Re The real physics behind Bob Lazar's alien gravity

Document Sample
Re The real physics behind Bob Lazar's alien gravity Powered By Docstoc
					              Re: The real physics behind Bob Lazar's alien gravity propulsion systems

Re: The real physics behind Bob Lazar's alien
gravity propulsion systems

Source: http://sci.tech−archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2009−08/msg00439.html



      • From: "Androcles" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
      • Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 16:41:30 +0100


"pmb" <pmb61@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ee875403−d04a−4dd9−826d−6df174fc606e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Aug 3, 12:12 pm, franklinhu <frankli...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

       On Aug 2, 5:22 am, "Pmb" <p...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




               "franklinhu" <frankli...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message



               news:fd69a180−ac02−4cb4−affd−99d2a75ff1d4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
               On Aug 1, 5:27 pm, "Pmb" <p...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



                       "franklinhu" <frankli...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message



                       news:af385436−df37−4020−95db−7d9a1c415511@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



                               In my original post, I said space is made up
                               of a 'neutron' like
                               object. If you read my other posts and
                               papers, you would find that I
                               believe...




Re: The real physics behind Bob Lazar's alien gravity propulsion systems                  1
             Re: The real physics behind Bob Lazar's alien gravity propulsion systems

                     I didn't ask you about your beliefs. I asked (1) Is that how
                     you judge
                     whether sub atomic particles exist? (2) In what sense have
                     you "seen"
                     an
                     electron?



                     Nothing in your response answers those questions.



                             I would say that we have 'seen' electrons in
                             how they can trace out a
                             beam in a CRT tube.



                     You didn't see electrons. You saw light given off by the CRT
                     tube and
                     you
                     assumed it was a result of electrons hitting the screen. But
                     you don't
                     know
                     they were electrons. They could have been muons.



                             We have seen them create visible traces in
                             bubble
                             chambers and other accelerator experiments.
                             We see how electrons
                             create a negative charge and
                             macroscopically attract things. So, I
                             think we have adequate evidence for the
                             existence of electrons and
                             positrons, but practically nothing for the
                             existence of quarks.



                     Why do you think quarks have been postulated to exist? How
                     do you
                     explain
                     the sub structure of the proton? The experimental evidence
                     from deep
                     inelastic scattering suggests three lumps of charge. How do
                     you
                     explain
                     that?

Re: The real physics behind Bob Lazar's alien gravity propulsion systems                2
               Re: The real physics behind Bob Lazar's alien gravity propulsion systems
                         Did you read my link to quarks.html? All is answered in that
                         paper.



                 No. It's too long and there is no abstract telling me the purpose of
                 that
                 article. I can't exactly read every article everyone writes and posts
                 here
                 as proof of their personal theory. The arguments your proposed in are
                 inconsistent with what one observers in nature. I'll explain for a few
                 of
                 them


        I have already explained the basics, so no need to read it.


I just read it and confirmed my suspicions, i.e. that it's totally
wrong. You completely ignore most of the physics. For example; you
claim that a neutron is just a positron and an electron and then you
claim its not really a positron and claim "However, I think that there
may be a non−antimatter postitron (lets call it a protron) which is
identical in every way to an electron except for charge."

===========================================
Postitron? Protron?
Let's call it an illiterate fuckwit.

SANITY WARNING (Piggy Mad Brown)

On March 6 2009 Brown−nose Piggy claimed he was mistaken, not
lying, after he had claimed and argued Einstein's postulate and
conclusion were equivalent, after I pointed it out to his fellow piggies.
For this the yankee christian calls other idiots. His present squealing
is no different, his true character has not changed.

Einstein's postulate: "light is always propagated in empty space with
a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of
the emitting body" bears no resemblance whatsoever to Brown's:
"the speed of light is c in every inertial frame."

Brown makes no apology for misrepresenting Einstein, instead he
mumbles ""light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c" which has identical content to "the speed of light is c
in every inertial frame."

Einstein himself says "Nun bewegt sich aber der Lichtstrahl relativ
zum Anfangspunkt von k im ruhenden System gemessen mit der
Geschwindigkeit V − v, so daß gilt: t = x'/(V−v)."


Re: The real physics behind Bob Lazar's alien gravity propulsion systems                  3
               Re: The real physics behind Bob Lazar's alien gravity propulsion systems

Brown will not understand this, he confuses "fair" with "fare"
even in English. The official translation is:

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in the stationary system, with the velocity c−v, so that t = x'/(c−v)."

Brown cannot distinguish a postulate from a conclusion.

Brown is guilty of lying and has lost all credibility by attempting to
defend the liar Green.
He is a cheat with zero integrity to be treated with contempt by all.
Even Harald van lintel slapped him.

"Piggy Brown" <pmb61@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7b6d6b55−b3b3−4f35−95bf−fc1fabba2cea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Don't just claim it. Nobody is interested in what you believe. Prove
it." Piggy Mad Brown

Proof of Brown's low intelligence and ignorant spamming has been given.




.




Re: The real physics behind Bob Lazar's alien gravity propulsion systems                  4