| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jan Panteltje" |
| Date: |
31 Aug 2005 03:53:21 AM |
| Object: |
Gravity as a cause of charge? Unifying |
Many times I asked myself how to explain 'charge', why 2 electrons
repel, and 2 protons repel each other, and why an electron and
proton attract.
Here we go again; Take x:
As long time posters here know, I have always been a Le Sage 'believer', as that
is the only thing that reasonably explains some gravity effects without
having incest with math.
Let us do some postulates, in a moment.
the problem with the above charge thingy is that it cannot be resolved without
assuming something ELSE.
So:
1) Let le Sage particles be made up of a more complex 'something'
2) Let the internal structure of any negative charged particle be
such that it modifies Le Sage particles so out comes modified 'negatives'
3) Let the internal structure of any positive charged particle be so that
out comes 'positives'.
4) 'negatives' and 'positives' want to recombine and then create Le Sage
particles again.
5) 'negatives' streams hit 'negatives' streams and thus repel.
'positives' streams hit 'positives' streams and thus repel.
Now that is all.
When the atoms is hit from all sides by these very very much smaller Le Sage
particles, then the electrons form 'negatives' and the protons 'positives'.
These are still flying in all directions, as Le Sage particles do.
When an electron nears a proton, those 'negatives' and 'positives' start
recombining to Le Sage particles, and a flow occurs that carries the
electron and proton towards each other.
Some predictions:
Less Le Sage particles, less charge;
It predicts within a lead sphere an electron beam is less deflected by an
electrostatic voltage (deflection plate).
It predicts within a lead sphere electrons move slower, and colors shift
towards red.
It predicts that where no Le Sage particles have ventured there exists no
charge, no atoms can exist.
Copyright (c) Jan Panteltje 2005 All rights reserved.
.
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity as a cause of charge? Unifying |
31 Aug 2005 04:59:50 AM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125478404.15c762ba2227d77a9b428595234671b6@teranews...
| Many times I asked myself how to explain 'charge', why 2 electrons
| repel, and 2 protons repel each other, and why an electron and
| proton attract.
|
| Here we go again; Take x:
|
| As long time posters here know, I have always been a Le Sage
'believer', as that
| is the only thing that reasonably explains some gravity effects
without
| having incest with math.
|
| Let us do some postulates, in a moment.
| the problem with the above charge thingy is that it cannot be resolved
without
| assuming something ELSE.
|
| So:
| 1) Let le Sage particles be made up of a more complex 'something'
| 2) Let the internal structure of any negative charged particle be
| such that it modifies Le Sage particles so out comes modified
'negatives'
| 3) Let the internal structure of any positive charged particle be so
that
| out comes 'positives'.
| 4) 'negatives' and 'positives' want to recombine and then create Le
Sage
| particles again.
| 5) 'negatives' streams hit 'negatives' streams and thus repel.
| 'positives' streams hit 'positives' streams and thus repel.
|
| Now that is all.
| When the atoms is hit from all sides by these very very much smaller
Le Sage
| particles, then the electrons form 'negatives' and the protons
'positives'.
| These are still flying in all directions, as Le Sage particles do.
|
| When an electron nears a proton, those 'negatives' and 'positives'
start
| recombining to Le Sage particles, and a flow occurs that carries the
| electron and proton towards each other.
|
| Some predictions:
|
| Less Le Sage particles, less charge;
| It predicts within a lead sphere an electron beam is less deflected by
an
| electrostatic voltage (deflection plate).
|
| It predicts within a lead sphere electrons move slower, and colors
shift
| towards red.
|
| It predicts that where no Le Sage particles have ventured there exists
no
| charge, no atoms can exist.
|
|
| Copyright (c) Jan Panteltje 2005 All rights reserved.
|
Your copyright is worthless, Jan. It protects you in law from someone
else using your words verbatim, and that's all. Ideas cannot be
protected once you disclose them. Ford can obtain a patent on a
hubcap design, but they didn't invent the wheel.
Having said that, let's go back to your inspired observation, "the
problem with the above charge thingy is that it cannot be resolved
without assuming something ELSE."
I agree.
However, it is too soon to step forward to a conclusion of any kind
from that. Let's go back to what is observable and obtain the axioms
first, then construct a theorem.
Observations are
O1) the magnet on my fridge door with no E-field,
O2) a battery with no B-field,
O3) a direct current generator and
O4) an electromagnet.
Conclusions are
C1) A constant magnetic field produces no electric field.
C2) A constant electric field produces no magnetic field.
C3) A changing magnetic field produces a constant electric field.
C4) A changing electric field produces a constant magnetic field.
Now what do we mean by "changing"?
Is it movement, or is it growing in strength?
The conductor approaching the magnet (or the magnet approaching the
conductor) in a generator sees an increase in strength of the magentic
field, the conductor in the transformer sees an increase in strength
of the magnetic field without the movement.
Changing means an increase (or decrease) in field strength.
We cause the change with the movement.
We can also apply this concept with gravity.
I'm sticking to my chair like the magnet sticks to the fridge door.
I have no relative movement.
I'm also falling into the sun, but because I have movement at
a right angle to the direction I'm falling, I do not fall. I still move
in that direction, though, and three months from now my x-motion
will fall to zero, my y-motion will have the same magnitude as
my present x-motion.
I am in a locally changing G-field, the direction in 3 months
will be along the y-axis instead of the x-axis.
Your thoughts?
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity as a cause of charge? Unifying |
31 Aug 2005 09:27:34 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:59:50 GMT) it happened "Androcles"
<Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
<qcfRe.38735$5m3.14490@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125478404.15c762ba2227d77a9b428595234671b6@teranews...
| Many times I asked myself how to explain 'charge', why 2 electrons
| repel, and 2 protons repel each other, and why an electron and
| proton attract.
|
| Here we go again; Take x:
|
| As long time posters here know, I have always been a Le Sage
'believer', as that
| is the only thing that reasonably explains some gravity effects
without
| having incest with math.
|
| Let us do some postulates, in a moment.
| the problem with the above charge thingy is that it cannot be resolved
without
| assuming something ELSE.
|
| So:
| 1) Let le Sage particles be made up of a more complex 'something'
| 2) Let the internal structure of any negative charged particle be
| such that it modifies Le Sage particles so out comes modified
'negatives'
| 3) Let the internal structure of any positive charged particle be so
that
| out comes 'positives'.
| 4) 'negatives' and 'positives' want to recombine and then create Le
Sage
| particles again.
| 5) 'negatives' streams hit 'negatives' streams and thus repel.
| 'positives' streams hit 'positives' streams and thus repel.
|
| Now that is all.
| When the atoms is hit from all sides by these very very much smaller
Le Sage
| particles, then the electrons form 'negatives' and the protons
'positives'.
| These are still flying in all directions, as Le Sage particles do.
|
| When an electron nears a proton, those 'negatives' and 'positives'
start
| recombining to Le Sage particles, and a flow occurs that carries the
| electron and proton towards each other.
|
| Some predictions:
|
| Less Le Sage particles, less charge;
| It predicts within a lead sphere an electron beam is less deflected by
an
| electrostatic voltage (deflection plate).
|
| It predicts within a lead sphere electrons move slower, and colors
shift
| towards red.
|
| It predicts that where no Le Sage particles have ventured there exists
no
| charge, no atoms can exist.
|
|
| Copyright (c) Jan Panteltje 2005 All rights reserved.
|
Your copyright is worthless, Jan. It protects you in law from someone
else using your words verbatim, and that's all. Ideas cannot be
protected once you disclose them. Ford can obtain a patent on a
hubcap design, but they didn't invent the wheel.
Having said that, let's go back to your inspired observation, "the
problem with the above charge thingy is that it cannot be resolved
without assuming something ELSE."
I agree.
However, it is too soon to step forward to a conclusion of any kind
from that. Let's go back to what is observable and obtain the axioms
first, then construct a theorem.
Observations are
O1) the magnet on my fridge door with no E-field,
O2) a battery with no B-field,
O3) a direct current generator and
O4) an electromagnet.
Conclusions are
C1) A constant magnetic field produces no electric field.
C2) A constant electric field produces no magnetic field.
C3) A changing magnetic field produces a constant electric field.
C4) A changing electric field produces a constant magnetic field.
Now what do we mean by "changing"?
Is it movement, or is it growing in strength?
The conductor approaching the magnet (or the magnet approaching the
conductor) in a generator sees an increase in strength of the magentic
field, the conductor in the transformer sees an increase in strength
of the magnetic field without the movement.
Changing means an increase (or decrease) in field strength.
We cause the change with the movement.
We can also apply this concept with gravity.
I'm sticking to my chair like the magnet sticks to the fridge door.
I have no relative movement.
I'm also falling into the sun, but because I have movement at
a right angle to the direction I'm falling, I do not fall. I still move
in that direction, though, and three months from now my x-motion
will fall to zero, my y-motion will have the same magnitude as
my present x-motion.
I am in a locally changing G-field, the direction in 3 months
will be along the y-axis instead of the x-axis.
Your thoughts?
Well, eh, it is really good weather now here, and I was away on the bike,
think some real kilometers, and not once did I even think about physics.
So my thought....... it is true what you say here.
It does no invalidate what I wrote I think.
Things are always more complex of cause.
Things like magnet always fascinated me, even as a little kid.
In electronics (CRT) you can play nicely with electrons and magnets.
Those LCD kids that grow up these days will never know how it is to
have your own electron accelerator.......
We need a breakthrough, I think we are getting closer.
But look how long it took humanity to invent the ballpen.....
So today, 10 weeks, 10 years, 10 centuries, a million years... maybe the
species that will 'walk'? the earth after us (like Uncle Al's picture he
published), but one thing is certain, we have to think smaller, not those
100 km long accelerators.
Little things, little forces, the rest is a con to get funds.
The math is beyond sucking (string theory).
The real stuff will come from the small lab - the backroom inventor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity as a cause of charge? Unifying |
31 Aug 2005 09:54:48 AM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125498467.462c256f15919d0861836166b4b8fcbe@teranews...
| On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:59:50 GMT) it happened "Androcles"
| <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
| <qcfRe.38735$5m3.14490@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
|
| >
| >"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| >news:1125478404.15c762ba2227d77a9b428595234671b6@teranews...
| >| Many times I asked myself how to explain 'charge', why 2 electrons
| >| repel, and 2 protons repel each other, and why an electron and
| >| proton attract.
| >|
| >| Here we go again; Take x:
| >|
| >| As long time posters here know, I have always been a Le Sage
| >'believer', as that
| >| is the only thing that reasonably explains some gravity effects
| >without
| >| having incest with math.
| >|
| >| Let us do some postulates, in a moment.
| >| the problem with the above charge thingy is that it cannot be
resolved
| >without
| >| assuming something ELSE.
| >|
| >| So:
| >| 1) Let le Sage particles be made up of a more complex 'something'
| >| 2) Let the internal structure of any negative charged particle be
| >| such that it modifies Le Sage particles so out comes modified
| >'negatives'
| >| 3) Let the internal structure of any positive charged particle be
so
| >that
| >| out comes 'positives'.
| >| 4) 'negatives' and 'positives' want to recombine and then create Le
| >Sage
| >| particles again.
| >| 5) 'negatives' streams hit 'negatives' streams and thus repel.
| >| 'positives' streams hit 'positives' streams and thus repel.
| >|
| >| Now that is all.
| >| When the atoms is hit from all sides by these very very much
smaller
| >Le Sage
| >| particles, then the electrons form 'negatives' and the protons
| >'positives'.
| >| These are still flying in all directions, as Le Sage particles do.
| >|
| >| When an electron nears a proton, those 'negatives' and 'positives'
| >start
| >| recombining to Le Sage particles, and a flow occurs that carries
the
| >| electron and proton towards each other.
| >|
| >| Some predictions:
| >|
| >| Less Le Sage particles, less charge;
| >| It predicts within a lead sphere an electron beam is less deflected
by
| >an
| >| electrostatic voltage (deflection plate).
| >|
| >| It predicts within a lead sphere electrons move slower, and colors
| >shift
| >| towards red.
| >|
| >| It predicts that where no Le Sage particles have ventured there
exists
| >no
| >| charge, no atoms can exist.
| >|
| >|
| >| Copyright (c) Jan Panteltje 2005 All rights reserved.
| >|
| >Your copyright is worthless, Jan. It protects you in law from someone
| >else using your words verbatim, and that's all. Ideas cannot be
| >protected once you disclose them. Ford can obtain a patent on a
| >hubcap design, but they didn't invent the wheel.
| >
| >Having said that, let's go back to your inspired observation, "the
| >problem with the above charge thingy is that it cannot be resolved
| >without assuming something ELSE."
| >I agree.
| >However, it is too soon to step forward to a conclusion of any kind
| >from that. Let's go back to what is observable and obtain the axioms
| >first, then construct a theorem.
| >
| >Observations are
| >O1) the magnet on my fridge door with no E-field,
| >O2) a battery with no B-field,
| >O3) a direct current generator and
| >O4) an electromagnet.
| >
| >Conclusions are
| >C1) A constant magnetic field produces no electric field.
| >C2) A constant electric field produces no magnetic field.
| >C3) A changing magnetic field produces a constant electric field.
| >C4) A changing electric field produces a constant magnetic field.
| >
| >Now what do we mean by "changing"?
| >Is it movement, or is it growing in strength?
| >The conductor approaching the magnet (or the magnet approaching the
| >conductor) in a generator sees an increase in strength of the
magentic
| >field, the conductor in the transformer sees an increase in strength
| >of the magnetic field without the movement.
| >Changing means an increase (or decrease) in field strength.
| >We cause the change with the movement.
| >
| >We can also apply this concept with gravity.
| >I'm sticking to my chair like the magnet sticks to the fridge door.
| >I have no relative movement.
| >I'm also falling into the sun, but because I have movement at
| >a right angle to the direction I'm falling, I do not fall. I still
move
| >in that direction, though, and three months from now my x-motion
| >will fall to zero, my y-motion will have the same magnitude as
| >my present x-motion.
| >I am in a locally changing G-field, the direction in 3 months
| >will be along the y-axis instead of the x-axis.
| >
| >Your thoughts?
| Well, eh, it is really good weather now here, and I was away on the
bike,
| think some real kilometers, and not once did I even think about
physics.
|
| So my thought....... it is true what you say here.
| It does no invalidate what I wrote I think.
| Things are always more complex of cause.
|
| Things like magnet always fascinated me, even as a little kid.
| In electronics (CRT) you can play nicely with electrons and magnets.
| Those LCD kids that grow up these days will never know how it is to
| have your own electron accelerator.......
|
| We need a breakthrough, I think we are getting closer.
| But look how long it took humanity to invent the ballpen.....
| So today, 10 weeks, 10 years, 10 centuries, a million years... maybe
the
| species that will 'walk'? the earth after us (like Uncle Al's picture
he
| published), but one thing is certain, we have to think smaller, not
those
| 100 km long accelerators.
| Little things, little forces, the rest is a con to get funds.
| The math is beyond sucking (string theory).
| The real stuff will come from the small lab - the backroom inventor.
It will come from the intelligent mind, Jan, without the fancy math.
If Newton were alive today I'd have serious chat with him, he didn't
know much about sparks, living as he did in wool clothing and the humid
atmosphere of Britain. His exposure to electricity was never more than
the occasional lightning strike, not something he'd want to experiment
with.
As it is I'm stuck with you, the rest of these bozos are not worth
bothering with, so more thoughts please :)
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "hanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity as a cause of charge? Unifying |
31 Aug 2005 12:42:31 PM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:YwjRe.64892$Il.1261@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125498467.462c256f15919d0861836166b4b8fcbe@teranews...
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
<qcfRe.38735$5m3.14490@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125478404.15c762ba2227d77a9b428595234671b6@teranews...
| >Your thoughts?
[hanson]
Yeah, AFA the subject goes: "Gravity as a cause of charge? Unifying"
There are 2 classical equations:
e^2 = hbar * a *c .................. and Planck's mass
m_pl^2 = hbar * c / G ......... Hence,
e^2 = G * m_pl / a, .............. suggesting and/or hinting that
charge and gravitation are, if not mutual causes, then
perhaps at least interplays of equal strength (by a factor
of [a] in the Planck domain... and that already at the considerable
macroscopic chunk of mass, in the fractional milligram range,
which the Planck mass does represent. Unfortunately, the caveat
is that this must presumably take place within a radius of Planck's
length, some 10^-33 cm, lasting only for a period over Planck's
time, some 10^44 sec. .... So, what gives, guys?....... ahahahaha....
ahahaha... ahahanson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity as a cause of charge? Unifying |
31 Aug 2005 02:06:45 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:54:48 GMT) it happened "Androcles"
<Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
<YwjRe.64892$Il.1261@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
so more thoughts please :)
All children must be touch meditation.
They will have to learn the difference between being with it and without.
Teachers should only be allowed to teach if with it.
Understanding of the true self should at ALL times come before any other
understanding.
Attainable?
Utopia?
You asked for it.
A different school system, kids should be allowed to venture into any
specific subject they like.
Aquire points online.
Computers and Internet learning may make this possible.
You know, I watched some of that storm on CNN, and the mare of New Orleans
(or some place near it) on TV said: We should pray.
A little later the GWBush said it too.
I flipped channels, it seems the prayers to Allah were stronger......
From his perspective anyways... would he not have thought of that?
Pray to WHAT? Billy Graham?
It is only the beginning.
Did he ever read the bible? (Bush), did he understand what happened
to the unjust kings? To their countries?
And how the prophets knew, and the forces at work.
He will never wake up from illusion really, likely never.
Hey Al, 15000 people with overflowing toilets in the US with bodies floating
in front of their doors CHECK.
Where are you? The joke is on you Al.
It is the shear arrogance not to want to learn the secrets of the heart.
And a trip to India could have helped.
Empty handed you came and empty handed you will leave.
Your efficiency in % is (days_in_bliss / days_lived) * 100
....thoughts.....
Everything else is irrelevant, you were created that way from the beginning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity as a cause of charge? Unifying |
31 Aug 2005 02:48:21 PM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125515332.813e35223f40a50340fbf247019644e9@teranews...
| On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:54:48 GMT) it happened "Androcles"
| <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
| <YwjRe.64892$Il.1261@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
|
| >so more thoughts please :)
|
| All children must be touch meditation.
| They will have to learn the difference between being with it and
without.
| Teachers should only be allowed to teach if with it.
|
| Understanding of the true self should at ALL times come before any
other
| understanding.
|
| Attainable?
| Utopia?
|
| You asked for it.
|
| A different school system, kids should be allowed to venture into any
| specific subject they like.
| Aquire points online.
| Computers and Internet learning may make this possible.
|
| You know, I watched some of that storm on CNN, and the mare of New
Orleans
| (or some place near it) on TV said: We should pray.
| A little later the GWBush said it too.
| I flipped channels, it seems the prayers to Allah were stronger......
| From his perspective anyways... would he not have thought of that?
| Pray to WHAT? Billy Graham?
| It is only the beginning.
| Did he ever read the bible? (Bush), did he understand what happened
| to the unjust kings? To their countries?
| And how the prophets knew, and the forces at work.
| He will never wake up from illusion really, likely never.
|
| Hey Al, 15000 people with overflowing toilets in the US with bodies
floating
| in front of their doors CHECK.
| Where are you? The joke is on you Al.
| It is the shear arrogance not to want to learn the secrets of the
heart.
| And a trip to India could have helped.
| Empty handed you came and empty handed you will leave.
| Your efficiency in % is (days_in_bliss / days_lived) * 100
|
| ...thoughts.....
|
| Everything else is irrelevant, you were created that way from the
beginning.
I dunno... seems that the old guy is even-handed. That was one whopper
of a tsunami to cackle over if you go in for that crap.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?p=news&g=events/asiatsunami/122604indonesiaquake&e=1&tmpl=sl&nosum=0&large=0&t=1125416669
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity as a cause of charge? Unifying |
31 Aug 2005 03:11:47 PM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:48:21 GMT) it happened "Androcles"
<Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
<9QnRe.65453$Il.14505@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
I dunno... seems that the old guy is even-handed. That was one whopper
of a tsunami to cackle over if you go in for that crap.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?p=news&g=events/asiatsunami/122604indonesiaquake&e=1&tmpl=sl&nosum=0&large=0&t=1125416669
And he (Al) thinks he is safe on the west coast....
Actually, as sea levels were to rise, UK will become swamp land or lake too.
How about building an ark like Noah had.
Eh, I mean you build it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity as a cause of charge? Unifying |
31 Aug 2005 05:25:01 PM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125519197.b70b727e1ccbb1fc36f23d3f31f2ef9b@teranews...
| On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:48:21 GMT) it happened "Androcles"
| <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
| <9QnRe.65453$Il.14505@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
| I dunno... seems that the old guy is even-handed. That was one whopper
| >of a tsunami to cackle over if you go in for that crap.
|
http://news.yahoo.com/news?p=news&g=events/asiatsunami/122604indonesiaquake&e=1&tmpl=sl&nosum=0&large=0&t=1125416669
|
| And he (Al) thinks he is safe on the west coast....
| Actually, as sea levels were to rise, UK will become swamp land or
lake too.
| How about building an ark like Noah had.
| Eh, I mean you build it.
Examination of moraine reveals the limit of a glacier at Moraine State
Park, Pennsylvania, off I 79 north from Pittsburgh. The fishing is good
too.
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/parks/
When the 2-mile-thick Northern ice cap melted 11,500 years ago, sea
levels rose 300-500 feet and is still there, but I doubt the guy that
built a farm on a boat knew the cause. Melt the Southern ice cap and
Florida will disappear in its entirety. Head for the hills.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jan Panteltje" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity as a cause of charge? Unifying |
01 Sep 2005 05:33:28 AM |
|
|
On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:25:01 GMT) it happened "Androcles"
<Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
<17qRe.65515$Il.44325@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
| How about building an ark like Noah had.
| Eh, I mean you build it.
Examination of moraine reveals the limit of a glacier at Moraine State
Park, Pennsylvania, off I 79 north from Pittsburgh. The fishing is good
too.
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/parks/
When the 2-mile-thick Northern ice cap melted 11,500 years ago, sea
levels rose 300-500 feet and is still there, but I doubt the guy that
built a farm on a boat knew the cause. Melt the Southern ice cap and
Florida will disappear in its entirety. Head for the hills.
Androcles.
Yep, and the wobble of the earth suggest we have an ICE age coming up.
US will nuke Iran and Iraq, wait till radiation is gone, and massively
move there.
Well, Bush should, Mexico will not accept refugees, and that comet in 2028
or thereabout may land there.
But things may be more complicated then that.
It gets very cold without oil and an ice time on your hands.
But whatever way you look at it, that 'save the climate' club is only
pushing enviro winer business.
As for the water, of cause cities like Amsterdam are way below too.
Large parts of the Netherlands in fact.
So, water, ice, ... hehe, maybe you should (if you are into that) re-incarnate
as a penguin, well I use Linux.
Simple.
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity as a cause of charge? Unifying |
01 Sep 2005 06:50:51 AM |
|
|
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125570814.28dd53283545bf722ab10bb67f2324e9@teranews...
| On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Aug 2005 22:25:01 GMT) it happened "Androcles"
| <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in
| <17qRe.65515$Il.44325@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
|
| >| How about building an ark like Noah had.
| >| Eh, I mean you build it.
| >
| >Examination of moraine reveals the limit of a glacier at Moraine
State
| >Park, Pennsylvania, off I 79 north from Pittsburgh. The fishing is
good
| >too.
| >http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/stateparks/parks/
| >
| >When the 2-mile-thick Northern ice cap melted 11,500 years ago, sea
| >levels rose 300-500 feet and is still there, but I doubt the guy
that
| >built a farm on a boat knew the cause. Melt the Southern ice cap and
| >Florida will disappear in its entirety. Head for the hills.
| >Androcles.
| Yep, and the wobble of the earth suggest we have an ICE age coming up.
Precession is about 25,000 years, global warming from greenhouse gases
will occur first.
| US will nuke Iran and Iraq, wait till radiation is gone, and massively
| move there.
| Well, Bush should, Mexico will not accept refugees, and that comet in
2028
| or thereabout may land there.
Nah...the fertile crescent is not as productive as the Great Plains,
wheat will move north as the warming continues. Bush's descendants will
want Canada. So will the Chinese, and then there is Siberia...Dunno
about rice though, it needs a lot a water. Food is more imporant than
oil, you can't drive if you are starving. It does no good speculating
about a comet, that has global impact.
| But things may be more complicated then that.
| It gets very cold without oil and an ice time on your hands.
Not in your lifetime.
| But whatever way you look at it, that 'save the climate' club is only
| pushing enviro winer business.
| As for the water, of cause cities like Amsterdam are way below too.
| Large parts of the Netherlands in fact.
Yep. London, New York, San Francisco, Hong Kong, Mombai, Sydney, all
coastal cities everywhere go under. Sea level around Britain is known to
have risen since Roman times, we have the data.
There are coastal Roman settlements that are now under water.
Venice knows it too.
Androcles.
| So, water, ice, ... hehe, maybe you should (if you are into that)
re-incarnate
| as a penguin, well I use Linux.
|
| Simple.
| LOL
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Gravity as a cause of charge? Unifying |
01 Sep 2005 08:04:24 PM |
|
|
shear -> sheer
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
