Come on Dave Touresky, complete your offering....
lamoo...@sbcglobal.net
"...........What Science can debunk is claims about observable
phenomena that result from these theories or ideas. It does this all
the time. What's left, then, are claims that have no relation to
reality".
To which the Gods have Demanded I respond (with):
Perhaps so. But not without qualification Dave. For example, according
to your offering, reality is a function (or consequence) of what "THE
PRESENT LEVEL OF SCIENTIFIC CAPABILITIES" tell us it is.
Thus reality, according to you, doesn't exist prior to, or higher to,
science, it exists only when, and as, science says it is so. Yes?
Can you see this extrapolation of your argument as being fair? If not,
let me restate what you stated: "What Science can debunk is claims
about observable phenomena that result from these theories or ideas.
It does this all the time. What's left, then, are claims that have no
relation to reality". Dave T.
Ok, so let me ask you Dave, with all due respect, if in 10,000 years
from today, scientists discover the means of proving or disproving the
theory of "genetic" predisposition to personal persuasions (i.e.
behavior of thought & emotion and consequential physical expression),
would this mean, according to you, that such claims being made today,
i.e. that human beings are basically physical robots following genetic
code, is bull shit? Because science hasn't proved it (or disproved it)?
yet. Lol.
That would seem to be the ultimate conclusion you are offering us, as a
fact, Dave.
Re-worded, "if your theory is not capable of suffering the rigors of
(modern day, lol) scientific examination & confirmation, your theories
are false. And further, REALITY is only that which (modern day, lol)
science can confirm (and thus inform us) it is.
Dave, can you see the weakness of such an argument?
If, what you are offering us for consumption is true, then the world
was flat until science could prove it was round (or ecliptical). Yes?
And in the meantime we must live in a sort of "Quantum" Uncollapsed
Reality? Until Science collapses the confusion for us? LOL (all caps).
"Modern Day" Science no less? Lol.
With all due respect Dave (and I do respect you greatly) your argument
against the existance of some hidden, unprovable, powerful force in the
field of human endeavors (called God by some) is every bit as weak as
the argument for the existance of it (or he, or she, as the case may
be).
They say "God is the source of Reality". And you respond "Science is
the source of Reality".
Alas, perhaps both sides do err? Or worse yet, both are correct.
Cannot quantum mechanics have some counterpart in the
spiritual/psychological realm?
Sincerely,
Lar
Dave Touretzky
<lamoo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>Thus reality, according to you, doesn't exist prior to, or higher to,
>science, it exists only when, and as, science says it is so. Yes?
Not at all. Scientists assume reality has an independent existence.
The term "science" refers to our UNDERSTANDING of reality, based on
the best available evidence. Our understanding changes as new
evidence is developed. But the rules of science are that one must
look at the evidence with a skeptical eye, always considering
alternative explanations, and one must seek independent, EXPERIMENTAL
CONFIRMATION of all claims. You can't just sit back and "figure
things out in your head", or wait for "God's revealed wisdom" to pop
into it.
Sometimes, for brief periods, scientists disagree about the evidence,
e.g.,, people get different results in different labs, and each group
thinks the other one is doing the experiment wrong. But with time,
and further work, they eventually figure things out. I have
personally witnessed this in my work on rat brains.
Religion, in the modern world, has become limited to claims about
things that CANNOT be investigated experimentally.
>Can you see this extrapolation of your argument as being fair? If not,
>let me restate what you stated: "What Science can debunk is claims
>about observable phenomena that result from these theories or ideas.
>It does this all the time. What's left, then, are claims that have no
>relation to reality". Dave T.
That is exactly right. People can blather all they want about how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and science has nothing to
say about it -- unless they make claims about being able observe some
physical result of all this dancing. Then some impertinent scientist
will go off and actually do the experiment, which ruins everything.
>Ok, so let me ask you Dave, with all due respect, if in 10,000 years
>from today, scientists discover the means of proving or disproving the
>theory of "genetic" predisposition to personal persuasions (i.e.
>behavior of thought & emotion and consequential physical expression),
>would this mean, according to you, that such claims being made today,
>i.e. that human beings are basically physical robots following genetic
>code, is bull shit?
First of all, nobody claims that people are robots whose behavior is
fully predetermined by their genetic makeup. But putting that aside,
our understanding circa 2005 of the genetic components of personality
might be proved wrong someday, but it would not be "bullshit", because
the conclusions that are reached today are based on the best available
evidence. That doesn't mean they're right, it just means they're
well-founded. And the more evidence we accumulate, the less likely it
is that our conclusions will be overturned by later experiments.
For a few hundred years people be recognized today as eminent
scientists believed that space was flat. Einstein said that space was
curved, and made TESTABLE PREDICTIONS. People went off and did the
experiments, one of which involved observing starlight being bent
during an eclipse, and they found that Einstein's predictions were
correct, and his theory was the best explanation for the data. That
is how science progresses. If you come up with some radical new
theory, you have to show how it can be tested by people who think
you're wrong, and the tests have to come out in your favor. Then
people will start to believe you.
>Re-worded, "if your theory is not capable of suffering the rigors of
>(modern day, lol) scientific examination & confirmation, your theories
>are false.
That's sort of right. If your theory doesn't make any testable
predictions at all, then it's not false, it's just religious twaddle.
If it does make predictions, e.g., "holy water cures epilepsy", then
it can be tested, and if it repeatedly fails the test, and you still
believe it, then your beliefs are bullshit.
> And further, REALITY is only that which (modern day, lol) science
> can confirm (and thus inform us) it is.
As I said before, reality has an independent existence. Science
offers us a path toward undertanding the nature of reality. As
evidence accumulates, our best guess can change, but it should always
be based on the best available evidence, not on persuasive bullshit,
reevaled wisdom, or wishful thinking.
>If, what you are offering us for consumption is true, then the world
>was flat until science could prove it was round (or ecliptical). Yes?
A flat earth was the best theory until the Greek's figured out that
the earth was round. The Christian church ignored the evidence
because it conflicted with their theology. Their belief was bullshit
because it was based on a literal interpretation of the bible,
ignoring the contradictions revealed by observation and reasoning.
>And in the meantime we must live in a sort of "Quantum" Uncollapsed
>Reality? Until Science collapses the confusion for us? LOL (all caps).
>"Modern Day" Science no less? Lol.
At all times, we live with our best guess as to the nature of reality.
We should always be willing to entertain new hypotheses, but as James
Randi likes to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
>With all due respect Dave (and I do respect you greatly) your argument
>against the existance of some hidden, unprovable, powerful force in the
>field of human endeavors (called God by some) is every bit as weak as
>the argument for the existance of it (or he, or she, as the case may
>be).
I disagree. As our understanding advances, a lot of stuff attributed
to "God" (or "gods", demons, ghosts, the cosmic ether, phlogiston,
etc.) has been explained away by natural mechanisms that are
reliably, experimentally testable. There's little room left for God
in the natural world. Religion has been left talking about pure
intangibles like "grace" which by their very definition have no
practical meaning and cannot be measured or tested.
>They say "God is the source of Reality". And you respond "Science is
>the source of Reality".
Nope. Reality just is. Science is our best method for trying to know
reality. It is very effective. As it advances, religion retreats.
>Cannot quantum mechanics have some counterpart in the
>spiritual/psychological realm?
Most peple who talk about "quantum mechanics" have no understanding of
the subject. They just use it as a metaphor for "spooky stuff". I am
endeavoring to learn a bit of quantum mechanics in my spare time. I
don't claim to understand the equations yet, but I can say that I find
studying the subject far more rewarding than listening to bullshit
about it spouted by people who haven't mastered basic algebra and lack
even the faintest idea of how to run a properly controlled experiment.
This is not a dig at you personally; I have no idea who you are or
what you're like. But I'm not done making fun of JP yet.
-- Dave
lamoo...@sbcglobal.net
God willing, I'll respond to your response in short order (or later).
Lol
I will point out however, that requiring (so to speak) someone to have
"an understanding" of "quantum mechanics" in order to speak of those
mechanics, pretty much eliminates the entire free world from such
speech (and or its consequential speculation).
Nonetheless, thanks again for your clarification. It was well written
(and well received).
Lar
Barbara Schwarz
Dave Touretzky wrote:
> In article <1134247691.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> <lamoo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >Thus reality, according to you, doesn't exist prior to, or higher to,
> >science, it exists only when, and as, science says it is so. Yes?
>
> Not at all. Scientists assume reality has an independent existence.
> The term "science" refers to our UNDERSTANDING of reality, based on
> the best available evidence.
Psychiatry for example has no evidence to most of their claims. Even
the "chemical imbalances" in the brain are not based on evidence.
> Our understanding changes as new
> evidence is developed. But the rules of science are that one must
> look at the evidence with a skeptical eye, always considering
> alternative explanations, and one must seek independent, EXPERIMENTAL
> CONFIRMATION of all claims.
Hm, wonder why Dave Touretzky doesn't apply that on psychiatry but
takes their grants.
> You can't just sit back and "figure
> things out in your head", or wait for "God's revealed wisdom" to pop
> into it.
That's not what Scientologists are doing. They study hard to understand
the universe.
>
> Sometimes, for brief periods, scientists disagree about the evidence,
> e.g.,, people get different results in different labs, and each group
> thinks the other one is doing the experiment wrong.
The old story: no clear evidence not really science.
> But with time,
> and further work, they eventually figure things out. I have
> personally witnessed this in my work on rat brains.
How impressive. ;) Rat brains, what else could be more important. The
knowledge of the universe lies in rat brains? :) (Not!)
>
> Religion, in the modern world, has become limited to claims about
> things that CANNOT be investigated experimentally.
Who says that past lives can't be proven? Who says the surviving sould
can't be scientific proven? Because the rat brains said so? They are
"almight", aren't they?
>
> >Can you see this extrapolation of your argument as being fair? If not,
> >let me restate what you stated: "What Science can debunk is claims
> >about observable phenomena that result from these theories or ideas.
> >It does this all the time. What's left, then, are claims that have no
> >relation to reality". Dave T.
>
> That is exactly right. People can blather all they want about how
> many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and science has nothing to
> say about it -- unless they make claims about being able observe some
> physical result of all this dancing. Then some impertinent scientist
> will go off and actually do the experiment, which ruins everything.
We don't live in a free world. Scientists have case officers that
mindcontrol them into not looking into certain areas or hush the
evidence up. That's why the evidence is "missing".
> >Ok, so let me ask you Dave, with all due respect, if in 10,000 years
> >from today, scientists discover the means of proving or disproving the
> >theory of "genetic" predisposition to personal persuasions (i.e.
> >behavior of thought & emotion and consequential physical expression),
> >would this mean, according to you, that such claims being made today,
> >i.e. that human beings are basically physical robots following genetic
> >code, is bull shit?
>
> First of all, nobody claims that people are robots whose behavior is
> fully predetermined by their genetic makeup. But putting that aside,
> our understanding circa 2005 of the genetic components of personality
> might be proved wrong someday, but it would not be "bullshit", because
> the conclusions that are reached today are based on the best available
> evidence.
It is just a small piece of the cake, Touri, a very small piece of the
cake. The main thing that can be proven is still under wraps.
> That doesn't mean they're right, it just means they're
> well-founded. And the more evidence we accumulate, the less likely it
> is that our conclusions will be overturned by later experiments.
>
> For a few hundred years people be recognized today as eminent
> scientists believed that space was flat. Einstein said that space was
> curved, and made TESTABLE PREDICTIONS. People went off and did the
> experiments, one of which involved observing starlight being bent
> during an eclipse, and they found that Einstein's predictions were
> correct, and his theory was the best explanation for the data. That
> is how science progresses. If you come up with some radical new
> theory, you have to show how it can be tested by people who think
> you're wrong, and the tests have to come out in your favor. Then
> people will start to believe you.
Not necessarily. Only the evidence that a secret psychiatric world
rulership approves is permitted. Scientist L. Ron Hubbard is
maliciously defamed as his findings are even more important as these of
Einstein.
>
> >Re-worded, "if your theory is not capable of suffering the rigors of
> >(modern day, lol) scientific examination & confirmation, your theories
> >are false.
>
> That's sort of right. If your theory doesn't make any testable
> predictions at all, then it's not false, it's just religious twaddle.
> If it does make predictions, e.g., "holy water cures epilepsy", then
> it can be tested, and if it repeatedly fails the test, and you still
> believe it, then your beliefs are bullshit.
Scientology has no holy water.
>
> > And further, REALITY is only that which (modern day, lol) science
> > can confirm (and thus inform us) it is.
>
> As I said before, reality has an independent existence. Science
> offers us a path toward undertanding the nature of reality.
Psychiatry is not operating within the reality. They prescribe drugs
for something they haven't even figured out.
> As
> evidence accumulates, our best guess can change, but it should always
> be based on the best available evidence, not on persuasive bullshit,
> reevaled wisdom, or wishful thinking.
>
> >If, what you are offering us for consumption is true, then the world
> >was flat until science could prove it was round (or ecliptical). Yes?
>
> A flat earth was the best theory until the Greek's figured out that
> the earth was round. The Christian church ignored the evidence
> because it conflicted with their theology. Their belief was bullshit
> because it was based on a literal interpretation of the bible,
> ignoring the contradictions revealed by observation and reasoning.
The Christian church also decided 500 after Christi in Konstantinopel
that past lives shall be removed from the belief of the Christians as
they felt they can control the people better when they don't believe in
past lives.
And now lets look at it the scientific way.
They were wrong saying that the earth is flat. They were also wrong
with that no past lives exist.
>
> >And in the meantime we must live in a sort of "Quantum" Uncollapsed
> >Reality? Until Science collapses the confusion for us? LOL (all caps).
> >"Modern Day" Science no less? Lol.
>
> At all times, we live with our best guess as to the nature of reality.
> We should always be willing to entertain new hypotheses, but as James
> Randi likes to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Again, as we don't live in a free world, that exraordinary proof is
kept under locks, and undermind and destroyed and when somebody wants
to prove it, he is maliciously defamed to kill his credibility.
>
> >With all due respect Dave (and I do respect you greatly)
All that kissing up makes me nauseated.
> > your argument
> >against the existance of some hidden, unprovable, powerful force in the
> >field of human endeavors (called God by some) is every bit as weak as
> >the argument for the existance of it (or he, or she, as the case may
> >be).
>
> I disagree. As our understanding advances, a lot of stuff attributed
> to "God" (or "gods", demons, ghosts, the cosmic ether, phlogiston,
> etc.) has been explained away by natural mechanisms that are
> reliably, experimentally testable.
The evaluation theory sucks. A theory with so many holes is no science
either.
>There's little room left for God
> in the natural world.
Not even atheists can explain what the source was that started it all.
Just because God isn't interested to explain himself esp. to those who
don't honor him, doesn't mean that he doesn't exist.
The natural world is so gigantic, great, faszinating, artful and
complex that a big bang suddenly out of the black never could have
generated it. There is rather evidence that indeed the same handwriting
of somebody created the universe and hung it elegantly on strings. But
rats usually don't tell this story.
>Religion has been left talking about pure
> intangibles like "grace" which by their very definition have no
> practical meaning and cannot be measured or tested.
>
> >They say "God is the source of Reality". And you respond "Science is
> >the source of Reality".
>
> Nope. Reality just is. Science is our best method for trying to know
> reality. It is very effective. As it advances, religion retreats.
Religion can be science and religion as Scientology. It is science as
it explains the facts and it is religion and the person discovers
herself as spiritual being and her relation to God.
>
> >Cannot quantum mechanics have some counterpart in the
> >spiritual/psychological realm?
>
> Most peple who talk about "quantum mechanics" have no understanding of
> the subject. They just use it as a metaphor for "spooky stuff". I am
> endeavoring to learn a bit of quantum mechanics in my spare time.
Timetravel or what? ;)
> I
> don't claim to understand the equations yet,
Ask your rats, they are so bright. :)
>but I can say that I find
> studying the subject far more rewarding than listening to bullshit
> about it spouted by people who haven't mastered basic algebra and lack
> even the faintest idea of how to run a properly controlled experiment.
Einstein was bad in school. He did pretty good afterwards, didn't he?
Somebody might be bad in algebra but it doesn't mean that he can't be
better and smarter in other fields as the algebra professor.
Moreover, so many people cheat through their school and university
exams and just write down what the case officer channels them though
their ear implants. Good term papers and university exams mean nothing,
except that perhaps the case officer and the "student" did a lot to
cheat the system.
And these people are the scientists of today. No wonder they haven't
yet proven a so easy provable thing as pastlives.
Barbara Schwarz
Eru Ilúvatar
>Psychiatry for example has no evidence to most of their claims.
>Even the "chemical imbalances" in the brain are not based on
>evidence.
Sorry, you are mistaken.
Eru Ilúvatar
>Barb Schwartz, your picture is fuckin scary. You look like something
>out of a C-rate horror flick.
She has the face of a horse...and acts like the other end.
Keith Henson
>Lol. Great response Dave.
>
>God willing, I'll respond to your response in short order (or later).
>Lol
>
>I will point out however, that requiring (so to speak) someone to have
>"an understanding" of "quantum mechanics" in order to speak of those
>mechanics, pretty much eliminates the entire free world from such
>speech
There are at least 10 million physicists, chemists, and engineers in
the western world who have an understanding of quantum mechanics--at
least they passed the required courses. It has been 40 years since I
took quantum mechanics and the subsequent course in solid state
physics. You have to have these courses before you can understand
transistors because they are devices that entirely depend on quantum
physics.
>(and or its consequential speculation).
There really isn't much point in speculating about something if you
don't understand it. Of course when you *do* understand it, you don't
need to speculate.
There is no doubt QM is non intuitive, some people would say downright
weird. But the math on which it is based does describe the world at
that scale to many decimal places of accuracy.
The first few chapters of Volume III the Feynman Lectures of Physics
are the most lucid explanation of QM I know about.
>Nonetheless, thanks again for your clarification. It was well written
>(and well received).
It was certainly well done and very clear.
Keith Henson
wbarwell
> Mr. Touresky penned:
>
> "...........What Science can debunk is claims about observable
> phenomena that result from these theories or ideas. It does this
> all
> the time. What's left, then, are claims that have no relation to
> reality".
>
> To which the Gods have Demanded I respond (with):
>
> Perhaps so. But not without qualification Dave. For example,
> according to your offering, reality is a function (or consequence)
> of what "THE PRESENT LEVEL OF SCIENTIFIC CAPABILITIES" tell us it
> is.
>
> Thus reality, according to you, doesn't exist prior to, or higher
> to, science, it exists only when, and as, science says it is so.
> Yes?
>
Reality is what it is.
Again, science deals with observable reality and claims
about that reality. Scientology makes claims it does
not bother to support. And that are obviously false.
For exsample, doing OT III - OT VIII is supposed to give
you marevelous OT abilities no mere noraml has. We
never see any OTs with such things. In fact, even
Lowly Dianetcis makes bif promises that are false.
Perfect memories and massive IQ increases among other
ludicrous calism.
Thus Scientology is false. Its underlying claims,
whole track nonsense and engrams is obviously false.
Science sees no evidence for such things.
Science says "Dianetics and Scientology make big
claims that are obviously false".
This is not rocket science.
> Can you see this extrapolation of your argument as being fair? If
> not, let me restate what you stated: "What Science can debunk is
> claims about observable phenomena that result from these theories or
> ideas.
> It does this all the time. What's left, then, are claims that have
> no relation to reality". Dave T.
>
> Ok, so let me ask you Dave, with all due respect, if in 10,000 years
> from today, scientists discover the means of proving or disproving
> the theory of "genetic" predisposition to personal persuasions (i.e.
> behavior of thought & emotion and consequential physical
> expression), would this mean, according to you, that such claims
> being made today, i.e. that human beings are basically physical
> robots following genetic code, is bull shit? Because science hasn't
> proved it (or disproved it)? yet. Lol.
The problem is, this is being proven even as we speak.
The recent decoding of the human genome will accelerate this
understanding as time goes on.
This is far different from claims of Scientology. For example,
the claims that certain whole track engrams will be found in all
PCs. Simple. Take bunch of PCs and examine them for Xenu's
R-6 implants. Seperate teams working apart in a blind test
based on an established methodology should show most PCs will
have at least basic engrams.
Of course Scientology will never do such a thing.
And not on a level where it would be scientifically
publishable.
> That would seem to be the ultimate conclusion you are offering us,
> as a fact, Dave.
Dave (and some of us) understand this thing we call science.
It does simple tests as above, rather than taking some unproven claim
(Hubbard's Xenu nonsense) and building complex theories based on
unproven claims. When the big promised (OT powers) do not
happen as promised, science would question the underlying claims.
Scientology, being utterly unscientific denies no OT powers are to be
found, much less points to the underlying reasons as to why this
complex set of procedures fails.
Scientology doesn't get it.
>
> Re-worded, "if your theory is not capable of suffering the rigors of
> (modern day, lol) scientific examination & confirmation, your
> theories are false. And further, REALITY is only that which (modern
> day, lol) science can confirm (and thus inform us) it is.
>
> Dave, can you see the weakness of such an argument?
>
> If, what you are offering us for consumption is true, then the world
> was flat until science could prove it was round (or ecliptical).
> Yes?
>
> And in the meantime we must live in a sort of "Quantum" Uncollapsed
> Reality? Until Science collapses the confusion for us? LOL (all
> caps). "Modern Day" Science no less? Lol.
>
> With all due respect Dave (and I do respect you greatly) your
> argument against the existance of some hidden, unprovable, powerful
> force in the field of human endeavors (called God by some) is every
> bit as weak as the argument for the existance of it (or he, or she,
> as the case may be).
>
> They say "God is the source of Reality". And you respond "Science is
> the source of Reality".
>
> Alas, perhaps both sides do err? Or worse yet, both are correct.
>
> Cannot quantum mechanics have some counterpart in the
> spiritual/psychological realm?
>
> Sincerely,
> Lar
--
"There is a word in Newspeak," said Syme. "I don't
know whether you know it: duckspeak, to quack like
a duck. It is one of those interesting words that
have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an
opponent, it is abuse; applied to someone you agree
with, it is praise."
-George Orwell "Nineteen Eighty-Four"
Cheerful Charlie
wbarwell
> In article <1134247691.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> <lamoo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>Thus reality, according to you, doesn't exist prior to, or higher
>>to, science, it exists only when, and as, science says it is so.
>>Yes?
>
> Not at all. Scientists assume reality has an independent existence.
> The term "science" refers to our UNDERSTANDING of reality, based on
> the best available evidence. Our understanding changes as new
> evidence is developed. But the rules of science are that one must
> look at the evidence with a skeptical eye, always considering
> alternative explanations, and one must seek independent,
> EXPERIMENTAL
> CONFIRMATION of all claims. You can't just sit back and "figure
> things out in your head", or wait for "God's revealed wisdom" to pop
> into it.
>
> Sometimes, for brief periods, scientists disagree about the
> evidence, e.g.,, people get different results in different labs, and
> each group
> thinks the other one is doing the experiment wrong. But with time,
> and further work, they eventually figure things out. I have
> personally witnessed this in my work on rat brains.
>
> Religion, in the modern world, has become limited to claims about
> things that CANNOT be investigated experimentally.
Not really. You can test a lot of religous claims.
Its is simply religion refuses to do so.
Which, like scientology's refusal to test its claims
is the problem.
********************************************
Mark 11:23-4
For verily I say this unto you, That
whosoever shall say unto this mountain,
Be thou removed, and be thou cast
into the sea; and shall not doubt
in his heart, but shall believe that
those things which he saith shall
come to pass; he shall have whatsoever
he saith.
Therefore I say unto you, What things
soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe
ye recieve them and ye shall have them.
Matthew 18:19-20
Again I say unto you, that if two
of you shall agree on earth as
touching anything that they shall
ask, it shall be done for them of
my father which is in heaven.
For where two or three are gathered
in my name, there I am in the midst
of them.
Matthew 21:22
And all things,whatsoever ye shall ask
in prayer, believeing, ye shall recieve.
John 14:12-14
12: Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
believeth on me, the works that I do shall he
do also; and greater works than these shall
he do;because I go unto my Father.
13: And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name,
that will I do, that the Father may be
glorified in the Son.
14: If ye shall ask any thing in my name,
I will do it.
***********************************************
wbarwell
> Lol. Great response Dave.
>
> God willing, I'll respond to your response in short order (or
> later). Lol
>
> I will point out however, that requiring (so to speak) someone to
> have "an understanding" of "quantum mechanics" in order to speak of
> those mechanics, pretty much eliminates the entire free world from
> such speech (and or its consequential speculation).
Hardly. Quantum mechanics came out of observation of
facts about how the real world works. One has then to
read how all this came about and how it was figured out.
Anybody can do their homework and then speak about
it.
Of course anybody can speak on the subject, but if you
don't do the homework, you will surely be wrong.
lamoo...@sbcglobal.net
Keith
Bull shit.
of course you added the disclaimer "at least they passed the required
courses".
Passing required courses does not equal understanding Keith.
So let's compare our relative understanding of quantum mechanics (as it
relates to the topic of this thread, as it relates to scientology).
Fair enough?
You can be the voice of the 10 million professionals (or educated ones)
and I will be the voice of the laymen (speaking for myself).
Remember, Dave is arguing for the seniority of objectively
demonstratable facts (called science, via the essential function of it)
over subjective assignments of meaning, called speculation (absent
proof) in regard to the definition of Reality.
I am arguing that Reality is sr. to both objective and subjective
methods and means of annunciation. Where the word "Reality" implys that
which is constant. Whether beknownst or unbeknownst to anyone, at any
given time.
You go first. In a light-hearted vein. If such light-heartedness is
available to you, for us.
I'll follow your thought. With mine.
L.
P.S. the inability of any given individual to connect the dots between
scientology and quantum mechanics is not my concern. My concern is in
developing a line of thought that strips scientology of all its implied
"reality" based upon the principles of quantum mechanics.
Piltdown Man
Dave Touretzky <d...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote...
<snip>
> >If, what you are offering us for consumption is true, then the world
> >was flat until science could prove it was round (or ecliptical). Yes?
>
> A flat earth was the best theory until the Greek's figured out that
> the earth was round. The Christian church ignored the evidence
> because it conflicted with their theology. Their belief was bullshit
> because it was based on a literal interpretation of the bible,
> ignoring the contradictions revealed by observation and reasoning.
Just to correct a minor matter of fact: unless I've been really badly
misled, the church never had a flat earth as a part of doctrine. Since
antiquity, everybody with any kind of education knew the world was round.
That's why monarchs had an orb, and God was often pictured holding such an
orb, it symbolizes power over all the earth. The idea that the church once
declared the earth to be flat seems to be an artefact of American popular
culture, invented by Washington Irving in the 19th century (if I can trust
Monty Python member, and mediaeval historian, Terry Jones). What the church
did have a problem with was the idea of heliocentrism.
Dave Touretzky
<lamoo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>Remember, Dave is arguing for the seniority of objectively
>demonstratable facts (called science, via the essential function of it)
>over subjective assignments of meaning, called speculation (absent
>proof) in regard to the definition of Reality.
It's not really *my* argument. It's the basic premise of the
scientific method, and goes back some 350 years, to people like John
Locke. And it only applies to questions about the natural world,
i.e., things that can be observed and tested experimentally. But
that's a very broad domain that includes not just physics, chemistry,
biology, and astronomy, but also human behavior (psychology,
sociology, anthropology, etc.)
>I am arguing that Reality is sr. to both objective and subjective
>methods and means of annunciation. Where the word "Reality" implys that
>which is constant. Whether beknownst or unbeknownst to anyone, at any
>given time.
I don't think any scientist would disagree with that. Reality is
senior to everything. Science is our attempt at understanding
reality. It is a way of approaching the problem, PLUS an accumulating
body of evidence and theories based on what we know so far.
================
People who have only a metaphorical understanding of quantum mechanics
are prone to apply it in inappropriate ways. Lots of folks have
watched Nova specials or read popularizations that discuss
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and Schrodinger's cat. This leads
to plenty of good jokes ("Heisenber may have slept here"), but when
they make casual reference to these things, it is without
understanding that they don't really apply at the macro scale.
To really undertstand quantum mechanics (the grown-up version, not the
kiddy version you get on Nova) requires vector calculus, matrix
algebra, complex numbers, and differential equations. These days,
even introductory undergraduate physics textbooks will include a
version of Schrodinger's wave equation, but being able to manipulate
and apply that equation requires a good deal more study. (And no, I'm
not there myself yet. But I at least know what I don't know.)
The situation is similar with relativity. Nova specials show you the
man on the train, the clock on the spaceship, and the bowling ball
depressing the rubber sheet (illustrating how gravity bends space.)
Before quantum mechanics was popularized in the 1970s, relativity was
the favorite subject of abuse by those whose intellectual pretensions
far exceeded their understanding of physics. "Einstein says
everything is relative" was cited to justify all kinds of nonsense.
It's all very glib -- to borrow a phrase from the eminent physiologist
Dr. Tom Cruise.
Real general relativity requires four-dimensional space-time equations
and higher dimensional matrix structures called tensors. When you've
become familiar with these, you'll understand why the bowling ball on
the rubber sheet analogy is misleading. It's the best way to explain
the idea to mathematically illiterate persons, but it's still
misleading. (If gravity *is* the curvature of space, then what
presses the bowling ball against the sheet to make it curve in the
first place?)
I've watched the Nova shows. I've read the popularizations. And I
became fed up with having only a child's cartoonish understanding of
some of the greatest intellectual developments of our age. So in my
spare time, I am trying to remedy my ignorance.
-- Dave
Dave Touretzky
Piltdown Man <pilt...@ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> wrote:
>
>Just to correct a minor matter of fact: unless I've been really badly
>misled, the church never had a flat earth as a part of doctrine. Since
>antiquity, everybody with any kind of education knew the world was round.
>That's why monarchs had an orb, and God was often pictured holding such an
>orb, it symbolizes power over all the earth. The idea that the church once
>declared the earth to be flat seems to be an artefact of American popular
>culture, invented by Washington Irving in the 19th century (if I can trust
>Monty Python member, and mediaeval historian, Terry Jones). What the church
>did have a problem with was the idea of heliocentrism.
Thank you for this correction. Here's a web page that confirms your
account and provides greater detail, even debunking that claim we all
learned in grammar school that Columbus' sailors were afraid of
falling off the edge of the Earth if they travelled too far west:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods46.html
Here are some of the final paragraphs:
Russell identifies two nineteenth-century villains as the primary
sources of the myth: the American writer Washington Irving and (more
significant) the French historian and polemicist Antoine-Jean
Letronne (1787-1848). Irving's semi-historical, semi-fictional
writing often blurred the distinction between fact and fiction, a
distinction that was likewise unclear to his readers. Determined to
portray Columbus as a romantic hero, Irving included in his History
of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828) a fictional
account of a council that allegedly lectured Columbus with the
theories of Lactantius [that the Earth was flat]. The heroic
Columbus, of course, resolutely resisted this attempt to persuade
him of all this medieval foolishness.
As for Letronne, he received much of his academic training from men
who propagated the standard Enlightenment canard about the ignorance
of the Middle Ages. Although he conceded that a few theologians knew
the earth was a sphere, Letronne put forth the idea that the vast
bulk were foolish believers in a flat earth. The idea of the flat
earth, he said, was the dominant one in Europe until the time of
Columbus.
Uncritical acceptance of the myth was too tempting for many
scholars, since it fit in so well with the caricature of
Christianity they were already inclined to draw. "If Christians had
for centuries insisted that the earth was flat against clear and
available evidence," explains Russell, "they must be not only
enemies of scientific truth, but contemptible and pitiful enemies."
-- Dave
Barbara Schwarz
diabo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Barb Schwartz,
I filed a complaint against you to the Homeland Security and the FBI as
you posted yesterday in the other thread that you have guns and want to
kill Scientologists.
Barbara Schwarz
--
http://www.thunderstar.net/~Schwarz/
More about Dave Touretzky:
http://urlsnip.com/254524
http://urlsnip.com/402460
Other interesting websites:
http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/extremists/
http://www.alarmgermany.org/
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/sitemap.htm
http://www.cchr.org
http://www.MindFreedom.ORG/
http://www.datafilter.com/mc
http://www.freespeechstore.com
Nathan Motalio
I've read more about you and some of the things you've been through. I
apologize for insulting you and hope you find happiness, contentment,
and peace. The pictures of you on the Yahoo website show that you can be
happy, and none of them depict you typing away on Usenet. I think you
should spend more time at the park. ;-)
So, from me, you'll get no more grief. I'm sorry for causing you any.
I am being defamed here
> Dear Barbara;
>
>
> I've read more about you and some of the things you've been through. I
> apologize for insulting you and hope you find happiness, contentment,
> and peace.
I appreciate it. Let's hope that some others come to that conclusion
too.
>The pictures of you on the Yahoo website show that you can be
> happy, and none of them depict you typing away on Usenet. I think you
> should spend more time at the park. ;-)
Did a long walk this morning. Was nice. I work out (at home) in my
apartment, study books and do several other things. Usenet is just one
of the things that go on in my life.
>
> So, from me, you'll get no more grief. I'm sorry for causing you any.
Glad to hear that, Nathan. There was once a poster who attacked me on
ARS. (Not Patrick, he never did.) He emailed me and apologized. I
noticed that he was serious with the apology, and we became friends. We
still are.
Apology accepted, and I hope those who are fighting in the world take
us as example for peace and follow us our lead.
I go to bed now. Good night.
John Dorsay
Awesome post, Nathan. Here's hoping a few others follow your lead!
John
Keith Henson
>"There are at least 10 million physicists, chemists, and engineers in
>the western world who have an understanding of quantum mechanics..."
>Keith
>
>Bull shit.
>
>of course you added the disclaimer "at least they passed the required
>courses".
>
>Passing required courses does not equal understanding Keith.
Perhaps not, but it's a good start.
>So let's compare our relative understanding of quantum mechanics (as it
>relates to the topic of this thread, as it relates to scientology).
>Fair enough?
Other than the well known fact that LRH flunked physics, I can't see
an way QM relates to scientology, at least none without a half dozen
level changes. (QM, physical chemistry, chemistry, biochemistry,
evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology at least.)
>You can be the voice of the 10 million professionals (or educated ones)
>and I will be the voice of the laymen (speaking for myself).
>
>Remember, Dave is arguing for the seniority of objectively
>demonstratable facts (called science, via the essential function of it)
>over subjective assignments of meaning, called speculation (absent
>proof) in regard to the definition of Reality.
>
>I am arguing that Reality is sr. to both objective and subjective
>methods and means of annunciation. Where the word "Reality" implys that
>which is constant. Whether beknownst or unbeknownst to anyone, at any
>given time.
It's hard to beat what Dave said:
"I don't think any scientist would disagree with that. Reality is
senior to everything. Science is our attempt at understanding
reality. It is a way of approaching the problem, PLUS an accumulating
body of evidence and theories based on what we know so far."
But extending it a bit, science tries to get around limits due to us
being short lived social primates with senses no better than what was
needed to survive--and psychological biases that make it easy for us
to fool ourselves. We don't live long enough to see a star form, a
galaxy evolve or life arise from non-living chemicals. Our eyes are
not capable of directly seeing an electron. Yet these things underlie
major aspects of everyday reality, a planet to stand on, sunlight and
a world full of living things, including us.
Once you get as far as understanding a positive nucleus and negative
electrons and that opposite charges attract it is a mystery why the
world does not collapse. It obviously does not. The math that
describes the non-collapse (and a lot more) is the Schrödinger
equation. I don't think the Schrödinger equation can be explained, it
just is--that is it is descriptive of reality at that level.
>You go first. In a light-hearted vein. If such light-heartedness is
>available to you, for us.
>
>I'll follow your thought. With mine.
>
>L.
>
>P.S. the inability of any given individual to connect the dots between
>scientology and quantum mechanics is not my concern. My concern is in
>developing a line of thought that strips scientology of all its implied
>"reality" based upon the principles of quantum mechanics.
I was not aware of any such connection. QM is deeply based in
calculus and we all know what LRH said about that.
Keith Henson
John Dorsay
<snip>
> I was not aware of any such connection. QM is deeply based in
> calculus and we all know what LRH said about that.
Hubbard had quite a bit to say about it. Here's a sample.
================================================
What if, in the science of physics, a book by Professor Glumph came
out, omitting the three laws of motion and gravity. It is assumed
then that Newton's laws are no longer valid.
Because they are old. (Newton lived between 1642 and 1727.) So some
young student engineer is baffled because bridges have weight and
can't work out gravity or motion! And he and his fellows begin to
build without knowing these laws and there goes the whole of
engineering and the culture itself!
This is no fantasy. As a college student in upper math I was utterly
baffled by "calculus".
I couldn't find out what it was for. Then I discovered it had been
developed by Sir Isaac Newton, examined the basics and got the idea.
My college text omitted all the basic explanations and even the
authorship of the subject! Calculus today is really not enough used
because it isn't understood.
================================================
Well, do you see, actually—actually, I'm being a little bit mean on
the subject. Of course, you know, mathematics is an exact subject.
Do you know there's a swindle called calculus that's been going on
ever since Newton—I think he did it for an early issue of Punch.
It's marvelous, you know.
You go in there. The professors are teaching it and students are
figuring out things with it and you go up to a senior and you say,
"How many times have you used calculus in your calculations of
various things since you had calculus in your freshman year?"
"I never have."
"Well, why don't you use calculus?"
"Well, it's ... "
And of course, you get education's just become some fantastic grim
practical joke.
================================================
Now, present time then, is just this existence and.. of havingness
and your agreement on it. And your future? All is present time on
the idea that we must have a rate of change. Rate of change is as
mathematics, known as calculus. Calculus is a very interesting
thing, it's divided into two classes. There's differential calculus
and integral calculus. The.. differential calculus is in the first
part of the textbook on calculus and integral calculus is on the
second part of the textbook on calculus.
Uh.. as you look through the book, you'll find in the early part of
the book on calculus, 'dx' over 'dy'. A little 'dx' and a little
'dy' and they're over.. one above the other on a line, predominates
in the front part of the book, but as you get to the end of the book
you'll find these 'dx' and 'dy's' have been preceeded by a summation
sign, or are equating to a summation sign, and the presence of this
shows that we are in the field of integral calculus.
Now I hope you understand this because I've never been able to make
head nor tail out of it! It must be some sort of a black magic
operation started out by the Luce cult. Uh.. some immoral people who
are operating in.. up in New York city at the Rockefeller Plaza.
Con.. thoroughly condemned by the whole society.
Anyway, their rate of change theory - I.. I've never seen any use
for that mathematics by the way. I love that mathematic because it -
I.. I asked an engineer one time, who was in his sixth year of
engineering, if he'd ever used calculus. And he told me, "Yeah,
once. Once I did," he said.
"Uh.. uh.. when did you use it?"
"Well, I used it uh.. once uh.. lemme see, what did I use it on? Oh,
yeah, yes, something on the rate of change of steam particles in
boilers. And then we went out and tested it and found the answer was
wrong."
Calculus.. if you want to know, there is room there for a
mathematics which is a good mathematics, and it would be the rate of
co-change, or the rate of change when something else was changing,
so that you could establish existing rates of change in relationship
to each other. And for lack of that mathematics, nobody has been
able to understand present time! You just can't sum it up easily.
Or, let us say, for lack of an understanding of what present time
was, nobody could formulate that mathematics.
So actually there's a big hole there that could be filled and it's
trying - ca.. the thing called calculus is trying to fill that hole
right now and it can't. But the rates of change - it comes closest
to it. I think it was one of Newton's practical jokes.
Uh.. here we have.. here we have calculus as trying to measure a
rate of change. Well, if we had something that was really workable
and simple, it would be formed on this basis: The present time and
gradients of time were gradients of havingness, and as one
havingness changed, you could establish a constancy of change for
other related havingnesses. But because the basic unit of the
universe is two, you would have to have a rate of change known and
measured for every rate of change then estimated. The mathematics
won't.. I mean a mathematics won't operate in this universe unless
it has simultaneous equations. If you have two variables, you must
have two equations with which to solve those two variables. In other
words you have to compare one to the other simultaneously.
Ohtherwise you just get another variable.
Of course people laughingly do this; they.. they take an equation
with two variables and then they solve it. And then they.. you say,
"What you got?" And the fellow says, "K." You say "Now just a
minute. You got K, huh? Well, what is K?" "Well, K we have
established arbitrarily as being..."
You say, "Why did you work the equation out in the first place? You
had a K, didn't you?"
================================================
John
lamoo...@sbcglobal.net
This is no fantasy. As a college student in upper math I was utterly
baffled by "calculus".
............................
I respond (quoting L. Ron Hubbard):
>From "Summary to Date: Handling Step I and Demo", lecture 54 of the
Philadelphia Doctorate Course Lectures, 17 December 1952:
"... So how much time does it take for an auditor to get in good shape?
How much time does it take for an auditor to get up to operating
thetan?.........
. What would happen if you put in three nights a week at two hours a
session? That adds up to six hours a week, doesn't it? How long does
that take to get to a hundred hours? Sixty-six and two-thirds, is that
right? Well, six and two-thirds weeks.
[from audience members] Sixteen.
Sixteen. Have to figure in arithmetic. I have an awful time with MEST
arithmetic -- just horrible -- just terrible. Sixteen weeks. Okay?
That's very interesting. I have to completely change reality to get a
MEST arithmetical thing. You see, MEST arithmetic doesn't happen to be
real -- I mean, happen to be actual. It's real. Fascinating."
L. Ron Hubbard
.................................
Apparently there is a MEST arithmetical thing, and a NON-MEST
arithmetical thing (or an ANTI-MEST arithmetical thing). Which gave Ron
a horrible terrible awful time.
Well, makes sense to me. If MEST arithmetical things could cause so
much trouble for Ron (OT) surely MEST calculus would be a nightmare.
LOL.
I am being defamed here
Snow Dog wrote:
> 3 years and we have traded many thousands of emails and spent more
> hours on the telephone than I can count. She's always been 100%
> supportive, caring and generous. And she's been a great friend that I
> can count on. And contrary to popular opinion by the "ARS GANG
> MEMBERS", Barbara is a great person who is quite sane. I am glad you
> discovered this.
Thanks Patrick, you are great too.
Love,
Barbara
I am being defamed here
Bob Officer wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2005 23:25:19 -0800, in alt.astrology, "Snow Dog"
> <psllv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >3 years and we have traded many thousands of emails and spent more
> >hours on the telephone than I can count. She's always been 100%
> >supportive, caring and generous. And she's been a great friend that I
> >can count on. And contrary to popular opinion by the "ARS GANG
> >MEMBERS", Barbara is a great person who is quite sane. I am glad you
> >discovered this.
>
What laws? What home? I am born on U.S. soil. Nobody born in the USA is
illegally in the USA.
>The Sooner, the better. If
> our government would send home these unlawful emigrants, we would be much
> more secure.
What a stupid guy. It was me who tried to make the U.S. government more
aware on Bin Laden, a year before Sept. 11.
>
> Send her ass packing back to Germany. Enforce the law uniformly or ignore
> all laws equally.
It is spelled "immigrants" not emigrants. You should watch out that you
are not being deported with your bad English. :)
Eru Ilúvatar
>It was me who tried to make the U.S. government more aware on
>Bin Laden, a year before Sept. 11.
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you did, then you just have been part of the attack. But we
already know you're just a deluded nut.
Dixie Boy!
On 13 Dec 2005 01:29:51 GMT, Eru Ilúvatar <alsima...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Ball of Fluff
"Nathan Motalio" <nat...@mota1io.com> wrote in message
news:dnj3v6$rg4$0...@pita.alt.net...
What a nice post.
Very cool.
C
Nathan Motalio
Sorry to you, too, for acting like a dick.
Dixie Boy!
Hey, she might be nutty, but she's FUN!
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:20:33 -0800, Bob Officer
<bobof...@invalid.net> wrote:
>On 12 Dec 2005 15:04:25 -0800, in alt.astrology, "I am being defamed here"
><Stilllov...@myway.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Bob Officer wrote:
>>> On 11 Dec 2005 23:25:19 -0800, in alt.astrology, "Snow Dog"
>>> <psllv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Nathan Motalio wrote:
>>> >> Dear Barbara;
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> I've read more about you and some of the things you've been through. I
>>> >> apologize for insulting you and hope you find happiness, contentment,
>>> >> and peace. The pictures of you on the Yahoo website show that you can be
>>> >> happy, and none of them depict you typing away on Usenet. I think you
>>> >> should spend more time at the park. ;-)
>>> >>
>>> >> So, from me, you'll get no more grief. I'm sorry for causing you any.
>>> >
>>> >I know Barbara appreciates your apology. I have known Barbara for about
>>> >3 years and we have traded many thousands of emails and spent more
>>> >hours on the telephone than I can count. She's always been 100%
>>> >supportive, caring and generous. And she's been a great friend that I
>>> >can count on. And contrary to popular opinion by the "ARS GANG
>>> >MEMBERS", Barbara is a great person who is quite sane. I am glad you
>>> >discovered this.
>>>
>>> Babs is a law breaker, she needs to be sent home.
>>
>>What laws? What home? I am born on U.S. soil. Nobody born in the USA is
>>illegally in the USA.
>
>The only documentation you have is a German Birth certificate. You were born
>in Germany.
>Ergo you were not born on US soil. you enter the country on a visitor visa.
>Ergo you are not a native born American Citizen. Therefore on the evidence
>and your own words, you are not in the country lawfully.
>
>Or is your logic that badly flawed.
>
>>>The Sooner, the better. If
>>> our government would send home these unlawful emigrants, we would be much
>>> more secure.
>>
>>What a stupid guy. It was me who tried to make the U.S. government more
>>aware on Bin Laden, a year before Sept. 11.
>
>That would be just about everyone in the CIA. However Bush chose to ignore
>the brother and cousin of his and his fathers business partners.
>
>
>>> Send her ass packing back to Germany. Enforce the law uniformly or ignore
>>> all laws equally.
>>
>>It is spelled "immigrants" not emigrants. You should watch out that you
>>are not being deported with your bad English. :)
>
>Hah... as a native american I think all euros should be deported... But I
>settle for those like you... unlawful entry under false pretenses, expired
>Visa...
>
>Babs, Pack you bags, you are going home. A letter to my congressman, he is
>going to write an inquiry why the INS can't round up known people with
>expired visa.
Simkatu
> It is spelled "immigrants" not emigrants. You should watch out that you
> are not being deported with your bad English. :)
Barbara, "emigrants" is a word. It is plural for "emigrant" which
means "one who emigrates". Emigrate means "to leave one country or
region to settle in another".
Before you correct people's spelling or English you should check out
www.Dictionary.com and make sure what you are saying is correct.
Take care,
Simkatu
Dixie Boy!
<bobof...@invalid.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:23:53 GMT, in alt.astrology, Dixie Boy!
><nu...@biz.com> wrote:
>
>>That's why I hate cops. Fuckin pricks.
>
>And you are a top posting Lusers.
You must be in on a Visa too, cause Luser ain't no word I ever heard
of, fucker.
How bout we split the difference. I'll be top posting luser and you
be my bottom bitch, aight?
>
>>Hey, she might be nutty, but she's FUN!
>
>The law says people with mental disorders are not to be given Visitors Visa.
>So she lied on her visa application.
>
>The INS' failure to carry out their mission as described by law, makes every
>INS official guilty of dereliction of duty. A offense which demands
>dismissal.
Who the fuck are you to quote law, you assclown?
Pics, or STFU, bitch!
>Funny, you didn't address one single point... Luser
Eru Ilúvatar
>You must be in on a Visa too, cause Luser ain't no word I ever heard
>of, fucker.
That's just your ignorance.
Germicide
On 13 Dec 2005 03:02:28 GMT, Eru Ilúvatar <alsima...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Dixie Boy! <nu...@biz.com> wrote:
Germicide
cans, alien freakboy.
On 13 Dec 2005 03:02:28 GMT, Eru Ilúvatar <alsima...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Dixie Boy! <nu...@biz.com> wrote:
Grimace
<bobof...@invalid.net> wrote:
>New around here aren't you...
>
>Luser = Listed user it is a common term in use around ISPs and the internet.
Whatever you say, Offica.
>
>>How bout we split the difference. I'll be top posting luser and you
>>be my bottom bitch, aight?
>
>I don't think so...
>
>You being a top post just means you are ignorant.
You know you wanna be my bottom bitch, there is no higher honor among
whores like you.
>
>
>>Who the fuck are you to quote law, you assclown?
>
>You better...
Better what, jackass?
>
>>Pics, or STFU, bitch!
>
>Talking to yourself in the mirror?
At least daily. Better than your moronic ass talkin to BT's trying to
get them to blow off. Fucker.
>
><snip>
>
>Are you just too stupid or too lazy to trim your replies?
I trim my pubes daily, that's about enough work for me. Any more
questions dipshit?
Grimace
<sini...@liripipe.com> wrote:
> Tue, 13 Dec 2005 03:31:51 GMT, Germicide <ea...@blowme.biz> licked
>the point of a #2 Yellow Pencil, and wrote:
>
>>Mind your own business, fag.
>
>Oh, oh! OMG a "fag" lame. I sure didn't see this coming.
>Widdershins
>
>Jesus loves you. Everybody else thinks you're an asshole.
Hells Yeah! Mission accomplished, assface! NEEEEEEEEEXT!
Ball of Fluff
Oh, it's fine. Discussing Scn is like discussing religion and politics
all rolled into one.
Passions run high, tempers fray...mine included, at times.
C
The Chief Instigator
>On 13 Dec 2005 03:02:28 GMT, Eru Ilúvatar <alsima...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>Is it English, tard? Didn't think so, now STFU and finish with your
>cans, alien freakboy.
Funny...I've been around Usenet for sixteen years and change, by now, and I
have no trouble translating that term. Maybe if you had the minimal backbone
to actually post without being an anonymous coward, you'd be worth taking
seriously. (Agent trialware? Just one more reason to be glad I've got shell
access.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 4, Cleveland 1 (December 11)
NEXT GAME: Friday, December 16 vs. Peoria, 7:35
Dixie Boy!
wrote:
>Germicide <ea...@blowme.biz> writes:
>
>>On 13 Dec 2005 03:02:28 GMT, Eru Ilúvatar <alsima...@yahoo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Dixie Boy! <nu...@biz.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You must be in on a Visa too, cause Luser ain't no word I ever heard
>>>>of, fucker.
>>>
>>>That's just your ignorance.
>
>>Is it English, tard? Didn't think so, now STFU and finish with your
>>cans, alien freakboy.
>
>Funny...I've been around Usenet for sixteen years and change, by now, and I
>have no trouble translating that term. Maybe if you had the minimal backbone
>to actually post without being an anonymous coward, you'd be worth taking
>seriously. (Agent trialware? Just one more reason to be glad I've got shell
>access.)
I mostly work bins, so I had no reason for a reader, spunk munkey. I
use BNR2, if ya gotta know. Ain't no postin from that one. Check it
out tho, it'll run multiple usenet servers and prioritize for fills.
But, you wouldn't jack shit about that, cause you just post. Huh?
I'm impressed you can use the view headers tool, can I get a WOOT? or
What?
I'm not a coward, I'd just prefer to be anonymous. You got a problem
with that? My left nut needs cleaned, why you tongue bathe it?
Next question, gimpmeister?
lamoo...@sbcglobal.net
Nathan Motalio wrote:
> Dear Barbara;
>
>
> I've read more about you and some of the things you've been through. I
> apologize for insulting you and hope you find happiness, contentment,
> and peace. The pictures of you on the Yahoo website show that you can be
> happy, and none of them depict you typing away on Usenet. I think you
> should spend more time at the park. ;-)
>
> So, from me, you'll get no more grief. I'm sorry for causing you any.
Hey Nate,
Why don't you learn how to start a new subject, rather than interrupt
one in process?
It's really easy to do.
I used to like you.
Lar
Dave Bird
<d...@cs.cmu.edu> writes:
>Real general relativity requires four-dimensional space-time equations
>and higher dimensional matrix structures called tensors. When you've
>become familiar with these, you'll understand why the bowling ball on
>the rubber sheet analogy is misleading. It's the best way to explain
>the idea to mathematically illiterate persons, but it's still
>misleading. (If gravity *is* the curvature of space, then what
>presses the bowling ball against the sheet to make it curve in the
>first place?)
OK, it has to be explained carefully. "In our world we can make a
surface from a rubber sheet stretched out as a horizontal plane,
and roll small items such as ball bearings across it. If we place
a heavy bowling ball on the sheet then our gravity will pull it down,
causing a depression in the sheet. Ball bearings rolled across the
surface which pass near the bowling ball are curved off their
straight-line track because the sheet is dimpled down."
"Now this situation can be used as a model for the way gravity
operates in our world. Suppose our three dimensional space. Suppose
there is a curved portion in our space, for whatever reason and
through whatever extra dimension (actually you don't need an
extra dimension so long as you can show the space behaves as curved).
Then we would see the ball bearings curve out of their path as
they pass through the curved section. We would see a spaceship
somewhere around Mercury trying to pass in a straight line
past the sun would find itself curved somewhat towards the sun.
Likewise even a light-beam passing close to the sun would be
curved inwards a little by the 'gravitational lens' effect."
And, no, I did it in year II university but I never really did
master the tensor calculus and can't say I more than a populariser.
-- . . : : ,; . : ' ___.
uno, dos, tres, |FUEGO| .:. .:. .:': :' .:':' :. . : (") #oH|
' ' :' : :' : .::. H_ ~~~|
< > __ ,;;,. \\::// R_) |
'-|"""(") {__}::===== ....'''' ' ' ' ___..\||/....L\. ...|
____||--|_'--/__\___ '' .--''':::::::::::::::::::::
\ / /////////////S.Coronado/////
;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^
LRonHubbard is shelled byGoats inHell.READ http://www.ronthewarhero.org
Dave Bird
ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> writes:
>
>Dave Touretzky <d...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote...
>
><snip>
>> >If, what you are offering us for consumption is true, then the world
>> >was flat until science could prove it was round (or ecliptical). Yes?
>>
>> A flat earth was the best theory until the Greek's figured out that
>> the earth was round. The Christian church ignored the evidence
>> because it conflicted with their theology. Their belief was bullshit
>> because it was based on a literal interpretation of the bible,
>> ignoring the contradictions revealed by observation and reasoning.
>
>Just to correct a minor matter of fact: unless I've been really badly
>misled, the church never had a flat earth as a part of doctrine. Since
>antiquity, everybody with any kind of education knew the world was round.
>That's why monarchs had an orb, and God was often pictured holding such an
>orb, it symbolizes power over all the earth. The idea that the church once
>declared the earth to be flat seems to be an artefact of American popular
>culture, invented by Washington Irving in the 19th century (if I can trust
>Monty Python member, and mediaeval historian, Terry Jones). What the church
>did have a problem with was the idea of heliocentrism.
I wasn't aware the Church was reputed to have advocated flat-earthism,
only heliocentrism.
John Ritson
Hash: SHA1
In message <ZTMkhODW...@xemu.demon.co.uk>, Dave Bird
<dave.xemu...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article<01c5fea1$43264b20$LocalHost@gateway>, Piltdown Man <piltdown@
>ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> writes:
>>
>>Dave Touretzky <d...@cs.cmu.edu> wrote...
>>
>><snip>
>>> >If, what you are offering us for consumption is true, then the world
>>> >was flat until science could prove it was round (or ecliptical). Yes?
>>>
>>> A flat earth was the best theory until the Greek's figured out that
>>> the earth was round. The Christian church ignored the evidence
>>> because it conflicted with their theology. Their belief was bullshit
>>> because it was based on a literal interpretation of the bible,
>>> ignoring the contradictions revealed by observation and reasoning.
>>
>>Just to correct a minor matter of fact: unless I've been really badly
>>misled, the church never had a flat earth as a part of doctrine. Since
>>antiquity, everybody with any kind of education knew the world was round.
>>That's why monarchs had an orb, and God was often pictured holding such an
>>orb, it symbolizes power over all the earth. The idea that the church once
>>declared the earth to be flat seems to be an artefact of American popular
>>culture, invented by Washington Irving in the 19th century (if I can trust
>>Monty Python member, and mediaeval historian, Terry Jones). What the church
>>did have a problem with was the idea of heliocentrism.
>
> I wasn't aware the Church was reputed to have advocated flat-earthism,
> only heliocentrism.
Saint Augustine of Hippo had serious doubts about a spherical earth:
"even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or
spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the Earth
opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any
conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men. For Scripture,
which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the
accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too
absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and,
traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of
human beings descended from that one first man." (De Civitate Dei, 16.9)
A few extreme early literalist theologians such as Lactantius and Cosmas
Indicopleustes took Biblical descriptions of seeing all the kingdoms of
the world from one point etc. as proof of a flat earth.
- --
John Ritson *** "A thetan who's any good, by the way, can
look at a flat picture from the right side and from the left side and
alter the picture enough to get a three-dimensional view.
Of course, it would be three-dimensional as he matched it
up unless he said it was flat. But the general idea you get
there is very easy." l. Ron Hubbard 'Exteriorization and the Phenomena of
Space' ***
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk 2.0.5
iQA/AwUBQ8V1L1CD9Dt1KmxLEQI/iACfWDZvzviGZR/V4A+/wlKyDZg/Ks4An01w
hPOdEe9JBiutNpI5+LTQMW6/
=dNED
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Piltdown Man
Dave Bird <dave.xemu...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote...
> In article<01c5fea1$43264b20$LocalHost@gateway>, Piltdown Man <piltdown@
> ivehaditwiththespam.sorry> writes:
<snip>
> >Just to correct a minor matter of fact: unless I've been really badly
> >misled, the church never had a flat earth as a part of doctrine. Since
> >antiquity, everybody with any kind of education knew the world was
> >round. That's why monarchs had an orb, and God was often pictured
> >holding such an orb, it symbolizes power over all the earth. The idea
> >that the church once declared the earth to be flat seems to be an
> >artefact of American popular culture, invented by Washington Irving in
> >the 19th century (if I can trust Monty Python member, and mediaeval
> >historian, Terry Jones). What the church did have a problem with was
> >the idea of heliocentrism.
>
> I wasn't aware the Church was reputed to have advocated flat-earthism,
> only heliocentrism.
It's a widespread myth, particularly among Americans, apparently due to a
misrepresentation of historical events in a popular fictionalized biography
of Christopher Columbus by Washington Irving (at least, that's the Terry
Jones theory about the origin of the myth, and I haven't yet heard a better
one). Demonstrated for instance not just in Dave Touretzky's post, but in
the lines from a Cole Porter (?) song, "They all laughed at Christopher
Columbus / When he said the earth was round." Irving turned the trouble
Columbus had in getting funding for his madcap (and failed) expedition into
a completely invented struggle between flat-earthist Church dignitaries vs.
round-earthist Columbus.