Re: history of science: cases of mainstream in error

what is this change of curvature,
due to light rippling through it?

    the propagation of changes in curvature
    occurs at the speed of light

thus:
oh, yeah; von Braun was *such*
a highly-qualified geologist. oh, yeah;
700 boxes of archival videography,
might get quite a haul
on the blackmarket-e-bay. and, like,
NASA really needed to hoarde those lunar paperweights,
for absolutely double-plus sure, for ever.

so, Brad, how'd you know,
that the basalt came from Moon -- because
you believe in the ballistic theory
of crater formation?

Don't forget NASA suddenly "lost" all 700 boxes of original Apollo
Hoax videos when people requested them for digital remastering.

Don't forget NASA lost most of the moon rock during the early 80s when
people requested them for independent analysis.

Supposedly, <40% of impact/crater displacements ended up here on
Earth.

Even at 4%, do the math. That's one hell of a lot of moon rock
tonnage (mostly basal) that has got to be already here in Earth to
begin with. I've got my own samples of magnetic moon basalt, as

thus:
what was that that Galileo did, now?

we know from the outline of stringtheory,
that our space is not *just* 3d in a sense, although
it certainly is 3d for spatial coordination (and
for timespace with a "+1"), insofar as
it does work in encompassing Kaluza's reformulation
of Maxwell's formulary. however,
do not assume that a "compact dimension" is any thing
that is actually useful, other than
to sweep it under a 4d rugworks --
unless it's a kleinbottlefold!

No, the more difficult part is what Galileo recogmised, but
apparently
none of the other Physics wanks ever got onto, is showing that
astronomy and motion are not the same thing.

thus:
of course, I'm pissed at myself
for wasting an inordinate amount of my precious bodily fluids
-- that is to say, valuable life-span --
on your so-called new math; truly, and
you may not even be reading this....
what possible value can we get, from arguing
about "real Galois theory," when
it was manifestly situated in the complex plane?...
or was it a quaternionic bicycle!?... yeah;
all o'your **** is pablum, or vise-versa. that is,
inherently nonsequiter/misnomer/oxymoron-ish, because
there is no way that you will ever deign
to actually apply it to "the physics,"
that you insist is primary -- and it is!

thus quoth:
And the trouble with Galois theory is not only,
was it misguided as for a foundation on
some piddly paddly quintic problem, but
that it never addressed the problem
of Schroedinger's Headgasket.

--only 24 hours to impeach Trickier *** from the N.Admin,
metaphorically typing, or Cheeny & Zbiggy, fo'mo' years;
Good Morning, Afghanistan!
.... Good Afternoon, Sudan!
http://tarpley.net/bush12.htm
http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf -- Brits hate Shakes, Why?
http://www.wlym.com/~seattle/dynamis/
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/current.html
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/plates.html
http://mathdl.maa.org/mathDL/46/?pa=content&sa=viewDocument&nodeId=3163
http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf -- English, not!
.

Quantcast