On Jul 5, 6:24 pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com> wrote: > there was an expedition mounted by Einstein's colleague, > friend, what ever, to photograph Mercury during a total eclipse; > that, is a fraud? > > anyway, as you say, yourself, > you are hopelessly ineducable. because, > you refuse to see, for yourself, in their paper, > that eminem did not have a "nil result" -- no matter, > what *Scientific American* (and other Einsteinmaniacs) says. > > anyway, anyone can see, who doesn't dumb himself down > by reading *SA* (or the Wonder Books) on such, that > "atoms & their electrons in free space are all > that is needed for the propogation of lightwaves." > 1tree: In all of the Universe, there isn't, now, nor has there ever been a light WAVE! Light is photon emission, only. And any charged particle can emit those even before the first star fusion began! ? NE ? > > > > Newton's corpuscular "theory" was clearly wrong, > > > wrong, wrong. not his little findings of "universal gravitation," > > > nor F=ma (momentum is not a force, it's ... momentum, as in > > > "we are now going to use 'units of momentum' > > > for all problems using momentum, and not any other kind > > > of unit, without further justification." > > > ice has almost no tensional strength, and most of these inherent and > > > artificial forces must be centrifugal, > > > viz "the hole(s) in the ozonosphere, that break(s)-up with Sunsight. > > > > what was once a refuge for older ice has become a graveyard." > > thus: > I did not attempt to find the respective dates of capturing > of those "before & after" images on the homepage, but > a big part of the difference is clearly a matter > of perspective, especially in the foreground.http://www.glacierworks.org/ > > thus: > it seems as if we are in a different phase of weather, > perhaps for several decades, whether or not "global" warming is a) > an oxymoron, b) > a nonsequiter, or just c) > a simple misnomer, per Ahrrenius' 1896 glass "house" effect. > > > again,"Thicker multiyear ice used to make up around a quarter of the > > Arctic sea ice cover. Now it constitutes only 2 percent." > > thus: > as to why, ice has so little tensional strength, > my guess is, because it has so many phases which, > although not all appreciable at local temperature & pressure, > may transitionally be present, viz "currents > in the seismically-known-to-be-solid mantle."