Re: How many main religious Festivities are there?

From: hanson (hanson_at_quick.net)
Date: 12/18/04 

Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 19:21:40 GMT

"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:32itbbF3l5evaU1@individual.net...
> "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> wrote in message
> news:oHOwd.2380$RH4.1905@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > news:41C39DBC.94ACD66E@hate.spam.net...
> > > hanson wrote:
> > After looking at Al's "religion vs. ***" website I checked your
> > ref to Eotvoes. http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
> > Under the "Introduction" in the equations for mass = sqrt(p_x...
> > I'd recommend for your to put in ".. wherein 'p' stands for...."
> >
> > Not to rain on your parade, Al, and on the inordinate time you
> > have put into your endeavor in the hope that it may or may not
> > shake the foundations of physics, I fear that even with a clear
> > earthshaking outcome, all the theories will be preserved simply
> > by redefining the concept/nature of mass. BUT, such a need for
> > redefining mass would probably be THE profound & important
> > payoff. Practical and technological consequences of a change at such
> > a fundamental level would be indeed and truly revolutionary.
>
[Tom]
> I see that hanson has not read my physics tutorial.
> However I am pleased that he finds my definition of mass:
> "THE profound & important payoff.
> Practical and technological consequences of a change at such
> a fundamental level would be indeed and truly revolutionary."
>
[hanson]
Tom, you are such an embarrassment lately.
Al, the twit, is doing an EXPERIMENT that has some originality and
novelty to it. BUT, you do not and your *** has not. Your selfanointed
tutorial has only one claim to fame: Your "'flubber"... ahahaha...
And even that one you stole/plagiarized from some old Hollywood flick.
>
[Tom]
> As I demonstrate in my tutorial, mass is expressed most
> fundamentally as a time.
> time(mass) = mass * G / C^3
> And that time in turn, is expressed most fundamentally as:
> time(X) = cycles(standard cross-correlated events) / cycles(X)
> As can be seen, ALL physical properties are most fundamentally
> defined in terms of cycle counts of some source of events,
> said source being the most convenient repetitive source events,
> with a useable auto-correlation.
>
[hanson]
"As can be seen" again, you are such an embarrassment, Tom.
You are singing OLD redundant hat again. And not even well.
Everything in physics (and in nature) can be expressed by
everything else, even quantitatively. All physicals constants
can be expressed by other ones. If that were not the case
then the entire house of physics would collapse.
Just look how David Smith and Grandpa Wormley is beating
your scrawny old ass, over your tutorial! Have you no shame?
And then the errors you have in your tutorial. Some of them
I fixed for you last year. You even thanked me for it. But now
you tell me that I haven't read your crud? Memory loss, bad
scene, Tom. Tom say to yourself:
"Tom's candle went out long ago, and Tom's legend never lived"
ahahaha......ahahahanson
>

Quantcast