From: Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 04:08:24 +0800
To: cypherpunks@EINSTEIN.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Forwarded mail...
Message-ID: <199811081742.LAA05396@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Ah, what the hell. It's a good day to practice the golden rule.

Forwarded message:

> Date: 8 Nov 1998 04:40:03 -0000
> From: lcs Mixmaster Remailer <mix@anon.lcs.mit.edu>
> 

> It seems so pointless to correct Choate.  The guy is almost totally
> impervious to enlightenment.  But a couple of whoppers have to be
> pointed out...

Speakin of pointless anonymous know-it-all bullshit ....

> Electrons don't "carry" photons.

Actualy they carry the probability wave for the photon (which technicaly
could be anywhere in the universe at any given time because of space
contraction caused by relativistic effects), but for this particular
discussion which concerns ionized or non-correlated electrons carrying a
unit charge and Joules of energy (which is where the photon comes in you
anonymous fucking ignoramus) saying the electron is carrying a photon is
sufficient.

>  An atom can absorb a photon, raising
> an electron to a higher energy level, but the photon is then gone.

Well actualy to be absolutely exact the photon is locked between the protons
and the electron. It is *NEVER* gone or destroyed. You can't destroy energy,
only transform it's form. The photon is *NEVER* absorbed by anything.

Now exactly how is the 'higher energy' level expressed?  By a *PHOTON* of
shorter wavelength (E=hv) you know-nothing smart-ass anonymous dick-muncher.

> a single moving electron certainly doesn't carry a photon.  Photons move
> at the speed of light, always.

Only when they are not correlated to a particle such as a proton or an
electron. When an electron or a proton carry a packet of energy (measured in
Joules) it most certainly carries a photon. Let's look at the electrical
characteristic called voltage (you probably haven't heard of this since the
rest of your pseudo-science is as full of bullshit as your mouth) which is
measured in Joules/Coulomb. Now a Coulomb of electrons moving past a given
point in a unit second is an Amp of current. Want to explain how those
electrons manage to carry those Joules of photons if their isn't a
correlation? I didn't think you did you anonymous lying sack of horse sperm.

Since photons *ARE* light (you fucking anonymous ninny) your last point is
irrelevant and redundant. Of course they ALWAYS travel at the speed of
light, it's how we define light in the first place.

> Quarks are constituents only of baryons.  There are no quarks in electrons
> or photons.

Quarks are constituents of hadrons you dumbass prick sucking gay boy. Protons
and Neutrons are hadrons built from 3 quarks and some other bosons (some
vector and some not) that glue the nucleus together. Electrons and photons
are called Leptons (because they are their own vector boson). Electrons carry
electrical unit negative charge and photons carry EM fields.

A Baryon is a distinction based on the type of quarks that make up the
hadron. If the paticle is made up of no anti-quarks it's a baryon, othwise
it's a meson.

God, what a load of quantum mechanical horse hockey you spout this fine
Sunday morning. I can't hardly wait to see what other anonymous drivel you
spew out of your syphilis infested mouth next.

> The net charge within the sphere will not change.

Then you need to go back to school and learn Gauss's Law all over again.
It's ok, you'll probably get it in the first semester unless they recognize
what a dumb-ass you are and put you in the remedial section. Then I believe
you'll be scheduled to cover those topics your Junior year.

> If the box in the
> middle with the "spark gap" is spraying out electrons, this can only mean
> that the box is itself becoming positively charged.  The sphere sees a
> constant charge within itself; at best, the charge can be redistributed.

Which is the whole point to this exercise. The simple fact that I can put a
battery powered radio in a metal sphere as described and *STILL* receive
the signal proves the model works within the constraints of the original
thesis.

Don't believe me? Try it at home with a couple of collanders soldered
together.

The charge is re-distributed to the surface of the sphere, the total charge
of the entire system does stay constant (at least until the insulation
breaks down).

> There are no net changes of charge within the sphere and so there will
> be no changes in any charge appearing on the outside of the sphere.

If that were so we wouldn't have a spark in the ball to begin with.

> Choate's whole model of how a spark gap transmitter works, and why it
> emits electromagnetic radiation, is so bizarre that it is hard to believe.
> Someone else can bang their head against the brick wall of his ignorance
> on that topic.

Who said anything about a spark gap transmitter? We were talking about a
battery powered spark gap. Not the same thing at all you anonymous weenie
sucker.

> Choate is, by far, the worst poster on the cypherpunks list today.  He
> posts off-topic material, he is argumentative, and 90% of the time, he
> is simply wrong.

Oh, your just jealous I want let you suck my dick junior.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


    ____________________________________________________________________
 
       To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice.

                                                     Confucius

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------