John Cuthber

"do you think that war on terror is finished after laden's death? " No. I don't. I think the whole concept is absurd because, when it's over there's nobody to sign the armistice. "let me remind you that majority of muslims DO NOT LIKE america at all. " Well, for a start, I'm not sure that's true but it's certainly true that many Muslims don't. Why not? Do you think it might be anything to do with the US's foreign policy over the years? "besides by criticizing their prophet america makes most of the muslim, if not all, its worst enemy. " Well, most of America probably doesn't actually criticise the prophet because most of then know damn all about him. But, let's pretend its true. And the corollary of that is that if they stopped pointlessly criticising someone who has been dead for a long time then they would stop pointlessly creating enemies. If they did that then they could possibly save some of the $700Bn they keep wasting. On the other hand, what would they do with all the people who were suddenly out of jobs? "these enemies will attack america in their own way." And the poor souls who died on 9/11 are testament to the total failure of the US military to stop these enemies- so why keep paying for them? Wouldn'yt it be vastly cheaper to just stop pissing them off in the first place? " besides china also do not like american influence over their policy. " China doesn't like anyone's influence much. But the influence from the US is not primarily military is it? It's not like the US has been trying to invade China. So a cut in the army budget wouldn't make any difference would it? "there is a possible warfare ahead in the future with so many enemies of america." Quite possibly, but unless you are living in a dream world where a whole lot of countries (not least, much of NATO) all decide to join forces and attack the US then the budget is clearly disproportionate. I'm not saying the expenditure should be zero. I'm saying the current level is so high that it doesn't make sense as a purely defensive system so there must be another reason.

"My presumption of static stellar fusion within positive cores was faulted for its potentiality of violating the law of conservation of charge. " It was also faulted for, and let me see if I can make this clear to you NOT HAVING ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT Do you understand that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_Kabbalists Check under M

Defence has one legitimate goal and nobody has invaded the US lately. But I wasn't questioning the fact of defence expenditure, but the level. Nobody has invaded China lately either, and they spend much less. On the other hand there is the war on drugs that is essentially lost, the war on terror that isn't working and the war in Afghanistan that looks like a stalemate. What do you gain from military spending apart from job creation? YOu can't use the spin-offs as an argument in favour because space research has lots of them and you don't accept those as a vald reason.

The most notable thing about neutrinos is that they don't do much. NEUTRINOS, they are very small. They have no charge and have no mass And do not interact at all. The earth is just a silly ball To them, through which they simply pass, Like dustmaids down a drafty hall Or photons through a sheet of glass. They snub the most exquisite gas, Ignore the most substantial wall, Cold shoulder steel and sounding brass, Insult the stallion in his stall, And scorning barriers of class, Infiltrate you and me! Like tall and painless guillotines, they fall Down through our heads into the grass. At night, they enter at Nepal and pierce the lover and his lass From underneath the bed-you call It wonderful; I call it crass. From http://www.phys.psu.edu/~cowen/poetry/cosmic-gall.html

Do you mean this sort of thing? http://tropej.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/2/64.abstract

If you think that's bad, look at the military spending. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures you don't need to spend more money on "defence" than the total of all the next dozen or so countries put together. They are not all going to "gang up" on you. So it's clearly not spent on defence. It seems to me that it's comparable with what the USSR did: anyone who didn't have a job was put in the army. Well, obviously there's a bit of difference- they are driven by market forces and a lack of a welfare state rather than conscription and not all of them are directly employed by the military- plenty of them get jobs in the industries that service the military. But, as far as I can tell, the idea is basically the same. If 2.5 Billion is too much to spend on job creation then you really need to make a fuss about the 700 billion that is spent on the military.

There's a lot of them about Charlie Fuqua, Arkansas Legislative Candidate, Endorses Death Penalty For Rebellious Children In Book http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/charlie-fuqua-arkansas-candidate-death-penalty-rebellious-children_n_1948490.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false (Great name BTW) Once again, I find myself wondering where the left wing nut jobs are.

Seen this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

If I laugh at someone for believing in something absurd, it is not persecution, it's a normal reaction of humans to absurdity. It may not be polite or helpful, but it's not persecution It's not systematic and it's not directed against any particular group. (I laugh at other people when they say something silly whether they are Christian or not and whether or not what they are saying is determined by their faith or not). Killing six million Jews is persecution. Forbidding some people getting married because they happened to fall in love with someone of the same sex is persecution (and it's quite subtle as such persecution goes). What "persecution" have Christians (or any other faith) actually suffered at the hands of secularists? When were the secularists actually in charge and so in a position to do any persecuting? If there isn't real evidence of actual persecution of Christians then they must have been misled somehow and I can't help thinking dishonesty played a part in that.

Is that meant as an invitation to count the logical fallacies?

Fox news will say that he came off better than Obama in that debate.

As I explained to you, we know about the fair weather current. As I explained to you, it has that name for a reason. As I pointed out, there's a well known return current. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning So it's not evidence of a net charge loss from the earth. And it wasn't evidence the last time I pointed this out. So please stop going on about it. "The ionosphere (an upper layer of the atmosphere is known to rise at night, evidenced by the longer-range communications thus afforded short wave communications in the night time. This is evidence of the sun being of like charge with the earth." No it is evidence of high energy particles and electromagnetic radiation from the sun (and the rest of the cosmos) ionising the upper reaches of the atmosphere. It is no indicator of any net charge on the sun or the earth (actually, it's a weak indicator that they do not have the same charge- if they were both negatively charged then electrons from the sun would be repelled by the earth and wouldn't reach us so they wouldn't ionise the air.) "What other explanation would there be?" The conventional one. "The ionosphere is a part of the upper atmosphere, from about 85 km to 600 km altitude, comprising portions of the mesosphere, thermosphere and exosphere, distinguished because it is ionized by solar radiation." from wiki with my emphasis. Even if you were right about Noether's theorem (and I think you have completely failed to understand the nature of the exception) it wouldn't help. Proving something might be possible is not the same as proving that it happens in a particular circumstance. So, once again, do you actually have any evidence for your assertions?

If you want to be taken seriously you need to supply evidence for your assertion in the original post. I don't know why you keep going on about atmospheric phenomena. They have nothing to do with the net charge on the Sun or Earth. I have already pointed that out a few times. So stop wasting time with them and give us some evidence of your actual claim. "A case can be made for the earth and our sun to both be holding negative electrical charge charge. " Or you could provide evidence of charge conservation being violated.

I can see very little fringe movement with the better apparatus. I could, at a pince calculate how much you would expect (give a few assumptions) I'm willing to bet that the numbers would tally. (My hunch is, btw, based on having made and used interferometers so I'm not just guessing) I also know that with a ring gyro you don't get that effect. So I don't see anything other than the expected experimental error. You seem to be seeing something that's not really there.

Until you provide evidence, you haven't "outclassed" anyone. Rather the reverse.

That won't do. You said I was ignoring what I see then you say I'm ignoring the evidence. Well, what evidence am I ignoring? It seems like you are seeing evidence I can't. Tell us what it is.

"Conservation of Charge is a tenuous law" Not really http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

It's your job to make it clear.I got as far as the line I quoted and it didn't make sense so I asked. Don't blame me for your lack of clarity. Also, if you want to claim to have a scientific theory you need the maths- pretty much by definition- whether you like it or not.

I do believe my own eyes. I just don't see a theory. I see a bizarre prediction that the MME wouldn't work if you balanced it on its end. I also saw the video that shows directly that this idea is wrong. And I know from the way that ring gyros work that the idea must be wrong. What do you think I have seen that I am missing the point of? As for the predictions: yes I know it makes them . You mentioned one: you say that the MME shouldn't work vertically. But it does. That's enough to falsify the theory once and for all.

How long it took isn't the issue. They looked, and they didn't find it. It isn't there. Re theory, take your pick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Definitions_from_scientific_organizations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Theories_in_physics

OK, fair enough, but Illuusio still doesn't have a theory.

You still don't have a theory. And , while I'm not qualified to make such a diagnosis, I'm inclined to agree with the statement that you are delusional.

OK, Do that. Put your money on it: spend some cash, buy the kit, do the experiment. If you are right then the Nobel prize will pay off the expense.

OK, so the better the equipment used, the less well it gives the result that you predict. And you still think that's good for your "theroy"? It's not an interesting graph. It's a bad attempt to distract attention from the issue . If you have done an experiment please post it so we can actually comment on it.