Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Barb Knox · Guest

In article <2p55b390noqajhvh5tggef34fk5kardh62@4ax.com>,
George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.net> wrote:

[quote]On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:42:17 +1200, Barb Knox
see@sig.below> wrote:

In article <p2e4b35qc4t0f6khea764ke61imbjhh7m2@4ax.com>,
George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.net> wrote:
[snip]

[T]he "spiritual body" of the Afterlife is
Resurrected right within your OWN BRAIN within split seconds
of your own death.... or as St. Paul put it "at the last
trump, in the twinkling of an eye". And it is the
MICROTUBULE brain computer which does it... and we can thank
Sir Roger Penrose, Dr. Stuart Hameroff and Prof. Frank
Tipler, and yours truly, for discovering the scientific
mechanism of Life After Death!

So, according to your view a brain has two different processing modes:
normal (when alive) and super-fast microtubule (when recently dead).
This raises some obvious questions:

[Hammond]
Your observation is correct..... there are "two brains"
(a brain within a brain).... the microtubule system is a
"micro-servous system" located INSIDE EACH BRAIN CELL.
But don>t for a minute assume this micro-brain is not
WORKING during ordinary everyday life... it SURE IS! sensory
input is analyzed (processed) FIRST by the microtubule
system, and when the results are computed, they are fed to
the "macro-brain" (the ordinary NEURONAL SYSTEM that we know
and love) where it gets PRESENTED to our consciousness.

It has been known for years that the NEURONAL BRAIN had a
processing speed (capacity) of 10^15 bits/sec. What
Hameroff and Penrose have discovered is that the mico-brain
adds an ADDITIONAL capacity of another 10^15 bits/sec,
so that the total processing speed of the brain is actually
10^30 bits/sec.
[/quote]
Bzzzzzt.

[quote]All I>m pointing out is that this ADDITIONAL computing
power makes TIPLER>S "Computer Resurrection" to the
Afterlife a REAL WORLD CREDIBLE THEORY for the first time in
history.

(1) If brains can operate in super-fast mode, why do we bother at all
with the much slower normal mode? What>s the evolutionary point of
having all that processing power and not using it for real life?

[Hammond]
We DO USE IT all the time, every waking moment. the NEW
THEORY HERE is that when we DIE, the brain (naturally)
shuts down from the top-down..... first the NEURONAL system
shuts down (popularly called "EEG FLATLINE")... then the
next thing that happens is that the MICROTUBULE system shuts
down, but believe it or not, due to all that whole lifetime
of computer processing, it has STORED a precomputed and
STORE "super-Lucid dream" which "downloads" from the
microtubule memory (like downloading a video movie on your
computer, and this movie is "LIFE AFTER DEATH" so called.
[/quote]
So, according to your view the microtubule system also has a massive
information storage capacity, at least a lifetime archive of video +
audio + kinesthetic + smell + .... That seems unlikely in the extreme,
since unlike the neuronal system, which can encode information in the
vast network of connections between neurones, microtubules do not form
such a network. Or are you positing some sort of quantum global
microtubular interconnectedness (sort of "intracranial quantum
telepathy")?

[quote]And by the way, the Afterlife doesn>t last millions and
billions of years.... don>t be stupid..... what would a
person DO foe a billion years? No.... "ETERNAL LIFE" means
that we reach "real time" not 'infinite time" for
chrissakes! "eternal Life" is NOT "perpetual life" (as
tipler, and you, and almost EVERY LAY PERSON believes.
Eternal Life means reaching REAL TIME which is also called
"Beatific Vision" and it is DE FACTO a condition of
"Immortality" (100% Life).
[/quote]
That sounds like gibberish. Care to explain your non-perpetual yet
eternal time in commonly understood language?

[quote]Finally, I appreciate your patience, and do not think you
are stupid.....
[/quote]
<snigger>

[quote]it is just that the average amateur has a
lot to learn before he (or she) can carry on an intelligent
conversation in these areas.
[/quote]
I guess you think you are being generous. Please don>t.

[quote](2) Do people who die from massive traumatic brain injury get to
participate in your form of afterlife?

[Hammond]
Yes.... even a peerson who gets his head blown off with a
cannonball in a millisecond has time to "get to Heaven"...
in fact, the FASTEST that a person can die is about
1-nanosecond.... because that>s how long it takes a light
beam to cross the human head and destroy the brain (an
A-Bomb blast for instance). Even THEN... the microtuble
readout of the "lucid death dream" is FAST ENOUGH
[/quote]
On the face of it, that>s just ridiculous. You are assuming a readout
bit-rate of a lifetime>s experience (say 10^4 experience bits/sec * 70
years) in just 10^-9 sec. Or again, are you positing some quantum
woo-woo to take care of that?

[quote]to allow
you to get to heaven for at least 10 seconds (my estimate)
which is LONG ENOUGH to achieve "eternal life". Fro the
ordinary pedestrian death, the average person will spend,
say, 5 years in Heaven.
[/quote]
How do you arrive at these numbers? I>d be very interested to see some
calculations.

[quote](3) Even if the dying brain, running super-fast, can provide many
subjective years (or millennia) of hallucinatory dreams,

[Hammond]
We don>t live for "millenia" for chrissakes.... that>s a
fairy tale we tell kids because they can>t tell the
difference between an ODOMETER and a SPEEDOMETER. "Eternal
Life" is a condition of FLAT SUBJECTIVE SPACETIME not a
condition of "PERPETUAL TIME"
[/quote]
That sounds similar to nirvana and other forms of NON-existence. Right?

[quote]... it is only called
"perpetual time" because the average person is INCAPABLE OF
UNDERSTANDING what a "variable clock rate" is.... and can>t
comprehend that WE are living in DILATED TIME but in heaven
there is ZERO TIME DILATION.
[/quote]
Again, please use some commonly-understood language or mathematics to
explain this. ISTM you are dividing by zero.

[quote]it cannot
provide any new sensory or social inputs.

[Hammond]
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG..... A THOUSAND TIMES WRONG!!!!
The ENTIRE PURPOSE of "going to Heaven" is to SEE a
COMPLETELY ALTERED SENSORY INPUT (VISION) of the world
called the "Beatific Vision" by THEOLOGIANS, and called
"Flat subjective spacetime" by the PHYSICISTS. Its the
difference between eating a T-bone steak and eating the bark
off a tree!
[/quote]
So then what is the SOURCE of this new sensory information? Is it
within the spacetime universe?

[quote]Wouldn>t you get really
really really bored interacting with just your own recycled dream
figments for millennia?

[Hammond]
A. The Afterlife only lasts between 10 seconds and 10
years, depending on circumstances. NO WAY does it
last decades, centuries, millenia, or millions of
years!
[/quote]
Ten seconds of additional experience hardly seems worth all the bother,
n>est-ce pas?

[quote]B. The ENTIRE PURPOSE of the Afterlife is to see the world
with "perfect vision".... (flat spacetime/Beatific
Vision).... of COURSE it would be stupid and naive to
just live the same life all over again.... how boring!

Or do you also posit some sort of
trans-personal microtubular telepathy?

[Hammond]
Na, na, na.... no FANTASIMICAL STUFF PLEASE....
[/quote]
<choke>

[quote]I>m a by the
book physicist.... nothing FANCY please!
[/quote]
And which book is that? "The Tao of Physics"? "The Golden Book of
Quantum Mechanics"?

[quote]And BTW, your exegesis of Paul is thoroughly off-base. The return of
Jesus was expected to change the world all at once, not one individual
at a time (whenever they died).

[Hammond]
I>m an expert in Biblical exegesis AND theoretical
physics....
[/quote]
Oh really. Please substantiate your alleged expertise:
(1) What education and qualifications do you have in biblical exegesis?
(2) What relevant experience do you have in biblical exegesis?
(3) What education and qualifications do you have in theoretical
physics?
(4) What relevant experience do you have in theoretical physics?

[quote]believe me I don>t have time to talk to amateurs
with a little bit of knowlege who are looking
for an argument, for chrissakes!
[/quote]
Sure you do. You have time to post your stuff into the void of Usenet.

[quote]either stay ON-TOPIC and don>t try to argue with me
unless you can demonstrate superior education.... or take a
hike... I>ll killfile anyone who wants to tete atete in a
heartbeat!
[/quote]
Ahh, threatening to use the unanswerable "I>m sticking my fingers in my
ears and humming" argument. Do it, if it makes you feel any better.

[quote]I don>t have much respect for people who don>t have a LOT
of formal learning under their belt, believe you me, 30 year
old PhD>s don>t impress me much! Amateurs even less!
[/quote]
Then you certainly should be willing to substantiate your alleged formal
learning, as I ask above.

Thank you for playing.

--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------

George Hammond · Guest

On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:33:54 +1200, Barb Knox
<see@sig.below> wrote:

[quote]In article <2p55b390noqajhvh5tggef34fk5kardh62@4ax.com>,
George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.net> wrote:

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:42:17 +1200, Barb Knox
see@sig.below> wrote:

In article <p2e4b35qc4t0f6khea764ke61imbjhh7m2@4ax.com>,
George Hammond <Nowhere1@notspam.net> wrote:
[snip]

[T]he "spiritual body" of the Afterlife is
Resurrected right within your OWN BRAIN within split seconds
of your own death.... or as St. Paul put it "at the last
trump, in the twinkling of an eye". And it is the
MICROTUBULE brain computer which does it... and we can thank
Sir Roger Penrose, Dr. Stuart Hameroff and Prof. Frank
Tipler, and yours truly, for discovering the scientific
mechanism of Life After Death!

So, according to your view a brain has two different processing modes:
normal (when alive) and super-fast microtubule (when recently dead).
This raises some obvious questions:

[Hammond]
Your observation is correct..... there are "two brains"
(a brain within a brain).... the microtubule system is a
"micro-servous system" located INSIDE EACH BRAIN CELL.
But don>t for a minute assume this micro-brain is not
WORKING during ordinary everyday life... it SURE IS! sensory
input is analyzed (processed) FIRST by the microtubule
system, and when the results are computed, they are fed to
the "macro-brain" (the ordinary NEURONAL SYSTEM that we know
and love) where it gets PRESENTED to our consciousness.

It has been known for years that the NEURONAL BRAIN had a
processing speed (capacity) of 10^15 bits/sec. What
Hameroff and Penrose have discovered is that the mico-brain
adds an ADDITIONAL capacity of another 10^15 bits/sec,
so that the total processing speed of the brain is actually
10^30 bits/sec.

Bzzzzzt.

[/quote]
[Hammond]
Huh..?

[quote]
All I>m pointing out is that this ADDITIONAL computing
power makes TIPLER>S "Computer Resurrection" to the
Afterlife a REAL WORLD CREDIBLE THEORY for the first time in
history.

(1) If brains can operate in super-fast mode, why do we bother at all
with the much slower normal mode? What>s the evolutionary point of
having all that processing power and not using it for real life?

[Hammond]
We DO USE IT all the time, every waking moment. the NEW
THEORY HERE is that when we DIE, the brain (naturally)
shuts down from the top-down..... first the NEURONAL system
shuts down (popularly called "EEG FLATLINE")... then the
next thing that happens is that the MICROTUBULE system shuts
down, but believe it or not, due to all that whole lifetime
of computer processing, it has STORED a precomputed and
STORE "super-Lucid dream" which "downloads" from the
microtubule memory (like downloading a video movie on your
computer, and this movie is "LIFE AFTER DEATH" so called.

So, according to your view the microtubule system also has a massive
information storage capacity, at least a lifetime archive of video +
audio + kinesthetic + smell + .... That seems unlikely in the extreme,
since unlike the neuronal system, which can encode information in the
vast network of connections between neurones, microtubules do not form
such a network. Or are you positing some sort of quantum global
microtubular interconnectedness (sort of "intracranial quantum
telepathy")?

[/quote]
[Hammond]
WRONG..... the microtubules within cells are HIGHLY
interconnected by the MAP junctions located every 100 nm or
so... trillions of them. Likewise the microtubule systems
within the cells are connected with adjacent cell
microtubule networks by electron tunneling/Frolich microwave
signalling across the dendritic gap junctions... basically
the enitre microtubule system of the ENTIRE BRAIN is one big
system. You are apparently unaware of the vast literature
in this area by Penrose, Hameroff and thousands of other
researchers.... much of it on the Internet.
The storage capacity of this microtubule system is
estimated to be as large as the neuronal system.... approx
10^15 bits.
Figure it out Barb... people sleep 1/3 of their lives and
dream 25% of that time (REM sleep). That means by the time
you>re 60 you>ve spent 5 YEARS ASLEEP DREAMING! And all of
that dream reality comes from MEMORY. Therefore, I submit
it isn>t implausible at all that the microtubule system,
which is estimated to have about the same sized memory as
the neuronal system can LIKEWISE store a precomputed 5 YEAR
LUCID DREAM OF THE AFTERLIFE.
Now.... the 5 year requirement is calculated as
follows... if your growth deficit (everybody has a growth
deficit) is say 10% and the human life span is 75 years,
then you would have an Afterlife of 7.5 years.
Now... that is under ideal conditions where you die
peacefully in your sleep. In the (worst case) where say you
were hit by an A-Bomb and your brain was vaporized in a
NANOSECOND (the time for a light front to go in one ear and
out the other).... then your dream would be "edited" to a
shorter time, of necessity. For instance:
Tipler says on page 244 of his celebrated
book: "... the human brain can store only
about 10^15 bits and this corresponds to
roughly 1,000 subjective years of life."
OK... accepting Tipler>s figure, that>s 10^6 bits/second.
OK... if the readout is OPTICAL at 10^15 Hz, that means 10^6
bits can be downloaded in 6-15 = 10^-9 seconds which is the
figure I quoted to you.
Like I say... 10 seconds in Heaven is (worst case)
SUFFICIENT to obtain the "Beatific vision" and thus obtain
"Eternal Life".. in the worst case scenario. Perhaps the
Japanese vaporized at ground zero by the Hiroshima bomb were
the first people in history to make it to heaven in
1-nanosecond!

[quote]
And by the way, the Afterlife doesn>t last millions and
billions of years.... don>t be stupid..... what would a
person DO foe a billion years? No.... "ETERNAL LIFE" means
that we reach "real time" not 'infinite time" for
chrissakes! "eternal Life" is NOT "perpetual life" (as
tipler, and you, and almost EVERY LAY PERSON believes.
Eternal Life means reaching REAL TIME which is also called
"Beatific Vision" and it is DE FACTO a condition of
"Immortality" (100% Life).

That sounds like gibberish. Care to explain your non-perpetual yet
eternal time in commonly understood language?

[/quote]
[Hammond]
Its not jibberish, it>s a lacuna in your education.
You>ll have to look at this curve:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/index_files/img2.gif
This curve is called the HUMAN GROWTH CURVE and you can find
it in a million textbooks.
Note there is a "theoretical" curve and an "average"
curve. The "average" curve is lower thant the theoretical
one because poor people aren>t as well grown (developed) as
rich people. In fact, NO ONE has ever hit the top curve....
if he did he would be "God in the flesh"... and so far,
Jesus notwithstanding, no one has ever seen such a person.
Of course movie sars, CEO>s, 5-star Generals, Heads of
state, athletes, the queen of England etc are higher than
the average curve, but even the best never reach the top
"theoretical" curve.... its the "standard of Living" which
holds everybody back growth wise.
NOW.... once you understand this fundamental fact of
life, you are well on the road to understanding what GOD is
scientifically. You see, if your "growth deficit" is say,
10%, this means that every organ in your body is 10% short
of full growth, including your BRAIN. This braingrowth
deficit of 10% causes 10% of the world to be INVISIBLE!. For
instance, a 6 year old child is only 1/3 grown since we
stop growing at 18. and no one has to tell you that a 6
year old can only see 1/3 of what is visible to an 18 year
old (because his MEASURED INTELLIGENCE is in fact 1/3 of
adult intelligence). this is why children have to be
constantly watched by adults so they don>t get hurt.
OK.... but the AVERAGE ADULT as we have shown is actually
say, 20% shy of full growth..... that means that 20% of the
world is INVISIBLE to the average adult just as 2/3>s of the
world is "invisible" to a 6 year old. This "invisble
world" is called HEAVEN and was discovered (i.e. noticed)
thousands of years ago.... and the MYTHICAL FULL GROWN MAN
WHO COULD ACTUALLY SEE IT.........IS CALLED "G-O-D".
OK..... a fully grown person (e.g. GOD) is said to be in
a condition of "ETERNAL LIFE".... he is said to be
"IMMORTAL".... BECAUSE.... he is in full possession of life.
He does not know fear, he doesn>t feel pain, and he is not
terrorified by death. He is living in REAL TIME.
Now, as you can see you would have to have at least a
high school education to understand the above explanation.
The great masses of people in the world are practically
illiterate, and certainly were 1,000 or 2,000 years ago...
so the Church simply explained it by saying that people
"live forever" in Heaven. However, for a modern college
educated person in the US to believe such a childish
explanation of "Eternal Life" is no longer excusable....
even though an internationally prominent Physicist (and
Catholic) like Frank Tipler still doesn>t know the
difference! And frankly, I doubt even after 10 minutes of
typing evn YOU can>t understand it..... but believe me
honey, MILLIONS of people DO UNDERSTAND IT... there are even
illiterate Ozark Mountain hillbillys who know what God and
Eternal life is.... which is WHY even the most educated and
sophisticated Oxford and Harvard educated people are AFRAID
OF "hillbilly fundamentalists"..... because in fact.....
they KNOW SOMETHING about life that even the sophisticated
Oxford and Yale graduates have FAILED TO DISCOVER.... and
that>s why "God won>t go away" and why Richard Dawkins will
go down in history as an ASININE FOOL and an EMBARESSMENT to
Oxford!

[quote]

(2) Do people who die from massive traumatic brain injury get to
participate in your form of afterlife?

[Hammond]
Yes.... even a peerson who gets his head blown off with a
cannonball in a millisecond has time to "get to Heaven"...
in fact, the FASTEST that a person can die is about
1-nanosecond.... because that>s how long it takes a light
beam to cross the human head and destroy the brain (an
A-Bomb blast for instance). Even THEN... the microtuble
readout of the "lucid death dream" is FAST ENOUGH

On the face of it, that>s just ridiculous. You are assuming a readout
bit-rate of a lifetime>s experience (say 10^4 experience bits/sec * 70
years) in just 10^-9 sec. Or again, are you positing some quantum
woo-woo to take care of that?

[/quote]
[Hammond]
Calculation given above.

[quote]to allow
you to get to heaven for at least 10 seconds (my estimate)
which is LONG ENOUGH to achieve "eternal life". Fro the
ordinary pedestrian death, the average person will spend,
say, 5 years in Heaven.

How do you arrive at these numbers? I>d be very interested to see some
calculations.

[/quote]
[Hammond]
Calculation given above

[quote]
(3) Even if the dying brain, running super-fast, can provide many
subjective years (or millennia) of hallucinatory dreams,

[Hammond]
We don>t live for "millenia" for chrissakes.... that>s a
fairy tale we tell kids because they can>t tell the
difference between an ODOMETER and a SPEEDOMETER. "Eternal
Life" is a condition of FLAT SUBJECTIVE SPACETIME not a
condition of "PERPETUAL TIME"

That sounds similar to nirvana and other forms of NON-existence. Right?

[/quote]
[Hammond]
Answered above.

[quote]... it is only called
"perpetual time" because the average person is INCAPABLE OF
UNDERSTANDING what a "variable clock rate" is.... and can>t
comprehend that WE are living in DILATED TIME but in heaven
there is ZERO TIME DILATION.

Again, please use some commonly-understood language or mathematics to
explain this. ISTM you are dividing by zero.

[/quote]
[Hammond]
Answered above.

[quote]it cannot
provide any new sensory or social inputs.

[Hammond]
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG..... A THOUSAND TIMES WRONG!!!!
The ENTIRE PURPOSE of "going to Heaven" is to SEE a
COMPLETELY ALTERED SENSORY INPUT (VISION) of the world
called the "Beatific Vision" by THEOLOGIANS, and called
"Flat subjective spacetime" by the PHYSICISTS. Its the
difference between eating a T-bone steak and eating the bark
off a tree!

So then what is the SOURCE of this new sensory information? Is it
within the spacetime universe?

Wouldn>t you get really
really really bored interacting with just your own recycled dream
figments for millennia?

[Hammond]
A. The Afterlife only lasts between 10 seconds and 10
years, depending on circumstances. NO WAY does it
last decades, centuries, millenia, or millions of
years!

Ten seconds of additional experience hardly seems worth all the bother,
n>est-ce pas?

B. The ENTIRE PURPOSE of the Afterlife is to see the world
with "perfect vision".... (flat spacetime/Beatific
Vision).... of COURSE it would be stupid and naive to
just live the same life all over again.... how boring!

Or do you also posit some sort of
trans-personal microtubular telepathy?

[Hammond]
Na, na, na.... no FANTASIMICAL STUFF PLEASE....

choke

I>m a by the
book physicist.... nothing FANCY please!

And which book is that? "The Tao of Physics"? "The Golden Book of
Quantum Mechanics"?

And BTW, your exegesis of Paul is thoroughly off-base. The return of
Jesus was expected to change the world all at once, not one individual
at a time (whenever they died).

[Hammond]
I>m an expert in Biblical exegesis AND theoretical
physics....

Oh really. Please substantiate your alleged expertise:
[/quote]
[Hammond]
Look... you said my theory did>t jive with an "exegesis
of St. Paul". Such a statement is OBVIOUSLY WRONG and we
don>t even need to use "exgesis" to demonstrate it is wrong.
St. paul explicitly lays out his "scientific" theory of
the Afterlife in I Cor 15:35-58. He says there that we all
go to Heaven at the "last trump" and "in the twinkling of an
eye" and have a "spiritual body". Today the Church calls
this the PARTICULAR JUDGEMENT in which we go immediately to
heaven.
Well that is EXACTLY what my "microtuble Resurrection"
does. NO PROBLEM. And no "exegesis" is even necessary.

[quote]

Thank you for playing.
[/quote]
[Hammond]
You may be playing, I>M NOT.
I>m only interested in finding out ONE THING... and that is,
whether there is, or is not, such a thing as Life After
Death.
Like I say, right now I put the probability of a literal
Life After Death at about 30%, all told.

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================

Pentcho Valev · Guest

On 1 Sept, 10:53, "Mike Bass" <nos...@comcast.net> wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
[quote]First, I would like to thank everyone for their time on reading this and for
any replies I might receive.

I>m a writer and I>m currently working on a Sci-Fi screenplay. I need
something that is a half-way believable new energy source. I have come up
with something and would greatly appreciate any opinions you might have.

The new energy is called "time-energy". The concept is that gravity is not a
fundamental force but a by-product of the flow of time with time moving in
only a forward direction.

Because time flows in one direction, the movement could be used for energy.
Imagine time as wind. The energy of the movement of wind is captured by
windmills and turned into useful power. The catalyst for exploiting the
movement of time would be harmonics. Isolate some space, put a vacuum on it
and lower it to absolute zero. Concentrate a harmonic beam on the enclosed
vacuumed space and it starts particles jumping in and out of existence and
causes vibrations. The more concentrated the beam the more the vibration
escalates. Then you collect the energy from the heat the vibrations create.
[/quote]
I think the introduction of "time wind" makes your idea too sci-FI. If
you want it to be, rather, SCI-fi, you may consider a case where
gravity does indeed make heat produce work:

When two opposite charges, or the plates of a capacitor, are immersed
in water, the attraction between them decreases considerably. W.
Panofsky and M. Phillips ("Classical Electricity and Magnetism",
Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, 1962, pp. 111-116) explained the effect
in terms of a very strange PRESSURE that develops between the plates.
This pressure has a non-electrical nature ("the decrease in force....
cannot be explained by electrical forces alone"), pushes the plates
apart and so counteracts the original electrical force of attraction,
possibly at the expense of heat absorbed from the surroundings. If the
plates are only partially immersed (fig. 6-7 on p. 112), the same
pressure pushes the liquid between the plates upwards so that this
liquid rises high above the surface of the pool. The rising liquid
could then fall outside the capacitor and the energy of the (eternal?)
waterfall could be used.

Pentcho Valev

George Hammond · Guest

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 06:00:34 GMT, "John Smith"
<bobsyoungbro@yahoo.com> wrote:

[quote]
"George Hammond" <Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote in message
news:akbfh31toevklpe0tme5sf0fcpvt90mcl4@4ax.com...
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:53:32 GMT, "John Smith"

_______________THE
______________ SCIENTIFIC
_______________PROOF OF GOD

copyright
G. Hammond
2007

Introduction:
The Discovery of God

The human race is 100,000 years old which is when Homo
sapiens appeared. Civilization is 5,000 years old if we take
the Pyramids to be our oldest monuments. The interior walls
of the Pyramids are engraved in vast Hieroglyphic texts
describing God. Thus God is the oldest subject of learned
discussion known to Man.

[/quote]

[quote]
There is factual evidence for agriculture.
The average person, and the EDUCATED person will tell you that there is NO
factul, valid evidence for ANY god!
God is in the realm between philosophy, and fantasies, fables and fairy
tales. Agriculture is based in reality.You can>t GET any better than reality!

[/quote]

YOU>RE AN ARROGANT FOOL!

THERE IS DIRECT HARD SCIENTIFIC PROOF
OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
AND I DISCOVERED IT.
As my book proves, the average person is only about 80%
full grown (including you and me) due to the well documented
100 year old discovery of the Secular Trend in growth. This
causes 20% of "normal human reality" to be INVISIBLE to us.
This is the "HEAVEN" of Religion, and the mythical
(invisible) man who WOULD be able to see 100% of reality is
called God the "invisible man" (in the Bible).
A SIMPLE scientific demonstration of this fact is the
measurement of our PFF (movie Picture Fusion Frequency). The
PFF increases LINEARLY with brain growth... most NOTICEABLY
in children where it goes from 10 frames/sec at age 7 to 16
frames/sec at age 18 terminal growth. This is a well
documented fact first discovered in the late '60>s in
Germany and since repeated thousands of times. This is the
VISUAL ANALOG of the "dog whistle effect" whereby it is too
high frequency for us to hear but dogs can hear it clearly.
As any competent physicist will tell you the PFF is the
"Fourier Cutoff Frequency" of object motion in the
individual>s visual system (caused by incomplete terminal
brain growth) and varies from person to person depending on
how well grown they are. So... measurement of the PFF is
DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL PROOF of the existence of both Heaven
and God.
Naturally more is needed to drive the final spike in the
atheist coffin, and it has been discovered (by me) and is
published in my forthcoming book (and has already been
published by me in the peer reviewed literature). This
includes the discovery of the FACTOR ANALYTIC CURVATURE of
the 4D Structural Model of Personality (also discovered and
published by me after 2,500 years of searching for it) which
PROVES that the world LOOKS "bigger and faster" than it
actually is because of this Secular Trend brain growth
deficit I just mentioned.
So aggravated moron, anyone who says "there is no God
"has now been proven to be an ARROGANT FOOL including people
such as Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, and you! And I
discovered the world>s first proof of it. While you>re
waiting for my book to be published, you can read all about
it on my website, jerk.

[quote]

CURRICULUM VITAE

GEORGE HAMMOND

B.S. Physics 1964, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester MA, USA (Deans List)
M.S. Physics 1967, Northeastern University,
Boston MA, USA
Ph.D. Candidate and Teaching Fellow in Physics, 1967-68
Northeastern Univ. Boston MA
Note: Studied Relativity under Prof. Richard Arnowitt
at N.U. who is currently distinguished professor at TAMU

Peer reviewed publications:

Hammond G.E (1994) The Cartesian Theory, in
New Ideas In Psychology, Vol 12(2) 153-167
Pergamon Press. Online copy of peer/published
paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/cart.html

Hammond G.E.(2003) A Semiclassical Proof of God
Noetic Journal, Vol 4(3) July 2003, pp 231-244(Noetic
Press)
Online copy of peer/published paper is posted at:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/Hammond5s1.html

[/quote]
Post your CV jerk, or get off this thread.

========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================

Barb Knox · Guest

In article <ol6ej3dm03bm4bnnebdc3eanhodj5kddgc@4ax.com>, dh@. wrote:

[quote]On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 15:08:13 -0000, "Brass Extrusion" <13amp@plug.com> wrote:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19626294.800-lobster-pain-may-pric
k-diners-consciences.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
or
http://preview.tinyurl.com/38ou7h

09 November 2007
Colin Barras
Magazine issue 2629
It could prick the conscience of seafood chefs everywhere. Prawns, lobsters
and other invertebrates may feel pain, a controversial finding that could
open up the debate on animal welfare.

Robert Elwood at Queen>s University Belfast in the UK and his colleagues
claim they have found convincing evidence that prawns do feel pain.

Duh.

When
they dabbed an irritant - acetic acid - onto one of 144 prawns' two
antennae, the creatures reacted by grooming and rubbing the affected antenna
for up to 5 minutes. This focused reaction is similar to that seen in
mammals exposed to a noxious stimulant (Animal Behaviour, DOI:
10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.07.004).

What a clue. Another one is that crabs jump out of pots of
boiling water if they can. It>s really pretty damned obvious.
[/quote]
What is obvious from their behaviour is that they see to avoid certain
aversive stimuli, which is clearly an evolutionary Good Thing. But that
doesn>t tell us anything about their subjective experience (if any).
For example, one could build a simple wheeled robot that seeks to avoid
extremes of heat, cold, light, etc., but such behaviour does not in
itself indicate that the robot feels *anything*.

[quote]Elwood says the results show a centrally organised response to the irritant.
"The prolonged, specifically directed rubbing and grooming is consistent
with an interpretation of pain experience," he says.
[/quote]
It>s also consistent with the prawns being biological machines which are
complex enough to behave like that but not complex enough to have any
subjective experiences at all.
[quote]

If this is a breakthrough, then it>s truly a wonder that researchers
have ever managed to learn a damn thing.
[/quote]
They don>t say it>s a breakthrough. In general, most research results
are pretty minor.

[quote]Most researchers believe that only vertebrates feel pain,

How incredibly stupid.

but Elwood argues that this is unlikely because of ...

Whatever about Elmo... They can see, and they can hear,
and they can smell, and they can taste. Only incredibly stupid
people would "think" they can experience all of the senses
EXCEPT FOR what is probably the most important one. For
everyone who is just now getting a clue, here>s a great big
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
for you!
[/quote]
It certainly is a "DUH!" to "discover" that prawns have pain receptors.
What is very far from a "DUH!" is the issue of whether or not triggering
their pain receptors results in some subjective experience analogous to
our experience of pain.

And the same issue applies to vertebrates too. In a painful situation,
Fido or Fluffy certainly *act* like we would, but again that does not
give us a clear window into their subjective experience (if any). We
can certainly empathise with Fido or Fluffy>s plight, but that does not
imply that they themselves are having a subjective experience similar to
what we would have in the situation which we are mentally projecting
ourselves into through empathy.

Here>s what the Encyclopaedia Britannica says about the "pathetic
fallacy" <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058718/pathetic-fallacy>:

"poetic practice of attributing human emotion or responses to nature,
inanimate objects, or animals. The practice is a form of
personification that is as old as poetry, in which it has always been
common to find smiling or dancing flowers, angry or cruel winds,
brooding mountains, moping owls, or happy larks. The term was coined by
John Ruskin in Modern Painters (1843-60)."

Someday we may know enough about how brains generate subjective
experiences to be able to settle the question of whether prawns, dogs or
cats have any subjective experience of pain. But until then, it>s grist
for the mill of philosophers, theologians, etc.

[snip]

[added sci.philosophy.tech]

--
---------------------------
| BBB b \ Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
| B B aa rrr b |
| BBB a a r bbb | Quidquid latine dictum sit,
| B B a a r b b | altum viditur.
| BBB aa a r bbb |
-----------------------------

pearl · Guest

"Barb Knox" <see@sig.below> wrote in message news:see-AB84B8.14104712112007@lust.ihug.co.nz...

[quote]It certainly is a "DUH!" to "discover" that prawns have pain receptors.
What is very far from a "DUH!" is the issue of whether or not triggering
their pain receptors results in some subjective experience analogous to
our experience of pain.
[/quote]
'We address the question of pain perception in fish by first accepting
the assumption that it is unlikely that the conscious perception of pain
evolved to simply guide reactions to noxious events, or to provide an
experiential dimension to accompany reflexes, but rather it allowed
an organism to discriminate their environment in ways that permitted
adaptive and flexible behaviour (Chandroo et al. 2004). The neural
systems involved in nociception and pain perception, and the
cognitive processes resulting in flexible behaviour function, probably
evolved as an interactive dynamic system within the central nervous
system (Chapman and Nakamura 1999).
.........'
http://www.aquanet.ca/English/research/fish/rm-perspective.pdf

Do that also apply to crustaceans? I think you>ll find that it does.

[quote]And the same issue applies to vertebrates too. In a painful situation,
Fido or Fluffy certainly *act* like we would, but again that does not
give us a clear window into their subjective experience (if any). We
can certainly empathise with Fido or Fluffy>s plight, but that does not
imply that they themselves are having a subjective experience similar to
what we would have in the situation which we are mentally projecting
ourselves into through empathy.
[/quote]
'Neurophysiologists have so far discovered no fundamental difference
between the structure or functions of neurons in men and other
animals."[19] Anthropomorphism he calls an obsolete straitjacket.

After I read Griffin>s book, my quest for a context into which an
understanding of ocean mind might grow met with another stroke of
luck. At the 1980 Conference on Cetacean Intelligence in Washington
DC, I met psychologist Dr Michael Bossley of Magill University,
South Australia. Later he sent me an extraordinary unpublished
manuscript - his review of the scientific evidence for non-human mind,
which was a global survey of formal research into cognitive ethology
since Griffin had defined it. I read this with utter delight and suggested
a title, Continuum, which Dr Bossley accepted.

The implications of Bossley>s survey could upset many. He insists
that an entirely new ethical system is required, and presents compelling
evidence for a continuity between human psychological processes and
those of other life forms. He urges our species to climb down from its
imaginary pedestal: 'Everything grades into everything else. We are part
of the natural world.' Much of the research Bossley examines is recent
and ongoing. For the most part it has appeared only in highly technical
literature accessible to specialised academics. It may be several
generations before the full implications are heeded. Like the
Copernican and Darwinian revolutions, it could alter the way we view
our place on this planet, how we treat other life forms and each other.

Legitimate evidence that five vital aspects of being human can be traced
to other animals exists in the published work of established scientists.
In each of five chapters, Bossley summarises that evidence.
...'
http://www.wadedoak.com/projectinterlock.htm

[quote]Here>s what the Encyclopaedia Britannica says about the "pathetic
fallacy" <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9058718/pathetic-fallacy>:

"poetic practice of attributing human emotion or responses to nature,
inanimate objects, or animals. The practice is a form of
personification that is as old as poetry, in which it has always been
common to find smiling or dancing flowers, angry or cruel winds,
brooding mountains, moping owls, or happy larks. The term was coined by
John Ruskin in Modern Painters (1843-60)."

Someday we may know enough about how brains generate subjective
experiences to be able to settle the question of whether prawns, dogs or
cats have any subjective experience of pain. But until then, it>s grist
for the mill of philosophers, theologians, etc.
[/quote]
'Anthropocentrism
By Penelope Smith

Albert Einstein is quoted as saying, "A human being is part of the whole,
called by us 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences
himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest,
a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind
of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection
for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves
from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all
living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

Many humans have an attitude that restricts their ability to understand
or empathize with non-human animals and other life forms and has
some serious consequences for all life on this planet. It is called
anthropocentrism, or viewing man as the center or final aim of the
universe. I refer to this in my book, Animal Talk, as the "human
superiority complex" considering humans as superior to or the
pinnacle of all forms of life. From the anthropocentric view, non-
human beings that are most like human are usually considered more
intelligent, for example, chimpanzees who learn to use sign language
or dolphins who signal word or thought comprehension through
touching electronic devices in their tanks. Animals or other life forms
that don>t express themselves in human ways by language or in terms
easily comprehensible by common human standards are often
considered less developed, inferior, more primitive or mechanistic,
and usually of less importance than humans.

This viewpoint has been used to justify using animals as objects for
human ends. Since humans are the superior creatures, "dumb,
unfeeling" non-humans can be disregarded, mistreated, subjugated,
killed or whole species eliminated without much concern for their
existence in itself, only their usefulness or lack of it to humankind.

Many humans, as they see other animals are more like them in
patterns of behavior and expression of intelligence, begin to respect
them more and treat them with more regard for their rights. However,
this does not transcend the trap of anthropocentrism. To increase
harmony of life on Earth, all beings need to be regarded as worthy
of respect, whether seen as different or similar to the human species.

The anthropocentric view toward animals echoes the way in which
many humans have discriminated against other humans because they
were of different cultures, races, religions, or sexes. Regarding others
as less intelligent or substandard has commonly been used to justify
domination, cruelty or elimination of them.

Too often people label what they don>t understand as inferior, dumb,
or to be avoided, without attempting to understand a different way of
being. More enlightened humans look upon meeting people, things or
animals that are different than themselves as opportunities to expand
their understanding, share new realities, and become more whole.

Anthropocentrism does not allow humans to bridge the artificial gap
it creates. It leaves humans fragmented or alienated from much of their
environment. We see the disastrous consequences of this in human
disruption of the earth>s ecology, causing the disintegration of health
and harmony for all including human life.

Anthropocentrism causes humans to misjudge animal intelligence
and awareness. Humans can get too fixed in the view or model that
they indeed are the center of and separate from the universe and
therefore the most intelligent and aware. They then see or seek only
to prove that point.

Anthropocentric humans also tend to judge non-human animals
according to human cultural standards, as human groups often do
with other human cultures. Instead of viewing and evaluating animals
according to the their own cultural experience, heredity, training and
environment, they impose human environments, tests, standards and
methods and evaluate animals, according to the ability to exhibit
human-like behavior.

This is similar to the bias that was found in college preparatory and
intelligence tests, which caused anyone unfamiliar with a white middle
class upbringing to score lower and therefore to be considered less
intelligent. Individuals with different ethnic backgrounds could not
comprehend the tests' frames of reference and therefore were not
able to express their intelligence through them.

When we respectfully regard animals as intelligent, sensitive fellow
beings with whom we walk upon the Earth, our whole perspective of
life changes. In cooperation instead of alienation, we can create a new
balance and joy in living for all us here. Lets each of us do our part.

http://animalliberty.com/animalliberty/articles/penelope/pene-2.html

pearl · Guest

"pearl" <tea@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:fh9btm$em$1@reader01.news.esat.net...

<..>

[quote]Do that also apply to crustaceans? I think you>ll find that it does.
[/quote]
Ack! Incomplete edit. Should of course be "Does that also apply......"

<...>

George Hammond · Guest

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:50:54 GMT, George Hammond
<Nowhere1@notspam.org> wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:58:44 -0800 (PST), Darwin123
<drosen0000@yahoo.com> wrote:

[quote]On Nov 15, 3:44 am, George Hammond <Nowhe...@notspam.org> wrote:

Physics CANNOT DEFINE "mass length and time" except by
holding up a brass cylinder, ruler, and cesium clock and
asking an assembly of ANTHROPIC OBSERVERS:

"Do we all AGREE these are specimens of
mass, length and time"

and when the anthropic assembly roars back "Yea" then mass
length and time are thereby "DEFINED" by "ANTHROPIC
PERCEPTION".

So fish don>t measure mass, length, and time? I saw one large
shark try to push a smaller shark out of her corner. She bounced him
up and down a few times. Did the large shark really need a brass
cylinder to measure the mass of the small shark

[Hammond][/quote]
You>re playing catch up ball Buddy.... amateurs have been
all thru this with me on Usenet.
We are here to discuss the

ANTHROPIC principle
not the
ICTHOLOGICAL principle.

What you don>t recognize is that:
The God of a Man is a perfect man
The God of a Camel is a perfect Camel
The God of a Fish is a perfect Fish

But we are here to prove the God of Man- namely the God
of the Bible. We are not here to prove there is a God of
Fish. And the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE is key to the proof
since:

The Anthropic Principle
+
The Secular Trend Brain Growth Deficit
=
The Almighty God of the Bible

Scientists have already PROVED that:
"The world is the way
it is because we exist"
(S. Hawking)
What Hawking doesn>t realize is that humans only
*85%-EXIST* because the Secular Trend Growth Deficit
says we are only 85% fully grown.
This means that 15% of us is "invisible"- hence "God is
invisible", and the Picture Fusion Frequency, PFF, (as well
an a simple IQ test) shows that this causes 15% of the
"world we should see" to be invisible... hence the existence
of an "invisible world" called "heaven".

this constitutes the WORLD>S FIRST RIGOROUS SCIENTIFIC PROOF
OF GOD.
QED.... THE GOD OF THE BIBLE EXISTS
and not only that God is measureable
to 3 significant figures experimentally.

Now if there is any part of that SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD
that you fail to understand, don>t be afraid to ask me a
rational and cogent question.
Yawn.
========================================
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
GOD=G_uv (a folk song on mp3)
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
========================================

Androcles · Guest

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8bad8db2-fd54-45f1-ad12-9d61280a8623@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
: The second law of thermodynamics (original version):
:
: http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
: "Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Warme" 1850 Clausius:
: "It is this maximum of work which must be compared with the heat
: transferred. When this is done it appears that there is in fact ground
: for asserting, with Carnot, that it depends only on the quantity of
: the heat transferred and on the temperatures t and tau of the two
: bodies A and B, but not on the nature of the substance by means of
: which the work is done."
:
: Einstein>s second postulate:
:
: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
: "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" 1905 Einstein:
: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
: c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

The second is clearly false, but what>s wrong with the first?
Steam turbines drive generators and provide electricity, don>t they?
Ideally the quantity of heat the coal or oil gives up is equal to the
heat from a radiator connected to the supply... in practice heat is
lost to atmosphere through the cooling tower and resistance in
the electrical path of the generator, transformers, overhead conductors
etc. If you replace the radiator with a super conducting motor and
superconductors to operate an elevator then the work out is as good
as from a steam engine, so electricity is as good as steam in transferring
heat to work, the nature of the substance is immaterial.

Dr. Henri Wilson · Guest

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:36:08 -0800 (PST), Alen <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:

[quote]On Nov 27, 12:36 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

Einstein>s second postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" 1905 Einstein:
"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com

The alternative version of the second postulate, that
I have argued, is:

A photon always has a focus of propagation, with a definite
velocity, c, in any inertial frame, that is independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body.

That is, a photon has different foci of propagation, at the
same time, in different inertial frames.
[/quote]
Why should it?
A photon moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt the moving observer. There is
absolutely no evidence that suggests otherwise.

[quote]Alen
[/quote]

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Androcles · Guest

"Alen" <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote in message
news:8a289c91-f05e-4db0-ab60-cc2d8c761804@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
: On Nov 28, 6:39 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
: > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:36:08 -0800 (PST), Alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
wrote:
: > >On Nov 27, 12:36 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >
: > >[...]
: >
: > >> Einstein>s second postulate:
: >
: > >>http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
: > >> "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" 1905 Einstein:
: > >> "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity
: > >> c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
: >
: > >> Pentcho Valev
: > >> pva...@yahoo.com
: >
: > >The alternative version of the second postulate, that
: > >I have argued, is:
: >
: > >A photon always has a focus of propagation, with a definite
: > >velocity, c, in any inertial frame, that is independent of the
: > >state of motion of the emitting body.
: >
: > >That is, a photon has different foci of propagation, at the
: > >same time, in different inertial frames.
: >
: > Why should it?
: > A photon moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt the moving observer.
There is
: > absolutely no evidence that suggests otherwise.
: >
: > >Alen
: >
: > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
: >
: > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
:
: Having a propagation of c in both a stationary and
: moving frame, at the same time, via two separate
: foci of propagation, allows the derivation of the
: Lorentz transformation equations, without the
: existence of a Minkowski spacetime.

Bullshit! And even if it did, so what, they are no use to anyone.

How an idiot like you takes a result of the cuckoo malformations
and says you can derive the cuckoo malformations from it only
your psychiatrist knows.

:
: The stationary frame focus of propagation does
: move at c+v, or c-v, in the other frame, but the other
: frame nevertheless also has a focus of propagation
: travelling at velocity c, which is the focus of
: propagation it will detect, if it detects the photon.
:
Total lying idiot crap.
Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif

Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one>s safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn>t, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn>t have
to; but if he didn>t want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein>s case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can>t
use c+v.

What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen, Nieminen, ewill, Olson et. al. fail to realise is the existence of
isomorphism

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

between Sagnac>s real experiment and Einstein>s hallucination experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif

Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.

Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You>ll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven>t a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain,
and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with
simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton

Dr. Henri Wilson · Guest

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:43:44 -0800 (PST), Alen <alen1@westserv.net.au> wrote:

[quote]On Nov 28, 6:39 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:36:08 -0800 (PST), Alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
On Nov 27, 12:36 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Having a propagation of c in both a stationary and
moving frame, at the same time, via two separate
foci of propagation, allows the derivation of the
Lorentz transformation equations, without the
existence of a Minkowski spacetime.

The stationary frame focus of propagation does
move at c+v, or c-v, in the other frame, but the other
frame nevertheless also has a focus of propagation
travelling at velocity c, which is the focus of
propagation it will detect, if it detects the photon.
[/quote]
....all part of the hoax that made Einstein famous for 100 years.

[quote]Alen
[/quote]

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Androcles · Guest

"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:94mrk3h9a71pn53r0uluck1t6npk7h2hcp@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:43:44 -0800 (PST), Alen <alen1@westserv.net.au>
wrote:
:
: >On Nov 28, 6:39 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
: >> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:36:08 -0800 (PST), Alen <al...@westserv.net.au>
wrote:
: >> >On Nov 27, 12:36 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:
: >> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
: >>
: >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
: >
: >Having a propagation of c in both a stationary and
: >moving frame, at the same time, via two separate
: >foci of propagation, allows the derivation of the
: >Lorentz transformation equations, without the
: >existence of a Minkowski spacetime.
: >
: >The stationary frame focus of propagation does
: >move at c+v, or c-v, in the other frame, but the other
: >frame nevertheless also has a focus of propagation
: >travelling at velocity c, which is the focus of
: >propagation it will detect, if it detects the photon.
:
: ...all part of the hoax that made Einstein famous for 100 years.
:
Yep... just like your attempts to copy him.

"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695

"Light doesn>t have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength." --Wilson.
news:1193906355.448067.162590@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com

"SPINNING OBJECTS HAVE A FREQUENCY, NOT A BLOODY WAVELENGTH." -- Wilson
news:pllli3puamdqd70qnenjoonfsbjtv1ibmj@4ax.com

"Light doesn>t have a particuar 'frequency' in the normal sense.
Frequency is the inferred rate at whichABSOLUTE wavecrests leave the
source" -- Wilson.
news:3ghfh3h30n795o2vs1sulouge37ve0n17i@4ax.com

"THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IN GENERAL, THE 'WAVELENGTH' OF AN OSCILLATION IS
THE
SAME IN ALL FRAMES." -- Wilson
news:920ni31ul6rb833qrltro49t3pnv2g5qk5@4ax.com

"Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation
frequency' idea.
Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory...." -- Wilson,
October 26, 2007 1:03 PM
news:iml3i3dh0vmisp6ln34ron41uoljmonvni@4ax.com

"That>s the kind of argument I>d expect from a desperate
person....completely out of ideas... ahahahaha!" -- Wilson.

"For one ray, ct = 2piR+vt , for the other ct = 2piR-vt. This gives t =
2piR/(c+v) and 2piR/(c-v)" -- Wilson.
news:q21vi3lmjhp5s9pkc554egjp1taus1drbt@4ax.com...
"That>s for the nonrotating frame, dopey." -- Wilson.
news:cp7vi35bvqvta6o1vcvi4m1v6q8t4ro1la@4ax.com.

"There is NOT the same number of wavelengths between the STARTPOINT and
the detector" -- Wilson
news:8no1j39qhu9tk2nqglqkgt00u07se4i63q@4ax.com

"<plonk>" -- Wilson (faced with his own words)
news:gci9j3lf66t9d1j9ia3fdpqe7pfova2kln@4ax.com

You don>t use emission theory and don>t know what it is, your
crackpot theory is BaTh; you>ve been whining that for 6 years, you
invented it when I was in hospital in Florida with a shattered ankle
and I>ve been in Britain 4.75 years while you>ve gotten gradually more
senile. In all that time you>ve only learned to write "Dr" in front of
your name which nobody believes.
You blew it with denying Doppler and your tick fairies, senile old fart.

Dr. Henri Wilson · Guest

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:37:05 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:

[quote]
"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:94mrk3h9a71pn53r0uluck1t6npk7h2hcp@4ax.com...

: >The stationary frame focus of propagation does
: >move at c+v, or c-v, in the other frame, but the other
: >frame nevertheless also has a focus of propagation
: >travelling at velocity c, which is the focus of
: >propagation it will detect, if it detects the photon.
:
: ...all part of the hoax that made Einstein famous for 100 years.
:
Yep... just like your attempts to copy him.

"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
[/quote]
Don>t lie.
Read what I said.
There is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE SOURCE IN BaTh.......
I didn>t invent the idea you know.

....and why don>t you just admit that you still believe an aether exists?

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Androcles · Guest

"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:cc1sk31un4cajk0pib36jfc2i9l5molig2@4ax.com...
: On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:37:05 GMT, "Androcles"
<Engineer@hogwarts.physics_a>
: wrote:
:
: >
: >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
: >news:94mrk3h9a71pn53r0uluck1t6npk7h2hcp@4ax.com...
:
: >: >The stationary frame focus of propagation does
: >: >move at c+v, or c-v, in the other frame, but the other
: >: >frame nevertheless also has a focus of propagation
: >: >travelling at velocity c, which is the focus of
: >: >propagation it will detect, if it detects the photon.
: >:
: >: ...all part of the hoax that made Einstein famous for 100 years.
: >:
: >Yep... just like your attempts to copy him.
: >
: >"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
: > http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
:
: Don>t lie.

http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BASTARD, YOU SAID IT!
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695
Do not call me a liar, you FUCKING BA


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com