On 9/11/2010 9:21 PM, tom wrote:
On 9/11/2010 11:27 AM, K1TTT wrote:
On Sep 11, 4:18 pm, John wrote:
no, you must have me confused with someone else. i quote well
accepted engineering texts and journals. its art and mr.b that put
together rube goldberg theories to fit their latest whim.

Yeah, you are like richard clark, you base beliefs and claim facts
depending on who states them, and proudly so, it is not the context of
the statement, it is who said it, the above is an excellent example, in
your own words. A million men can be wrong, just as easily as one ...
especially using the your method, above ... an echo chamber is not a
place to seek truth.

You probably think 9/11 wasn't an inside job too
...:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...ineers-for-911...


There are your experts, engineers architects ...

Regards,
JS

ah, a conspiracy lover... i always ask the question: If the
government were involved in any given conspiracy how long do you think
they could really keep it secret?

I have always wondered which of the 2 groups debating here are more
successful. Like who gets paid for their stand on what's real.

To state it a bit more clearly - who can make a living based upon their
stand on what's real? That always separates the wheat from the chaff.

Mr B, Art, Doctor Smith, how'r you all doin' in the antenna consulting
and/or sales and design business?

I expect very well considering you know more than the rest of group that
hangs out here.

Please insert ill considered response 6 lines below.

tom
K0TAR

On 9/11/2010 8:47 PM, tom wrote:

...
To state it a bit more clearly - who can make a living based upon their
stand on what's real? That always separates the wheat from the chaff.

Mr B, Art, Doctor Smith, how'r you all doin' in the antenna consulting
and/or sales and design business?

I expect very well considering you know more than the rest of group that
hangs out here.

Please insert ill considered response 6 lines below.

tom
K0TAR

Yes, Art, the above is a demonstration of what you are pointing out ...
how can you possibly think I can miss it? Can anyone?

When a president like clinton, bush or obama can make president, what
would possibly shock/confuse anyone about this?

Regards,
JS

On Sep 12, 3:40*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 11, 9:56*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Sep 11, 9:34*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/11/2010 7:21 PM, tom wrote:

...
I have always wondered which of the 2 groups debating here are more
successful. Like who gets paid for their stand on what's real.

Ok, I don't actually wonder.

tom
K0TAR

Yeah. *I guess some stare at their belly buttons for hours, and wonder;
* And, I guess some hold them in high respect as gurus ... I don't.
Good to hear you ain't wonderin'.

Regards,
JS

John
Look at his last 100 posts and check to see if you find one of them
informative and then question why you even respond to him? I mean it.
He sends nothing but trash all the time. Anybody can say "babbling
nonsense" but not anybody can explain
babbling nonsense unless *he himself is well practiced in the art!

John
After you read his last 100 posts you can now look ahead and predict
what his next 100 posts are going to look like. Do you really need
such a discorse for the next month or so?

come on art, enough discussing other's posts... wx not looking good
here today so lets have a blast of classic art techno bafflegab! i
could use a good laugh!

On Sep 12, 3:40*am, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 11, 9:56*pm, Art Unwin wrote:



On Sep 11, 9:34*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/11/2010 7:21 PM, tom wrote:

...
I have always wondered which of the 2 groups debating here are more
successful. Like who gets paid for their stand on what's real.

Ok, I don't actually wonder.

tom
K0TAR

Yeah. *I guess some stare at their belly buttons for hours, and wonder;
* And, I guess some hold them in high respect as gurus ... I don't.
Good to hear you ain't wonderin'.

Regards,
JS

John
Look at his last 100 posts and check to see if you find one of them
informative and then question why you even respond to him? I mean it.
He sends nothing but trash all the time. Anybody can say "babbling
nonsense" but not anybody can explain
babbling nonsense unless *he himself is well practiced in the art!

John
After you read his last 100 posts you can now look ahead and predict
what his next 100 posts are going to look like. Do you really need
such a discorse for the next month or so?

come on art, enough discussing other's posts... wx not looking good
here today so lets have a blast of classic art techno bafflegab! i
could use a good laugh!

On Sep 11, 6:27*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
"K1TTT" ...

has anyone linked zpe or 'quantum soup' or dark energy to

electromagnetic waves in a way that preserves the constancy of the
speed of light in all reference frames?

You do not know that the reference frames are dragged:

""Frame Dragging
One of the strangest predictions of the general theory of relativity
concerning black holes is called frame dragging. For a rotating black hole,
the theory predicts that space and time itself can be dragged by the
rotating black hole. The adjacent figure shows an artist's conception of
this idea (J. Bergeron, Sky & Telescope: get permission; Ref). Some recent
data has been interpreted as supporting evidence for frame dragging around a
black hole (Ref). "
From: *http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...blackhole.html

If you do not like the Sun's ether drag you can use the Sun's reference
frame drag. Which one do you prefer.

or related those phenomena to epsilon or mu of free space?

The space is not a dielectric. Electric waves travel in metal transmissing
lines where no epsilon or mu.
S*

hey mr.b. here is a group that you might fit in with:
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

On 9/12/2010 2:13 PM, K1TTT wrote:

...
hey mr.b. here is a group that you might fit in with:
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

Darn, I knew there was going to be a problem in handing out licenses to
recovering mental patients ... having a bit of a problem in discerning
reality from fantasy? Meds not working correctly? Anger management
classes didn't take? Shrink still working you though control issues?
ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Sep 11, 6:27 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

If you do not like the Sun's ether drag you can use the Sun's reference
frame drag. Which one do you prefer.

or related those phenomena to epsilon or mu of free space?

The space is not a dielectric. Electric waves travel in metal transmissing
lines where no epsilon or mu.

hey mr.b. here is a group that you might fit in with:
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

The Author do not know about MGX and Stokes. He only know MMX and Sagnac.
Many people do not know the all evidences. Like you.

For such Galileo was wrong. For you Stokes (Chairman of Royal Society) was
wrong.
S*

"K1TTT" wrote
...
On Sep 13, 8:09 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:

hey mr.b. here is a group that you might fit in with:

http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

The Author do not know about MGX and Stokes. He only know MMX and Sagnac.
Many people do not know the all evidences. Like you.

For such Galileo was wrong. For you Stokes (Chairman of Royal Society)
was
wrong.

wow, now that made absolutely no sense.

Now we have to choose: Galiean relativity or Special relativity and,
Stokes ether or Maxwell-Lorentz-Einstein ether.

It seems to me that in you opinion the both: Galileo and Stokes were wrong.
In may opinion the MGX proved that the both were right.
S*

On Sep 14, 7:40*am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
*"K1TTT" ...
On Sep 13, 8:09 am, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:



hey mr.b. here is a group that you might fit in with:

http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

The Author do not know about MGX and Stokes. He only know MMX and Sagnac.
Many people do not know the all evidences. Like you.

For such Galileo was wrong. For you Stokes (Chairman of Royal Society)
was
wrong.
wow, now that made absolutely no sense.

Now we have to choose: Galiean relativity or Special relativity and,
Stokes ether or Maxwell-Lorentz-Einstein ether.

It seems to me that in you opinion the both: Galileo and Stokes were wrong.
In may opinion the MGX proved that the both were right.
S*

no, galileo was right, stokes was wrong. but you might want to join
that anti-galileo group, i think you would fit right in.