|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: MpilotMpilot
Date: Dec 29, 2006 23:59
> Nobody claims that there are errors in the published papers you
> refer to, so nobody's obliged to point out errors in them.
Since the FreeMove Quantum Exchange Proof-of-Concept function which is
discussed here is based on these publised papers and open-source
software library to which I am referring and you are not willing / able
to show errors in these published papers and open-source software
library, we are finished with this discussion.
Kristian Gjøsteen wrote:
> Mpilot gmail.com> wrote:>>Kristian Gjøsteen wrote:
>>> I repeat, my best estimate is that your scheme is nonsense and you are a crank of some kind. Feel free...
|
| Show full article (1.62Kb) |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: clarkclark
Date: Dec 29, 2006 22:46
On 29 Dec 2006 16:34:39 -0800, tomstdenis@ gmail.com wrote:
>First off, thanks to the peeps in the other thread. Nice to know there
>is some respectful folk around "on the Net." I was getting flack from
>the peanut gallery but it's died down and nothing serious came of all
>of it. That's the last I want to talk about that.
>
[...]
>Peace, Paix, Pace, and the works,
>
>Tom
Glad you're in one piece and free and clear of that heinous stuff.
Nice to hear of your projects and goings on.
Peace.
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Antony ClementsAntony Clements
Date: Dec 29, 2006 13:34
> No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no!
>
> Any object, with any weight, will fall with a CONSTANT ACCELERATION of
> 9.8m/s/s. UNLESS you include air resistance, where the force from
> gravity (dependant on the mass of the object) will eventually be
> cancelled out by the force from the air resistance (dependant on the
> shape and speed of the object). At that point it will have
> a constant velocity which depends on the mass and shape of the object.
>
> I did once say you were including air resistance, but I was most
> certainly not supporting that claim.
which is essentially what i have said. objects only fall at 9.8m/s (yes i
know it is per second squared but i really couldn't be bothere fishing
through the character map to find the little 2 or trying...
|
| Show full article (1.91Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: MpilotMpilot
Date: Dec 29, 2006 11:37
> I repeat, my best estimate is that your scheme is nonsense and you are a crank of some kind. Feel free to be offended.
The scheme's are implemented using software building blocks given in
the reference http://itpp.sourceforge.net/ The scheme which is based on
Information Hiding is described in
http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=969668201&dok_var=d1&dok_ext=pdf&filename...
If you believe one of these references contains errors, so this scheme
is nonsense, you are free to write. I dont't feel offended. If you are
a serious scientist however, you prove errors in these references. If
you do not prove errors in these references, we don't take your
postings regarding this subject serious and/or releveant.
Kristian Gjøsteen wrote:
> Mpilot gmail.com> wrote:>>Kristian Gjøsteen wrote:
>>> Although it is hard to determine exactly what is proposed (probably
>>> some quantum effect)
>>
>>The quantum effect [...]
>...
|
| Show full article (1.84Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
Author: Antony ClementsAntony Clements
Date: Dec 29, 2006 04:15
> i have been backed up already several times by Mr Taylor, [...]
that is not support Bryan, that is his explaining things better than i can
given my inherant lack of being able to talk to people on a level above high
school unless forced to.
> an object that weighs 1 lb will fall at a maximum velocity of
> 9.8m/s, this increases with every pound.
yes the effect of gravity, which pulls objects towards the earth at 9.8m/s
(if one does not include the factoring of resistances) does increase with
mass, big deal. i do believe that Mr Taylor said it quite bluntly that you
are not factoring resistances while i am. if you want to say that is qouting
him as support then that is your perogative.
> Don't feel too bad -- you're far from the first to post gibberish
> on sci.crypt. We're quite familiar with the concept of "not even
> wrong".
if "not even wrong" is what you want to think then i'm not going to stop
you. jut keep living in blissful ignorance that SOMEONE might have just a
little bit more information and expertise in the area, but be really bad at
explaining things as i have previously said i am, both in this thread and in
others. but whatever.
|
| Show full article (2.09Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: gangugangu
Date: Dec 29, 2006 03:44
If you are currently using internet, chances are that your IP address
and port is insecure. You can know your IP address and Port here.
http://www.newsonfocus.com/ip/ .
Bye
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
