the belgian flap 1989 - the skeptical analysis (1)

/ask your hero, q.

Q is not my hero, but he's quite a bit smarter than YOU, mister spooky. I think you are significantly more creative though. Creativity coupled with average intellect and the ignorant embrace of the "pop underground" add up to quite an entertaining whirlwind of half-conscious confusion for you there eh?

/does his qualified acceptance of article mean anything to you?

Yes, it does mean something to me. It means the article is probably sensible. That of course, doesn't at all imply how it is pertinent to the issue at hand does it spooky? It's almost as if Q deliberately avoided assessment of the article's pertinence. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. LOL.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

/ Am I moving too fast for you?

/yah. you have attained infinite mass and the universe as we know it is no more.

lol

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

wessie

Yes, it does mean something to me. It means the article is probably sensible. That of course, doesn't at all imply how it is pertinent to the issue at hand does it spooky?[/]

the issue is you wes! and your ignorance. inky directly addresses that. ftl and one of its detractions (energy>mass) is not on its previously assured footing.

It's almost as if Q deliberately avoided assessment of the article's pertinence. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. LOL.

you are too stupid to read shit. what you doing now? making out he is trolling? hero no more?

One way to avoid this is to not speak about relativistic mass and think only in terms of invariant rest mass (

kapeesh moron? check "q...thread" or this one for your argument against ftl

*if this is truly the case, i resume construction on spaceship. and no! you do not get a ride!

average intellect

i never professed more. however this makes you less than average

ignorant embrace of the "pop underground"

prove it boy! you have said shit so far in pseudo apart from...unknown, blah blah,

add up to quite an entertaining whirlwind of half-conscious confusion for you there eh?

i am correcting you wessie, not the other way around. i dare you to make a statement of your position with regards to this. i requested numerous times for you to analyse report. you impotently troll instead. that aint too bad if you had a flair for it. instead you show yourself to be a small minded, spiteful little punk. you will be treated accordingly

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now I know why I dropped out of this thread. The post by inq says nothing of the sort, and only addresses methods of calculation and explaination.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

/the issue is you wes! and your ignorance.

i demonstrate your ignorance clearly and then you pretend I didn't, call me ignorant and accuse me of doing what you did. troll.

/inky directly addresses that.

wrong.

/ftl and one of its detractions (energy>mass) is not on its previously assured footing.

where does it say that in his post?

/ One way to avoid this is to not speak about relativistic mass and think only in terms of invariant rest mass (

that does not at all support your preceding assertion, yet you present it as if it does.

/kapeesh moron?

yes, i'm aware you're a moron.

/check "q...thread" or this one for your argument against ftl

you simply don't understand the issues well enough to form a coherent relevant thought. you're being offered leg-ups by several knowledgeable people (compared to you) and you refuse them and accuse them of ignorance. that makes you a moron and/or is likely demonstrative of poor mental health.

/*if this is the truly the case, i resume construction on spaceship. and no! you do not get a ride!

it would take a significant measure of convincing to get me on a ship built by you.

/i never professed more. however this makes you less than average

to anyone other than you reading this thread, my guess is that you're ass backwards there. i read like a somewhat annoyed, yet reasonable person and you sound like a raving fool for the most part.

/prove it boy!

I have demonstrated it ad nauseum spooky. that's part of my fascination with you - you either can't see it or won't admit it. it's like a damn train wreck that you somehow withstand by pure will of denial. it's really impressive in that manner.

/i am correcting you wessie, not the other way around.

getting a smidge frustrated there spooky ooky poo?

/i dare you to make a statement of your position with regards to this.

i've splained what I wanted to say already. do not blame me for your lack of brains.

/i requested numerous times for you to analyse report.

i have tediously responded to all of your posts.

/you impotently troll instead.

see this is what I mean, you are fucking fascinating. how do you do it?

/that aint too bad if you had a flair for it.

a troll that sees being identifed as a troll as trolling. this is sweet.

/instead you show yourself to be a small minded, spiteful little punk.

i'm merely showing you the same tenacity you show me.

/you will be treated accordingly

indeed.

 

show me

 

=============================================

I will try to address what I saw as confusion. To begin with, Wes,
where did Q even address the issue of FTL in this thread? His challenges dealt with (1) lack of observable propulsion, (2) lack of
a sonic boom, and (3) the seeming immunity to the effects of inertia
on complex organisms. Mass and inertia are related, but have nothing to do with relativistic mass and FTL. The concept of relativistic mass was introduced by you, Wes, and I thought you
may have been confused about mass and inertia and relativistic
mass. The Belgian UFOs were not observed to travel FTL, so relativistic mass has no bearing on their discussion. The UFOs were
recorded to change direction at high speeds, so rest mass (invariant mass) IS a factor, as Q suggested. A little more about FTL and mass. The mass of an object traveling at near light speeds
does not increase IN ITS FRAME OF REFERENCE. If you were on a
vehicle travelling a steady .999c (not accelerating) you would not
feel more massive and neither would the vehicle. If the vehicle was
being pushed by a force in a different frame of reference, such as
a lasar beam directed from a stationary position or photons hitting
a solar sail, then that force would feel the relativistic mass increase. If the vehicle were propelled by an on-board power source, it would not feel an relativistic mass increase. That does not mean the vehicle could go FTL, but relativistic mass increase
is not the limiting factor if the vehicle had an on-board propulsion
system.

 

you lie. you babble on about q and einstein. not once do you touch on the ufo in belgium.

you troll this thread. i will respond in a similar manner

i'm merely showing you the same tenacity you show me.

ok lets play

 

excellent! lets find some exotic energy sources. perhaps we can strap gasbag wes to the ship. i'll rev the fool up by dissing einstein and his hero, q

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

/I will try to address what I saw as confusion. To begin with, Wes, where did Q even address the issue of FTL in this thread?

Hehe, I can keep track of what was said, but not necessarily what thread it was in. Let me look. Maybe it was in the thread that generated this thread. Regardless, my point was, as I specified, limited to Q's assertions regarding FTL in some damn thread that we four participated in related to UFOs and stuff.

/His challenges dealt with (1) lack of observable propulsion, (2) lack of a sonic boom, and (3) the seeming immunity to the effects of inertia on complex organisms.

Yes I can see how that is confusing, pardon. The relativistic mass comment was limited directly to the specified assertion by Q that I referenced "mass can't travel at the speed of light" - as I noted in my post(s) to the spooky one. In retrospect, the larger point was that generally I see Q attempting to be rational, and spooky doing anything possible to avoid it.

/Mass and inertia are related, but have nothing to do with relativistic mass and FTL.

That's not quite right don't you think? I'm guessing you misworded something. Mass is related to relativistic mass in at least as much as the "rest mass" is the basis for the calculation of the relavistic variety. Inertia is somewhat related of course at least as a pertinent quantity of interest regarding energies and such, depending on the purpose of your analysis, etc. I would say though that relavistic mass is only indirectly related to the incident (belgian flap) in question, but I was off on a tangent. Surprising eh? Hehe.

/The concept of relativistic mass was introduced by you, Wes, and I thought you may have been confused about mass and inertia and relativistic mass.

I can appreciate your impression of it, but hope you can see I wasn't trying to relate them. I was talking about the energy problem you address below.

/The Belgian UFOs were not observed to travel FTL, so relativistic mass has no bearing on their discussion. The UFOs were
recorded to change direction at high speeds, so rest mass (invariant mass) IS a factor, as Q suggested.

Yes I understand/understood that clearly. Again, it was a tangent in response to someone's goading.

/A little more about FTL and mass. The mass of an object traveling at near light speeds does not increase IN ITS FRAME OF REFERENCE. If you were on a vehicle travelling a steady .999c (not accelerating) you would not feel more massive and neither would the vehicle.

That is exactly my understanding.

/If the vehicle was being pushed by a force in a different frame of reference, such as a lasar beam directed from a stationary position or photons hitting a solar sail, then that force would feel the relativistic mass increase.

That is my understanding as well.

/If the vehicle were propelled by an on-board power source, it would not feel an relativistic mass increase.

Here is where I doubt you. Was this discussed in your article? My source of doubt isn't that the ship doesn't "feel" the increase, but that the ship is intrisincly linked to the space-time in which it is trying to accelerate. I would think you cannot isolate your reference frame regarding acceleration when you're trying to accelerate, because to do so you have to apply a force to something. This "something" cannot be within your reference frame as if it were, you would create a new frame of reference by accelerating with respect to the thing that is in your frame of reference. Do you know what I mean? What do you think about that?

/That does not mean the vehicle could go FTL, but relativistic mass increase is not the limiting factor if the vehicle had an on-board propulsion system.

I think that's incorrect due to what I just explained above, but maybe you can convince me otherwise.

 

excellent! lets find some exotic energy sources. perhaps we can strap gasbag wes to the ship. i'll rev the fool up by dissing einstein and his hero, q

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

/you lie.

I have yet to utter my first lie on this board. I basically NEVER lie spookz. Your failure to wrap your mind around that is indicative of the paranoia I've so frequently accused you of. Show explicit, undeniable evidence for your claim or eat it ho.

/not once do you touch on the ufo in belgium.

I believe I mentioned my perspective on this issue to you in another thread.

/you troll this thread.

no spooky, I troll YOU.

/i will respond in a similar manner

As if you have a choice, you pathetic troll.

Have you noticed, bright boy, that YOU are the only thing I troll? It's become a hobby of mine. It's easy to show how just about everything you say is complete shit. You have no recourse but complete denial and reciprocity, regardless of what is said to illustrate your myriad of shortcomings. It only strenthens my case. I find this amusing. I may end up bored with it, but you won't let it stop I know already, so it looks like it's gonna be a long road spooky, and apparently we're stuck on the same bus. I suppose we'll just have to troll each other eh? I mean, I wouldn't want to let you down.

 

I believe I mentioned my perspective on this issue to you in another thread.

clearly insane. i will not indulge your ridiculous posting habits. beside you do not say anything except agree with your heroes. you ride on their coattails, little man. lets hear your opinion! on second thoughts, spare me the garbage

i have tediously responded to all of your posts.

liar!

in this thread

your response in "q..." thread

why be surprised when i diss your pathetic ass? you disrespect vrob and inky when they ask for an opinion. you disrespect the thread. you ramble inanities

It only strenthens my case. I find this amusing. I may end up bored with it, but you won't let it stop I know already,

excellent. rationalising as the head did. enjoy hell

 

Re: I believe I mentioned my perspective on this issue to you in another thread. (wes)

/i will not indulge your ridiculous posting habits.

LIAR. You are doing it right now.

/beside you do not say anything except agree with your heroes.

Lying tripe.

/you ride on their coattails, little man.

more lying tripe.

/lets hear your opinion!

I've told you before, moron, that I don't know what happened there. YOU DON'T EITHER. I reserve judgement due to lack of evidence - as I've mentioned to you before while offereing a number of possibilities. I don't prefer one of those hypothesis over the other, as I simply lack the data to come to a reasonable conclusion.

/on second thoughts, spare me the garbage

if you would only do me the same favor, this wouldn't be happening right now.

/i have tediously responded to all of your posts.

sorry, 'to almost every sentence you uttered' would have been more clear. it doesn't really matter what I say though does it spooky? you don't pay much attention.

/liar!

no, slightly mis-spoken. a liar would intend to decieve you. i do not. i intend to shove your bullshit back in your little troll face, child.

/why be surprised when i diss your pathetic ass?

have you counted the number of times I've said it's not surprising?

/you disrespect vrob and inky when they ask for an opinion.

I think I've shown either a reasonable amount of respect. have you asked them spooky or is this your ass talking?

/you disrespect the thread.

i disrespect you, troll.

/you ramble inanities.

i speak to you in your language. note that others aren't nearly so confused as to my meaning and if they become so, they ask for clarification as they understand that it's easy to communicate something you didn't mean to with a misplaced word, blah blah, that leaves a false perception of whatever in someone's head, yet it's my comprehension you put to question. it's a tired sorry game you play and as far as I can tell, you are somehow bound to it.

/enjoy hell

i appreciate the guided tour, but you only see hell because you project it there, you sad sad child.

 

Re: Re: I believe I mentioned my perspective on this issue to you in another thread. (wes)

LIAR. You are doing it right now.

wrong. a response to a thread will be made in the same thread. i will not run around the frikkin forum looking for your responses. you are clearly retarted to think otherwise. this is what i mean by "indulge"

Lying tripe.

"what persol said" (lying wes)

more lying tripe.

could be that Q is right/that Q's assertions/but he's quite a bit smarter than YOU/ Further Persols points about faith. (lying wes)

brown nosing little fag

I've told you before, moron, that I don't know what happened there.

liar! quote your post. provide link

YOU DON'T EITHER. I reserve judgement due to lack of evidence - as I've mentioned to you before while offereing a number of possibilities. I don't prefer one of those hypothesis over the other, as I simply lack the data to come to a reasonable conclusion.

more stupid vagueness. you have no idea to what hypos you refer to.

if you would only do me the same favor, this wouldn't be happening right now.

again, i appear to be defensive? you are a knight slaying trolls? you aint doing shit peasant! drop the fantasies and focus

no, slightly mis-spoken. a liar would intend to decieve you. i do not. i intend to shove your bullshit back in your little troll face, child.

you go boy!

I think I've shown either a reasonable amount of respect. have you asked them spooky or is this your ass talking?

really? reasonable? lemme frikking repost......

you address inky. he drags out a link as an attempt to clear a misconception. what do you do? you negatively characterize as ."confusion." you belittle his attempt.

again by ridiculing the incident, you ridicule the questioners. the zero effort disrespects. you are a lousy, no good, filthy punk! (however, look at what you show no reticence at......trading insults! way to go mister wes "holier than thou" morris)

i speak to you in your language.

picked up from thorne eh? unoriginal little fool

note that others aren't nearly so confused as to my meaning and if they become so,......

you have addressed no one other than me. provide your evidence or come across as a barefaced liar. show me your alleged dialogue

understand that it's easy to communicate something you didn't mean to with a misplaced word, blah blah, that leaves a false perception of whatever in someone's head, yet it's my comprehension you put to question.

heheh. get a proof reader, moron

i appreciate the guided tour, but you only see hell because you project it there, you sad sad child.

pity! another tired old hack. you lack originality, peasant!

 

lots of venom from the fool... do you offer more than spite mr. spooky?

 

i admit venom. you deserve nothing more. what do you have to offer punk? oh i forgot...you offer up your idols. you offer disrespect. you offer lies. you offer denials

 

I see. I'm sorry you're confused spookz. I hope you are less so later. Bye.

 

now you hypocritical piece of shit. you do not allow him the luxury of clarification before writing it off as "confusion." you then threaten him with the charge.... "eronious" if he does not respond to your request.

tell me, you lying hypocritical retard. was that necessary? why inky? do you see him playing our games? yet you feel the need to drag him into the gutter?

you advise on allowing others the benefit of the doubt but here you slam before a response is made.

you troll indiscriminately wes. you lack judgement and a sense of fairness.

 

equating earnest questions with paranoid accusations eh? creative indeed.

 

apologize, punk!