On Sep 4, 2008, at 4:45 PM, OrionWorks wrote:
From the report:
How can black holes have gravity when nothing can get out because
escape speed is greater than the speed of light?
Always wondered about that conundrum.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 22:12:01 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
I posted a message, then went shopping. I just got back, and discovered this
post from Horace. :)
[snip]
Given that graviphotons carry no charge, and have a very weak
coupling to electrostatic charge, i.e. to
Rick Monteverde wrote:
My information that the computer models can't accurately track reality?
Chaos theory, mostly, and practical experience and observation too,
validated by numerous people who know and use these systems and are honest
about how they work. You can't expect a recursive
Kevin Ryan, former Lab director at UL (Underwriters Laboratories - which
once-upon-a-time was NIST - that is, before NIST became politicized and no
longer is staffed with real scientists - and instead is being run by political
appointees)
... weighs in with Dr. Steven Jones on the
Jones Beene wrote:
Kevin Ryan, former Lab director at UL (Underwriters Laboratories -
which once-upon-a-time was NIST - that is, before NIST became
politicized and no longer is staffed with real scientists - and
instead is being run by political appointees)
No, the two are completely
Howdy Jones,
Fact: NO plane hit building 7 of the world trade center so the computer models
used on the twin towers are invalid. What we
have is a classic example of performing wonders with numbers while eating
cucumbers.
Won't matter.. it over,it's in the past.. in today's world, anything
Richard,
Won't matter.. it over,it's in the past.. in today's world, anything being
instant attention is past tense.
Unfortunately, you are probably right - especially with the massive payoff$$ to
the families of the 3000+ victims - some of whom otherwise would never let the
story die. Is
A slow news day.
The following questions are probably directed for Jones, but anyone
can chime in.
I've been reading this subject thread off and on for some time, and
I'm curious about a couple of things...
Is it the implication that Cheney either directly or indirectly was
responsible for
Jed -
That's preposterous.
If you wish. It's also a fact. It's inherent in how the math works.
If that were true, weather forecasting computer programs would not work.
You are correct. You've heard of Lorenz, of course. The programs only work
for a very brief time before their results
What heresy is this? Computer models being misapplied on a controversial
subject to back a position not supported by actual evidence observed in the
real world?
Is it just me, or is it getting warmer in here?
- Rick
_
From: R C Macaulay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday,
Jones Beene wrote:
Won't matter.. it over,it's in the past.. in today's world,
anything being instant attention is past tense.
Unfortunately, you are probably right - especially with the massive
payoff$$ to the families of the 3000+ victims - some of whom
otherwise would never let the
Rick Monteverde wrote:
If that were true, weather forecasting computer programs would not work.
You are correct. You've heard of Lorenz, of course. The programs only work
for a very brief time before their results degrade to useless noise, so they
are only good before they reach that point .
OrionWorks wrote:
A slow news day.
The following questions are probably directed for Jones, but anyone
can chime in.
I've been reading this subject thread off and on for some time, and
I'm curious about a couple of things...
Is it the implication that Cheney either directly or
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
Won't matter.. it over,it's in the past.. in today's world, anything
being instant attention is past tense.
Unfortunately, you are probably right - especially with the massive
payoff$$ to the families of the 3000+ victims - some of whom otherwise
Steven,
I've been reading this subject thread off and on for some time, and
I'm curious about a couple of things... Is it the implication that Cheney
either directly or indirectly was responsible for destroying the WTC and/or
surrounding buildings?
Never heard that one before.
WHO DID IT?
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Furthermore, you are ignoring the fact that the global warming experts
predictions have come true in the world is indisputably growing hotter
rapidly, as Ed pointed out. You do not need a computer to see that. Just
look at melting ice...
Just ask Horace. He's in
Thank you for the extremely lucid recap.
Jones Beene wrote:
[ snip ]
I mentioned before there had been a valid demolition permit issued by
the City to the WTC owners (the Port Authority) - after the 1993
incident - and there are reports from around that time period from
contractors that
Jones Beene wrote:
NIST, to everyone's utter amazement, totally dodged this issue; nor
did they address the large number of PROVED and documented reports
at the NYC Fire Dept has on file - of large pools of molten steel -
up to three weeks after the tragedy.
And the NYFD rolled over and
Jed -
What you describe below circumvents, for a few special practical cases, the
fundamental point I made about the use of models. In your examples, some
components can contain quite a bit of 'inertia' of one form or another
(often as historical and statistical: When we see A happening here,
Never said there was no warming, I said we didn't do it and that we're not
capable of doing anything practical to change it.
Stephen, add your name to the list of those who choose to ignore the actual
content of my posts and are willing to recast them as if they were
completely different
Jones Beene wrote:
I mentioned before there had been a valid demolition permit issued by
the City to the WTC owners (the Port Authority) - after the 1993
incident - and there are reports from around that time period from
contractors that themite was actually loaded into parts of the
And you miss my point, Rick. My point is that it does not matter if
the warming is caused by mankind or not. We all benefit if we develop
alternative energy. If this means supporting ALGore, then suck it up
and get on with life.
Ed
On Sep 5, 2008, at 2:25 PM, Rick Monteverde wrote:
Rick Monteverde wrote:
Never said there was no warming, I said we didn't do it and that we're not
capable of doing anything practical to change it.
Stephen, add your name to the list of those who choose to ignore the actual
content of my posts
Was I responding directly to you? Don't
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:05:13 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
First, let me be very clear that I said neutrinos may be comprised of
graviphotons, not gravitons the messenger particles.
[snip]
...and that's exactly what I meant. Is it possible that neutrinos and
graviphotons
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:05:13 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
First, let me be very clear that I said neutrinos may be comprised of
graviphotons, not gravitons the messenger particles.
[snip]
...and that's exactly what I meant. Is it
In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:25:43 -1000:
Hi,
[snip]
The argument is whether
there are anthropogenic causes to it. I say that the models are incapable of
directing that conclusion because of their inherent shortcomings.
[snip]
I agree that the models are only models
I sent a voice input reply on this topic without any checking, be warned,
the grammar etc is rubbish (but the ideas and the picture are good if you
can sort them out).
Thousands of innocent people died on Sept 11, 2001. Most died quickly,
mercifully. But some I suspect died slowly and horribly. As human
beings it seems to be in our nature to ponder how devastating events
of this nature could be allowed happen. Why? We ask ourselves. SOMEONE
MUST HAVE BEEN
To summarize my point about chutzpah, Rick Monteverde wrote:
Never said there was no warming, I said we didn't do it and that we're not
capable of doing anything practical to change it.
You can say this without irking me and other conventionally-minded,
pocket-protector scientific type
I'm sorry, I'll respond from now on only when spoken to directly. My bad.
Stephen, I don't care what a majority of scientists or mainstream publishers
or whatever have concluded, just as I'm sure Jed doesn't care how many think
CF is bunk, in terms that situation having any bearing on the nature
I'm not missing your point Ed, I'm agreeing with it and I believe I said so.
And fortunately, it does not require that we support Gore to develop
alternative energy. I will disagree with you there if you insist that's so,
but that is purely a political debate, which it is not my intention to
Jed Rothwell wrote [to Rick Monteverde]:
... as you and I agree it [global warming] is happening. The cause is the
only question.
Yes, you and Rick agree, and only argue over the cause.
However, part of the reason I posted my comments about Alaska and
Canada, and almost posted a snide
Jed: I am saying that both are based upon the same knowledge of
atmospheric physics that knowledge is demonstrably impressive. When you say
that the hypothesis cannot possibly be right and the experts ought to know
better, I say that's chutzpah, it is insufferable, and it irks me!
C'mon Jed,
You make a good points about persuasive writing, and Stephen just wrote a
good description of the nature of the fundamental problem of modelling
chaotic systems.
- Rick
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 11:43 AM
To:
Robin -
Well and concisely put.
I only take issue with #3 because of the assumptions that we should be
trying to interfere with the situation, and that warming is necessarily a
bad thing in the long run. Used to be a lot warmer, and for a very long
time.
I say let nature handle the climate.
On Sep 5, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Thu, 4 Sep 2008 23:05:13
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
First, let me be very clear that I said neutrinos may be comprised of
graviphotons, not gravitons the messenger particles.
[snip]
...and that's exactly
Rick Monteverde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure Jed doesn't care how many think
CF is bunk, in terms that situation having any bearing on the nature of the
evidence or the conclusions he has come to regarding the evidence. They can
all be wrong, and in the case of CF we're pretty certain
In reply to Rick Monteverde's message of Fri, 5 Sep 2008 12:45:00 -1000:
Hi,
[snip]
Robin -
Well and concisely put.
I only take issue with #3 because of the assumptions that we should be
trying to interfere with the situation, and that warming is necessarily a
bad thing in the long run. Used
Howdy Steven,
I don't know why the 9/11 buildings collapsed because I wasn't there. One
building collapse under these circumstances does raise an eyebrow,,, two
buildings collapse under identical circumstances stretches the
imagination... 3 buildings collapse in like circumstances with no
Rick Monteverde wrote:
I'm sorry, I'll respond from now on only when spoken to directly. My bad.
Sorry if it sounded like I thought you shouldn't have replied; I wasn't
trying to shush you! I was just saying those remarks were not directed
specifically at what you said. It was nothing more
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:29:00 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
They (apparently) oscillate, which, at least according to my limited and
rather primitive understanding of relativity theory, means time passes
for them, which suggests pretty strongly that their speed must
41 matches
Mail list logo
