Thanks for keeping me awake I drove 10 hours today. Stalemate is OK with me.
On Thursday, February 21, 2013, ChemE Stewart wrote: > Don't speak for everyone, you are the only unaccredited Bowery U professor > requesting homework while you advance more government conspiracy theories. > > Dark energy/vacuum energy/ZPE whatever you want to call it makes up 95% of > the universe, it is about time we figure out where it is. Where do you > think it is? I think it is creating severe low pressure systems in our > atmosphere through vacuum and the Earth is orbiting into higher energy > particles all of the time. These high energy quantum particles also help > explain quantum gravity. > > I don't think we live in a nice smooth constant entropy universe, plenty > of ripples right here on Earth. > > What is the evidence for your theory? I am open to evidence. Do you have > secret government documents? > > > > > On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote: > > We await with bated breath your homework. > > I found your posting a scattershot URL with a bunch of other links to > various theories, none of which was anything like the theory I posit, to be > typical of your reponses to pointed questions: Evasive. > > The only thing that might possibly be construed as related to my theory is > this uncited sentence: "Other theories claim the meteorite itself was > evidence of a new weapon." and the only possible backup for this sentence > is a theory by a lone Russian politician claiming the weapon was _not_ a > meteor. > > Keep it up, ChemE. Pretty soon no one is going to be interested in your > trolls. > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:25 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hard to do math while driving and texting on my iPhone. > > Glad you liked the theories, the second was similar to yours and grouped > with the Mayans based on its merits. > > > On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote: > > No arithmetic worked out in response to my second challenge. > > A scattershot of a bunch "conspiracy" theories starting with a Mayan > prophesies in response to my second challenge to come up with "a" > (singular) URL to "a" (singular) "conspiracy" theory more plausible than my > theory, which is not "conspiratorial" unless you include routine government > classified work as "conspiratorial". > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:46 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ok, > > The object was in a 2 body kepler orbit, formula on my site > > The 20' dia perfectly round hole in the lake with no object found was a > nucleus with a bubble of condensed gas surrounding it. Last I read > Authorities believe the round hole is a hoax because they cannot explain > it, although they found fragments around the hole. > > The nucleus that struck the lake may have weighed much more than 10k tons. > Without knowing the orbital path it is impossible to tell. > > Your answer: > > http://m.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/best-russian-meteorite-conspiracy-theories > > > > On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote: > > Completing the first part of my second challenge to ChemE for him the URL > to the relevant arithmetic is (presumably): > > http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/02/03/number-crunching/ > > But you must then search for the subheading: > > Typical Particle Orbit Calculations > > The second part of my second challenge to ChemE awaits the application of > these equations to the phenomena of February 15, 2013. > > My first challenge to ChemE, defying him to come up with a URL to an > "internet government conspiracy theory" that is more plausible than mine > remains unanswered even in part. > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:35 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Darkmattersalot.com > on the menu > > My unfalsifiable claim regarding cold fusion is still aliens farting > through a wormhole, they are just playing with us. > > On Thursday, February 21, 2013, James Bowery wrote: > > The typical "internet government conspiracy theory" has to refer > technologies that are far from being widely acknowledged to be mundane > science and/or to programs that involve motives that are far from being > widely acknowledged as being legitimate. I've made no such assumptions and > I defy you to come up with a URL to a theory that is > >
