathemaGical that no serious physicists or
mathematicians would endorse it then. *So, this turkey just added the
rising star Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar onto his
published paper. *The whole **** is still an amazing moronic play
today. *shrug

I favor 2c as the minimum propagation of gravity.

Since all known gravity had to exist from the very get-go, perhaps
gravity is instantaneous.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 11/25/11 1:11 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 21, 11:36 pm, Koobee wrote:
On Nov 21, 7:30 am, Sam wrote:

On 11/21/11 9:09 AM, admformeto wrote:

Why would gravity field gradient detach it self from the source and
propagate away?
Please explain.

Read the work of Hulse and Taylor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._decay_from_gr...

Where is the math that shows the alleged gravitational waves travel at
the speed of light? Gee! These guys even said that was assumed.
shrug

The garbage in the math was pewked up by Rosen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Rosen

The math was so fvcking mathemaGical that no serious physicists or
mathematicians would endorse it then. So, this turkey just added the
rising star Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar onto his
published paper. The whole **** is still an amazing moronic play
today.shrug

I favor 2c as the minimum propagation of gravity.

You create fantasies and pull numbers out of your ass faster that
bulls ****, Brad. Why don't you spend and of this recreational time
actually learning some science!

On 11/27/11 10:14 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 25, 4:32 pm, Sam wrote:


You create fantasies and pull numbers out of your ass faster that
bulls ****, Brad. Why don't you spend any of this recreational time
actually learning some science!

So what?

You still believe that 100% of anything published by or approved by
our DARPA and NASA represents nothing but the whole truth. You even
think there's no such thing as any bad Semite. So, what kind of an
obfuscation asshole does that make you?

If you’d care to further explore the commercial and private
exploitation of Venus, then by all means it’s still every bit as good
of time as any. However, if you have to stick within a social policy
and faith-based mainstream closed mindset, then don't even bother
yourself to look at Venus unless you do not mind discovering what your
government and their insider army of mostly public-funded peers and
FUD-masters hasn’t been willing to tell us about such a nearby planet
of terrific metallicity, that’s so geothermally active.


Dead planet, hellish heat and high acidic atmosphere.
Not a promising environment for any commercial and private
exploitation of Venus.

On Nov 27, 6:36*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/27/11 10:14 AM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Nov 25, 4:32 pm, Sam *wrote:

* * You create fantasies and pull numbers out of your ass faster that
* * bulls ****, Brad. Why don't you spend any of this recreational time
* * actually learning some science!

So what?

You still believe that 100% of anything published by or approved by
our DARPA and NASA represents nothing but the whole truth. *You even
think there's no such thing as any bad Semite. *So, what kind of an
obfuscation asshole does that make you?

If you’d care to further explore the commercial and private
exploitation of Venus, then by all means it’s still every bit as good
of time as any. *However, if you have to stick within a social policy
and faith-based mainstream closed mindset, then don't even bother
yourself to look at Venus unless you do not mind discovering what your
government and their insider army of mostly public-funded peers and
FUD-masters hasn’t been willing to tell us about such a nearby planet
of terrific metallicity, that’s so geothermally active.

* *Dead planet, hellish heat and high acidic atmosphere.
* *Not a promising environment for any commercial and private
* *exploitation of Venus.

Your parrot script is noted. Do you do any other tricks?

On 11/27/11 11:44 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 27, 6:36 pm, Sam wrote:
On 11/27/11 10:14 AM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Nov 25, 4:32 pm, Sam wrote:

You create fantasies and pull numbers out of your ass faster that
bulls ****, Brad. Why don't you spend any of this recreational time
actually learning some science!

So what?

You still believe that 100% of anything published by or approved by
our DARPA and NASA represents nothing but the whole truth. You even
think there's no such thing as any bad Semite. So, what kind of an
obfuscation asshole does that make you?

If you’d care to further explore the commercial and private
exploitation of Venus, then by all means it’s still every bit as good
of time as any. However, if you have to stick within a social policy
and faith-based mainstream closed mindset, then don't even bother
yourself to look at Venus unless you do not mind discovering what your
government and their insider army of mostly public-funded peers and
FUD-masters hasn’t been willing to tell us about such a nearby planet
of terrific metallicity, that’s so geothermally active.

Dead planet, hellish heat and high acidic atmosphere.
Not a promising environment for any commercial and private
exploitation of Venus.

Your parrot script is noted. Do you do any other tricks?

Not for Venus--It's a hostile environment.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
On 11/27/11 11:44 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 27, 6:36 pm, Sam wrote:
On 11/27/11 10:14 AM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Nov 25, 4:32 pm, Sam wrote:

You create fantasies and pull numbers out of your ass faster that
bulls ****, Brad. Why don't you spend any of this recreational
time
actually learning some science!

So what?

You still believe that 100% of anything published by or approved by
our DARPA and NASA represents nothing but the whole truth. You even
think there's no such thing as any bad Semite. So, what kind of an
obfuscation asshole does that make you?

If you’d care to further explore the commercial and private
exploitation of Venus, then by all means it’s still every bit as good
of time as any. However, if you have to stick within a social policy
and faith-based mainstream closed mindset, then don't even bother
yourself to look at Venus unless you do not mind discovering what your
government and their insider army of mostly public-funded peers and
FUD-masters hasn’t been willing to tell us about such a nearby planet
of terrific metallicity, that’s so geothermally active.

Dead planet, hellish heat and high acidic atmosphere.
Not a promising environment for any commercial and private
exploitation of Venus.

Your parrot script is noted. Do you do any other tricks?

Not for Venus--It's a hostile environment.



=======================

Colonists wanting to claim and do whatever they could with Venus and
Mercury, these space based *city-state* colonists being a single community
claimant to both planets, would not colonize the surface of either planet,
at least not immediately or any time soon, but colonize an orbit of Venus
with Stanford Torus and/or O'Neill Cylindrical orbital colonies. That is
potentially a titanic *totality* of surface colonized above the surface of
Venus, and by extension Mercury. Once colonization of Venus, meaning
colonizing orbits of Venus, was in place and going, the colonists would
begin seeding the atmosphere of Venus as well as mining Mercury using remote
controlled robotics from orbital stations over Mercury and attempting to get
something out of Venus the same way until the seeding of Venus really began
to take effect. Even if such seeding led nowhere for the Venus colonists in
orbital colonies, remote controlled robotic mining could lead to a vast
prosperously stable society and economy.

I'm always wanting to thank you for providing such great lead-ins whether
you're the originator of them or not.

So, thanks.

GLB

======================

On 11/28/11 4:20 AM, G. L. Bradford wrote:

Colonists wanting to claim and do whatever they could with Venus and
Mercury, these space based *city-state* colonists being a single
community claimant to both planets, would not colonize the surface of
either planet, at least not immediately or any time soon, but colonize
an orbit...

Lot's of good resources on orbit--lethal radiation, vacuum and so on.

On Nov 27, 10:06*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/27/11 11:44 PM, Brad Guth wrote:









On Nov 27, 6:36 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 11/27/11 10:14 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Nov 25, 4:32 pm, Sam * *wrote:

* * *You create fantasies and pull numbers out of your ass faster that
* * *bulls ****, Brad. Why don't you spend any of this recreational time
* * *actually learning some science!

So what?

You still believe that 100% of anything published by or approved by
our DARPA and NASA represents nothing but the whole truth. *You even
think there's no such thing as any bad Semite. *So, what kind of an
obfuscation asshole does that make you?

If you’d care to further explore the commercial and private
exploitation of Venus, then by all means it’s still every bit as good
of time as any. *However, if you have to stick within a social policy
and faith-based mainstream closed mindset, then don't even bother
yourself to look at Venus unless you do not mind discovering what your
government and their insider army of mostly public-funded peers and
FUD-masters hasn’t been willing to tell us about such a nearby planet
of terrific metallicity, that’s so geothermally active.

* * Dead planet, hellish heat and high acidic atmosphere.
* * Not a promising environment for any commercial and private
* * exploitation of Venus.

Your parrot script is noted. *Do you do any other tricks?

* *Not for Venus--It's a hostile environment.

Only hostile for the most snookered and dumbfounded Goldilocks like
yourself. 5th graders (especially those from other nations) shouldn't
have any problems, especially not with any fleet of composite rigid
airships.

How about an outpost/gateway or OASIS at Venus L2?

According to our NASA and their supportive army of FUD-masters and
brown-nosed clowns, the moon and Venus are each totally worthless
items, of mostly inert matter and impossibly too spendy and/or too
complex to do anything with. On the other hand, a mostly frozen to
death Mars is supposedly worth trillions, and exoplanets (the further
away the better) are worth quadrillions. Go figure.

Wonder why someone bothered to construct multiple large scale items on
Venus, and why the high metallicity of our moon is considered as inert
and worthless?

It seems all rocky planets, planetoids, moons and asteroids offer
valuable metallicity plus various fluids and gas/vapor chemistry in
addition to offering whatever core of geothermal reserves, though
obviously some more or less than others. Clearly our physically dark
moon with its extremely thick and paramagnetic basalt crust, and of
course the extremely nearby planet Venus are each local treasure
troves of valuable metallicity, plus Venus is acting as though it’s
quite actively fluid under its thin crust, almost as though its core
and fluid mantel are extensively thorium.

In addition to those raw heavy elements, perhaps Venus still has
complex and even intelligent life NOT as we know it.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-2...8/?site=sydney

Of course mainstream closed mindsets need not think outside of their
cozy public-funded box, because who really needs any of them once the
truths start coming out.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”