"Scientific" Dreams Of Travel To Stars Shattered: Mysterious Force Pulls Back NASA Probe In Deep Space
Sound of Trumpet
http://www.rense.com/general20/probe.htm
Mysterious Force Pulls Back NASA Probe In Deep Space
By Robert Matthews
Science Correspondent
The Telegraph - London
2-11-2
A space probe launched 30 years ago has come under the influence of a
force that has baffled scientists and could rewrite the laws of
physics.
Researchers say Pioneer 10, which took the first close-up pictures of
Jupiter before leaving our solar system in 1983, is being pulled back
to the sun by an unknown force. The effect shows no sign of getting
weaker as the spacecraft travels deeper into space, and scientists are
considering the possibility that the probe has revealed a new force of
nature.
Dr Philip Laing, a member of the research team tracking the craft,
said: "We have examined every mechanism and theory we can think of and
so far nothing works.
"If the effect is real, it will have a big impact on cosmology and
spacecraft navigation," said Dr Laing, of the Aerospace Corporation of
California.
Pioneer 10 was launched by Nasa on March 2 1972, and with Pioneer 11,
its twin, revolutionised astronomy with detailed images of Jupiter and
Saturn. In June 1983, Pioneer 10 passed Pluto, the most distant planet
in our solar system.
Both probes are now travelling at 27,000mph towards stars that they
will encounter several million years from now. Scientists are
continuing to monitor signals from Pioneer 10, which is more than seven
billion miles from Earth.
Research to be published shortly in The Physical Review, a leading
physics journal, will show that the speed of the two probes is being
changed by about 6 mph per century - a barely-perceptible effect about
10 billion times weaker than gravity.
Scientists initially suspected that gas escaping from tiny rocket
motors aboard the probes, or heat leaking from their nuclear power
plants might be responsible. Both have now been ruled out. The team
says no current theories explain why the force stays constant: all the
most plausible forces, from gravity to the effect of solar radiation,
decrease rapidly with distance.
The bizarre behaviour has also eliminated the possibility that the two
probes are being affected by the gravitational pull of unknown planets
beyond the solar system.
Assertions by some scientists that the force is due to a quirk in the
Pioneer probes have also been discounted by the discovery that the
effect seems to be affecting Galileo and Ulysses, two other space
probes still in the solar system. Data from these two probes suggests
the force is of the same strength as that found for the Pioneers.
Dr Duncan Steel, a space scientist at Salford University, says even
such a weak force could have huge effects on a cosmic scale. "It might
alter the number of comets that come towards us over millions of years,
which would have consequences for life on Earth. It also raises the
question of whether we know enough about the law of gravity."
Until 1988, Pioneer 10 was the most remote object made by man - a
distinction now held by Voyager 1. Should Pioneer 10 make contact with
alien life, it carries a gold-plated aluminium plaque on which the
figures of a man and woman are shown to scale, along with a map showing
its origin that Nasa calls "the cosmic equivalent of a message in a
bottle".
raven1
<soundof...@myway.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.rense.com/general20/probe.htm
>
>
>
>Mysterious Force Pulls Back NASA Probe In Deep Space
>
>By Robert Matthews
>
>Science Correspondent
>
>The Telegraph - London
>2-11-2
>
>
>A space probe launched 30 years ago has come under the influence of a
>force that has baffled scientists and could rewrite the laws of
>physics.
And your point is...?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Joe Strout
indicate the need for revision our theories of gravity -- and that, in
turn, is likely to have repercussions on other theories (dark matter
comes immediately to mind).
However, what's really astonishing is the level of ignorance required to
read this article, and then type a subject line like "Dreams Of Travel
To Stars Shattered". How can you read about an acceleration of 6 mph
per century, and not see that this would be absolutely no impediment to
interstellar travel?
Richo
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.rense.com/general20/probe.htm
>
>
>
> Mysterious Force Pulls Back NASA Probe In Deep Space
>
> By Robert Matthews
>
> Science Correspondent
>
> The Telegraph - London
> 2-11-2
>
>
> A space probe launched 30 years ago has come under the influence of a
> force that has baffled scientists and could rewrite the laws of
> physics.
>
The force - if it indeed exists is tiny - NOT enough to shatter "Dreams
Of Travel To Stars "
so your title is completely misleading and deceptive.
Cheers, Mark.
Jon Schild
Apparently, on top of his head.
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
> And your point is...?
Not that the probe has discovered where the dark matter starts... no,
but instead that when C. S. Lewis wrote about "God's quarantine
regulations", he didn't know the half of it!
God knows how clever humans are at getting around limits. After all, He
destroyed the Tower of Babel.
"Heaven, even the heavens, are Gods; the Earth He has given to the
children of men" - and so the probe is just now bumping into the
firmament!
Those Weekly World News stories about the Hubble Space Telescope taking
pictures of angels in Heaven, while perhaps not true, are, apparently,
not utterly implausible.
John Savard
Stephen Knight
Interesting. Your god apparently likes to mess with space probes
more than stopping the slaughter of six million Jews, feeding starving
babies or stopping violent crime.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
norrin
STrumpet wrote:
> http://www.rense.com/general20/probe.htm
>
> Mysterious Force Pulls Back NASA Probe In Deep Space
>
> By Robert Matthews
>
> Science Correspondent
>
> The Telegraph - London
> 2-11-2
>
> A space probe launched 30 years ago has come under the influence of a
> force that has baffled scientists and could rewrite the laws of
> physics.
It hit the crystal sphere and bounced :-)
jonathan
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:1160096585.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Interstellar travel is a waste of time, the only thing 'out there'
is the past.
>
> John Savard
>
Orval Fairbairn
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@myway.com> wrote:
Could it be fluid dynamic drag, due to traveling through the miniscule
solar atmosphere way out there? There is, after all, some interstellar
gas there.
2730 Dead
Kind of hard to imagine them missing something like that, but it might
be that the solar atmosphere is twice as dense as was throught at that
range. You know: two hydrogen atoms per cubic meter instead of one.
--
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Alan Anderson
> Could it be fluid dynamic drag, due to traveling through the miniscule
> solar atmosphere way out there? There is, after all, some interstellar
> gas there.
It's all moving away from the sun faster than the spacecraft is, isn't
it? That would tend to drag it *faster*.
Gene Ward Smith
Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> Could it be fluid dynamic drag, due to traveling through the miniscule
> solar atmosphere way out there? There is, after all, some interstellar
> gas there.
What about cold dark matter?
Henry Spencer
Orval Fairbairn <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> A space probe launched 30 years ago has come under the influence of a
>> force that has baffled scientists and could rewrite the laws of
>
>Could it be fluid dynamic drag, due to traveling through the miniscule
>solar atmosphere way out there? There is, after all, some interstellar
>gas there.
Not enough -- by multiple orders of magnitude -- to have a detectable
effect, even one this small. Not via known mechanisms of drag, anyway.
There is currently some work underway (note that the quoted news report is
several years old) to try to define exactly what *direction* the
mysterious force is acting in: toward Earth, toward the Sun, along the
antenna axis, or against the direction of motion. (These are similar but
not quite identical directions.) This could reveal the general nature of
what's going on:
+ Toward Earth would almost certainly mean that the "force" is actually
some kind of error in the tracking or data analysis.
+ Toward the Sun would probably mean new (gravitational?) physics.
+ Along the antenna axis would almost certainly mean some kind of
engineering issue, like gas leakage or photon thrust from radiated heat.
Because the spacecraft spins around the antenna axis, most any force
produced by the spacecraft acts, on average, along that axis. Thrust from
radiated heat is a particularly contentious issue because modeling where
all the radiated heat goes is tricky; not everybody is convinced that this
explanation has been thoroughly ruled out.
+ Against the direction of motion would probably mean some kind of drag,
although heaven knows what would be doing it.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he...@spsystems.net
G. L. Bradford
"jonathan" <Wr...@Instead.com> wrote in message
news:7VjVg.28951$eW5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
You are kidding, aren't you?
GLB
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> John Savard
>>
>
Wayne Throop
: There is currently some work underway (note that the quoted news
: report is several years old) to try to define exactly what *direction*
: the mysterious force is acting in: toward Earth, toward the Sun, along
: the antenna axis, or against the direction of motion.
How do you pick a "direction of motion"?
Or equivalently, how do you single out an inertial frame
in which to reckon this direction?
: + Against the direction of motion would probably mean some kind of
: drag, although heaven knows what would be doing it.
Ah. So presumably wrt some material presumed "at rest".
But then... dark matter, or something else exotic, might be flowing
differently than the mundane stuff we can measure, so... still seems
a problem. Most any of the "none of the above" directions could be
"the direction of motion", seems like.
Not that whatever direction is discovered wouldn't be interesting...
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
D J.@hoyme.com Mark D J.
news:nm2bi2150l0d26te0...@4ax.com...
> On 5 Oct 2006 15:37:43 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
>>
>>
>>A space probe launched 30 years ago has come under the influence of a
>>force that has baffled scientists and could rewrite the laws of
>>physics.
>
> And your point is...?
His point is this: "If science doesn't know everything, then science doesn't
really know anything. If scientists can still be surprised, then we don't
need to believe anything they say. Our book of fairy-tales could still be
true. God could still be there".
M.
Jordan
G. L. Bradford wrote:
> "jonathan" <Wr...@Instead.com> wrote in message
> news:7VjVg.28951$eW5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> > is the past.
>
> You are kidding, aren't you?
No, I think that he's misinterpreting General Relativity.
- Jordan
Jordan
It's _that_ weak a force? Then it could be dark matter, or it might
just be a thicker-than-expected concentration of interstellar dust or
gas producing _friction_.
I _do_ find it amusing that SOT didn't even bother to notice what the
force actually had accomplished.
The analogy would be mariners discovering the Gulf Stream and deciding
that "Dreams of Travelling to the New World" were "Shattered." Except
that, of course, the Gulf Stream is a relatively far greater force
compared to 15th-century sailing vessels than this force is compared to
even a drifting space probe.
- Jordan
G. L. Bradford
"Joe Strout" <j...@strout.net> wrote in message
news:joe-9C7C7A.1...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
The effect probably isn't real. I've been arguing for some time that there
is a human related flaw in how Special Relativity is interpreted where an
observer observes, or instrumentation detects, a distant object is in a
certain position at a certain velocity and actually it is neither in that
position nor doing that velocity. It is somewhere then far out ahead of that
given position for it and it is traveling a good deal faster than the
velocity being observed or detected for it. The reality of it is, in effect,
now in the unobserved 'unobservable' Universe, so to speak.
The flaw is no problem whatsoever at short distances on Earth or nearer
Earth. It only becomes a problem, an "expansionist" problem so to say, the
farther from the vicinity of Earth an object gets. The pseudo-Pioneer 10, at
seven billion miles from Earth (observed), if that were the distance right
now, would probably be -- at the exact distance, at the exact time -- about
ten and half hours behind in space and time to, or in the past of, the real
Pioneer 10. The pseudo-Pioneer 10, at eight billion miles from Earth
(observed), will be about twelve hours behind in space and time to, or in
the past of, the real Pioneer 10 -- providing it is not accelerating in
velocity. As you should be able to tell by the difference given here, the
pseudo-Pioneer 10 would seem, by falling farther and farther behind in time
to the real Pioneer 10, to be slowing down in space and time. It's that
"inertial frame" premise -- base -- every single one of those scientists are
using. The traveler's frame being, [in Relativity!], the even more, the ever
more, "inertial" of two inertial frames than the observer's inertial frame.
The real problem is, that particular traveler isn't even real.
At seven billion miles from Earth, it should take any observable
information having to do with Pioneer 10 about ten and a half hours to reach
Earth, putting that concerned Pioneer 10 about ten and a half hours behind
PIONEER 10 -- in the past of PIONEER 10. At eight billion miles from Earth,
it should take any observable information having anything to do with Pioneer
10 about twelve hours to reach Earth, putting that concerned Pioneer 10
about twelve hours behind PIONEER 10 -- in the past of PIONEER 10. One
Pioneer 10 always relative to the Earth and observers on Earth, and [the]
Pioneer 10 unobserved in an unobserved universe expanding in becoming ever
more unobservable, or getting ahead in time of observation from the Earth,
putting distance between it and a following ghost -- our observable ghost of
it scientists on Earth believe to be it because they've badly misinterpreted
the relationship of wavelength, frequency, and speed of light (badly
misinterpreted light information (all information including all visuals, all
pictures), thus badly misinterpreting space-time, thus badly misinterpreting
Relativity.
But to recognize and fix the problem of Relativity's misinterpretation,
science on Earth would also have to rethink the entire "observable
universe," rethinking an entire three-quarter century's worth of
cosmological look and interpretation. They won't do that so they will look
for something else, some mysterious force, as the what and why of the
mystery of Pioneer 10. Of course never discovering it. Of course to be made
to look history's fools all over again in a half-century to a century when
we ourselves get to traveling out vast distances and back, looking to slow
down on the way out, and speed up on the way back (like you see that a car
or an aircraft seems to slow down on its way going away from you, and seems
to speed up on its way oncoming toward you, when in fact, for this case at
least, the speedometer, or airspeed indicator, reads a steady-state velocity
being maintained at all times going and coming).
----------------
Heavier than air ships will never fly. (Lord Kelvin)
The future of computers is that one computer will be a colossus occupying
an entire city block. (von Neumann)
Columbus and all his men will most certainly die before they reach even
halfway to the East. (the science establishment, 1491-1492)
----------------
GLB
*nemo*
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@myway.com> wrote:
> Research to be published shortly in The Physical Review, a leading
> physics journal, will show that the speed of the two probes is being
> changed by about 6 mph per century - a barely-perceptible effect about
> 10 billion times weaker than gravity.
Yeah, that'll be SURE to keep us bottled up in the region for eternity.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
*nemo*
raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >A space probe launched 30 years ago has come under the influence of a
> >force that has baffled scientists and could rewrite the laws of
> >physics.
>
> And your point is...?
Where else? At the top of his skull.
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
> Interesting. Your god apparently likes to mess with space probes
> more than stopping the slaughter of six million Jews, feeding starving
> babies or stopping violent crime.
Well, since these space probes are apparently being stopped by an
invisible hand, either it's God, or we'll have to blame Adam Smith for
it!
John Savard
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
> The team
> says no current theories explain why the force stays constant: all the
> most plausible forces, from gravity to the effect of solar radiation,
> decrease rapidly with distance.
It's certainly true that the force of the Sun's gravity on these space
probes would diminish at the rate of 1/(r^2); however, the
gravitational force of the Oort cloud only begins to diminish at that
rate _once one is no longer *inside* the Oort cloud_.
Hence, eliminating gravity seems to be premature.
Also, how was it determined that the motions of these space probes had
been disturbed?
Was it solely by radar echoes and time delays of signals to and from
the probes? I suspect that is likely; such a small deviation, barely
detectable by those means, would not be detectable by triangulation.
So, it's possible that the speed of light in a _true_ vacuum, as found
in distant space, is just faster than the speed of light in the vacuums
we can make and measure light in upon Earth! I'll admit that's
unlikely, but the results don't really eliminate that alternate
possibility either.
John Savard
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
> How can you read about an acceleration of 6 mph
> per century, and not see that this would be absolutely no impediment to
> interstellar travel?
Well, if one is looking for something to beat the infidels over the
head with, one might not read carefully.
However, let's not get *too* hasty here.
A space probe travelling at 6 mph would take more than a century to
reach Alpha Centauri. Therefore, this force clearly would be an
impediment to interstellar travel by space probes on ballistic
trajectories travelling at slow speeds.
Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. So Alpha Centauri is about
25,000,000,000,000 miles away.
Let's imagine a space probe which begins from a standing start at the
position of our solar system, undergoing an acceleration of 6 mph per
century. To get the units right, that will be 5,256,000 miles per
century squared. So, at the end of one century, it will have covered
2,628,000 miles, according to the formula (1/2)a(t^2).
Such a space probe will have been travelling for 3,084 centuries before
reaching Alpha Centauri.
Thus, when it reaches Alpha Centauri, it will be travelling at about
18,000 miles per hour - therefore, reaching the stars with a space
probe accelerated to that velocity (say by "gravitational propulsion" -
an encounter with Jupiter) is indeed prevented by such a force.
However, 18,000 miles per hour _is_ rather slow even by current
standards of space travel, so it _is_ true that this force doesn't
prevent interstellar travel.
John Savard
2738 Dead
wrote:
Why, it must the the aether!
Mark K. Bilbo
> he speed of the two probes is being
> changed by about 6 mph per century - a barely-perceptible effect about
> 10 billion times weaker than gravity.
And how does that "shatter" dreams of interstellar travel?
An old Ford Pinto firing on one cylinder has enough energy to over come a
force *that weak...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
Mark K. Bilbo
Um... what?
Mark K. Bilbo
> This is really exciting research. If the effect is real, it could
> indicate the need for revision our theories of gravity -- and that, in
> turn, is likely to have repercussions on other theories (dark matter
> comes immediately to mind).
>
> However, what's really astonishing is the level of ignorance required to
> read this article, and then type a subject line like "Dreams Of Travel
> To Stars Shattered". How can you read about an acceleration of 6 mph
> per century, and not see that this would be absolutely no impediment to
> interstellar travel?
Because he's so dense, he actually bends rays of light...
The Hurkle Beast
news:1160100457....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Nah, it just hit the rope limit, is all.....
Mark K. Bilbo
No, silly, it's bumping into angels!
The Hurkle Beast
news:1160108996....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Isn't that one of the new Prismacolor selections?
Michael Stemper
I think that you'd better throw it out; it's been in the fridge for
about three weeks now.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
Eric Chomko
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:53:42 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:
>
> > This is really exciting research. If the effect is real, it could
> > indicate the need for revision our theories of gravity -- and that, in
> > turn, is likely to have repercussions on other theories (dark matter
> > comes immediately to mind).
> >
> > However, what's really astonishing is the level of ignorance required to
> > read this article, and then type a subject line like "Dreams Of Travel
> > To Stars Shattered". How can you read about an acceleration of 6 mph
> > per century, and not see that this would be absolutely no impediment to
> > interstellar travel?
>
> Because he's so dense, he actually bends rays of light...
Don't call him a star. Perhaps a neutron star or black hole but not a
star...
Eric Chomko
Are you saying that Pioneer is being acted on by an aethernet? Contact
3Com at once!
Tell um we need a spelling change...
Eric
Eric Chomko
The apcecraft is back in Los Angeles?!
Eric Chomko
The spacecraft is back in Los Angeles?!
Cary Kittrell
No, silly, vampires with souls. (but yes, in Los Angeles)
-- cary
Gene Ward Smith
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
> Hence, eliminating gravity seems to be premature.
Which is why I was wondering about cold dark matter. Can we rule this
out somehow?
Ingot
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
> Well, since these space probes are apparently being stopped by an
> invisible hand, either it's God, or we'll have to blame Adam Smith for
> it!
Personally I think God's had would have a greater impact than a few
MPH/century.
Kevin Anthoney
>
> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:53:42 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:
>>
>> > This is really exciting research. If the effect is real, it could
>> > indicate the need for revision our theories of gravity -- and that, in
>> > turn, is likely to have repercussions on other theories (dark matter
>> > comes immediately to mind).
>> >
>> > However, what's really astonishing is the level of ignorance required
>> > to read this article, and then type a subject line like "Dreams Of
>> > Travel
>> > To Stars Shattered". How can you read about an acceleration of 6 mph
>> > per century, and not see that this would be absolutely no impediment to
>> > interstellar travel?
>>
>> Because he's so dense, he actually bends rays of light...
>
> Don't call him a star. Perhaps a neutron star or black hole but not a
> star...
>
Dumbbell Nebula?
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
Mark K. Bilbo
No, that would be Hollywood...
Ingot
"The Hurkle Beast" <hur...@ameritech.net> wrote
> >
> >
> > STrumpet wrote:
> > > http://www.rense.com/general20/probe.htm
> > >
> > > Mysterious Force Pulls Back NASA Probe In Deep Space
> > >
> > > By Robert Matthews
> > >
> > > Science Correspondent
> > >
> > > The Telegraph - London
> > > 2-11-2
> > >
> > > A space probe launched 30 years ago has come under the influence
> of a
> > > force that has baffled scientists and could rewrite the laws of
> > > physics.
> >
> > It hit the crystal sphere and bounced :-)
>
> Nah, it just hit the rope limit, is all.....
I think the last clear image they received was of Foghorn Leghorn waiting
there with a baseball bat.
jonathan
"G. L. Bradford" <glbr...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:YIWdnRqRFM9kc7jY...@insightbb.com...
>
> "jonathan" <Wr...@Instead.com> wrote in message
> news:7VjVg.28951$eW5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >
> >
> > Interstellar travel is a waste of time, the only thing 'out there'
> > is the past.
>
> You are kidding, aren't you?
Of course not.
It's a simple matter of finding the proper relationship between
time and humanity. For instance...
When we look out into space at great distances we see
the past. Travelling there, even at high rates of speed, will
take us to a place that is /unknowable/ in advance
in this way.
Returning, even at high rates of speed, will take us to our own
future, which is also a place that is /unknowable/ in advance
in this way.
Science is all about understanding reality so that we can build
a better present and future.
Travelling is not science, it is ...../GUESSING/ about our future.
Notice I define scientific efforts to be about knowledge, NOT guesswork.
This is NOT a subtle distinction. Turning our scientific efforts
into guesswork takes us back, not forward.
Science is about taking the guesswork out of our future, NOT
turning our future into random pot-luck guesswork.
So how do we best understand our present reality, in order
to build a better future?
ONLY by imagining the future, the /ideal future/, can we draw
a path from the present to the future we need and desire.
We have to know where it is we wish to be, before
we can take even the very first step. Unless of course
you believe science to be about randomness and
guessing.
Traveling to find out about reality, and our existence, is
not worthy of being called science and is a step backwards.
Imagination discovers the path needed to find a better future!!!
There is nothing 'out there' for us except the past.
The answers to our future reside within.
Take that logic apart if you can.
Jonathan
s
>
> GLB
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> John Savard
> >>
> >
>
>
firel...@hotmail.com
> There is currently some work underway (note that the quoted news report is
> several years old) to try to define exactly what *direction* the
> mysterious force is acting in: toward Earth, toward the Sun, along the
> antenna axis, or against the direction of motion. (These are similar but
> not quite identical directions.) This could reveal the general nature of
> what's going on:
>
That would probably be the coolest outcome from this - as someone
once said, the greatest scientific discoveries usually aren't heralded
by "Eureka", but by "Hmm, that's odd..."
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Cary Kittrell
Mmmmm...Charisma Carpenter....
-- cary
Roy Jose Lorr
> "raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
> news:nm2bi2150l0d26te0...@4ax.com...
>
>>On 5 Oct 2006 15:37:43 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
>><soundoftrumpet@
>>
>>>
>>>A space probe launched 30 years ago has come under the influence of a
>>>force that has baffled scientists and could rewrite the laws of
>>>physics.
>>
>>And your point is...?
>
>
> His point is this: "If science doesn't know everything, then science doesn't
> really know anything. If scientists can still be surprised, then we don't
> need to believe anything they say. Our book of fairy-tales could still be
> true. God could still be there".
Sorry, dearheart, every step "science" takes goes to proving
the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
2740 Dead
The Romans didn't think so. They spent two hours of Mel Gibson's time
kicking the shit out of him.
>
>
>-- cary
>
--
Today's GOP: Chickenhawks in every sense of the word.
Cary Kittrell
OK. That cost me two "huh?"s and three re-reads.
Worth it though...
-- cary
raven1
wrote:
For example?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Roy Jose Lorr
Take your pick.
raven1
Roy Jose Lorr
> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:31:08 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>raven1 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:53:18 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark D J. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:nm2bi2150l0d26te0...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 5 Oct 2006 15:37:43 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
>>>>>><soundoftrumpet@
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A space probe launched 30 years ago has come under the influence of a
>>>>>>>force that has baffled scientists and could rewrite the laws of
>>>>>>>physics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And your point is...?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>His point is this: "If science doesn't know everything, then science doesn't
>>>>>really know anything. If scientists can still be surprised, then we don't
>>>>>need to believe anything they say. Our book of fairy-tales could still be
>>>>>true. God could still be there".
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, dearheart, every step "science" takes goes to proving
>>>>the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
>>>
>>>
>>>For example?
>>
>>Take your pick.
>
>
> Non-answer noted.
You mean you have nothing to show that my assertion is wrong.
Lucifer
Bwahahaha tehehehe
Oh fuck it's royboy again.
There is no evidence for an intelligent designer you fucken moron, none
whatsoever. There is, however, plenty of evidence for evolution, now
FOAD you troll
--
Lucifer, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil and General
Purpose Igor
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
Howard Brazee
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>Sorry, dearheart, every step "science" takes goes to proving
>>the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
>
>For example?
For example, Brahma.
Stephen Rush
Maybe, but He's looking less and less like the King in the Sky who will,
for sufficiently enthusiastic bootlicking, suspend the rules for you. The
old idea of an omnipotent entity who sat outside the solid dome of the sky
(look up "firmament") directing the fall of every raindrop is as
dead as phlogiston. The more we learn, the more it looks like the
statement of creation went something like "Let there be an n-dimensional
manifold (the value of n is still uncertain) that satisfies {The Equation
That Implies Everything}. Go!" This goes by the name Deism, and it was
popular around the time of the American Revolution. The big-time shamans
*hate* this idea in direct proportion to the size of their palaces,
because it means that they have no pull with the Big Boss in the Sky, so
there is no reason to keep them in the style to which they have long been
accustomed.
A good Theory of Everything would still leave room for God. Stephen
Hawking put it: "What is that breathes fire into the equations and makes a
universe for them to describe?" It would _not_ leave room for the
Priesthood. I say good fuckin' riddance. We got rid of the idea that the
crops wouldn't grow unless we plowed under a child every spring, so we can
shake off the rest of that ancient mumbo-jumbo.
Douglas Berry
the following in alt.atheism and I was immediately reminded of 1,000
Chinchillas singing Handel's "Messiah" for some reason...
>
>"G. L. Bradford" <glbr...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>news:YIWdnRqRFM9kc7jY...@insightbb.com...
>>
>> "jonathan" <Wr...@Instead.com> wrote in message
>> news:7VjVg.28951$eW5....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> >
>
>> >
>> >
>> > Interstellar travel is a waste of time, the only thing 'out there'
>> > is the past.
>
>>
>> You are kidding, aren't you?
>
>
>Of course not.
>
>It's a simple matter of finding the proper relationship between
>time and humanity. For instance...
>
>When we look out into space at great distances we see
>the past. Travelling there, even at high rates of speed, will
>take us to a place that is /unknowable/ in advance
>in this way.
Looking at my computer screen from a distance of about 30 inches I'm
looking into the past. It still takes time for the light of the
monitor to reach my eyes.
We go because it is there.
We go because there are new resources, and places to live and thrive.
We go because it is our nature.
>Returning, even at high rates of speed, will take us to our own
>future, which is also a place that is /unknowable/ in advance
>in this way.
So? I start driving tonight to visit my friends in New York. The
trip will take me maybe five, six days. I cannot know what NYC will
be like when i get there. I cannot gurantee that NYC will be there,
or that I won't encounter some event on the trip that will delay or
even stop me.
Is that reason enough not to go?
>Science is all about understanding reality so that we can build
>a better present and future.
I'd remove the second clause from that.
>Travelling is not science, it is ...../GUESSING/ about our future.
>Notice I define scientific efforts to be about knowledge, NOT guesswork.
>This is NOT a subtle distinction. Turning our scientific efforts
>into guesswork takes us back, not forward.
You do realize some great science starts with both guesses and
voyages, right? Neptune was found because several people guessed that
oddities in Uranus' orbit were caused by another body. Darwin
fromulated his theories on evolution while on the voyage.
>Science is about taking the guesswork out of our future, NOT
>turning our future into random pot-luck guesswork.
Again, science sometimes requires guesses and counter-intuitive leaps.
>So how do we best understand our present reality, in order
>to build a better future?
>
>ONLY by imagining the future, the /ideal future/, can we draw
>a path from the present to the future we need and desire.
>We have to know where it is we wish to be, before
>we can take even the very first step. Unless of course
>you believe science to be about randomness and
>guessing.
I suspect that you don't know how real science works. It is hardly an
orderly affair, filled with logical goals. That's engineering. Real
science is messy and chaotic. You cannot predict a discovery, and when
you make a breakthrough, it usually opens up a dozen more questions.
>Traveling to find out about reality, and our existence, is
>not worthy of being called science and is a step backwards.
How else do you gather data? We had no solid facts about the Moon,
other than its existence, until we sent men and probes and anaylized
the material they brought back. You learn about volcanoes by going to
them, oberversing them taking merasurements.. not by sitting around an
ivory tower!
Evenb physics requires that scientists get out an do things.
>Imagination discovers the path needed to find a better future!!!
How do you make dreams real without relevant data?
>There is nothing 'out there' for us except the past.
>The answers to our future reside within.
What is "out there"? The entire frigging universe.
>Take that logic apart if you can.
Easily done.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"2738 Dead" <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:9vhci257llmcp0jkq...@4ax.com...
>
> Why, it must the the aether!
Actually strangely enough, one of the current theories to explain this does
draw upon some of the old aether theories.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Roy Jose Lorr" <Ken...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Z6mdnaF5V_76cLvY...@comcast.com...
> raven1 wrote:
>
>>
>> Non-answer noted.
>
> You mean you have nothing to show that my assertion is wrong.
Oh bullshit. It just goes to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster is behind
ita..
And I've provided as much proof for my assertion as you have.
Good night.
2738 Dead
<mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
>"2738 Dead" <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>news:9vhci257llmcp0jkq...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Why, it must the the aether!
>
>Actually strangely enough, one of the current theories to explain this does
>draw upon some of the old aether theories.
The old aether theories were based on the notion that if light is
waves, it must need a medium to travel through.
G. L. Bradford
"jonathan" <Wr...@Instead.com> wrote in message
-1+1=0. From past (-1) via future (+1) to present.(0). Sure our relative
relationship to ever star and galaxy is that of them being seen to be
between us and a most distant horizon of time, all of them being in that
direction going away from us. But so are we in that same direction when
viewed from any other "here and now" in the universe. Then we are a part of
that background relative to any other here and now. Our line of travel,
relative to one of them and not to us, is then one of 'there and then' (a
past) to 'here and now' (the present), or -1+1=0.
You've either been joking around or you've just proved that you should
definitely not give up your day job for any even honorary position in
cosmology and physics, but especially not in Logic.
GLB
panam...@hotmail.com
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> http://www.rense.com/general20/probe.htm
>
>
>
> Mysterious Force Pulls Back NASA Probe In Deep Space
That's us. We need it back for the museum, now that we've perfected
warp drive. Guys, just wait `till you see the Black Starships. Those
things would scare the Terminator.
-Cap'n Panama Floyd
EAC (ntie,oc) Space Command.
panam...@hotmail.com
panam...@hotmail.com
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
.
> > Well, since these space probes are apparently being stopped by an
> > invisible hand, either it's God, or we'll have to blame Adam Smith for
> > it!
> Personally I think God's had would have a greater impact than a few
> MPH/century.
Well, of course it _could_, if He *wanted* it to!
On further reflection, though, having it look like an invisible hand
could just be a clever ruse, aimed at getting me to look among Smiths
at the wrong end of the alphabet.
Since this is an attempt at _sabotaging_ attempts at _interstellar
travel_, perhaps we shouldn't be looking in the direction of Adam
Smith... but instead, we should be suspecting... Zachary.
John Savard
raven1
wrote:
Burden of proof's on you, Sparky.
Mr.Bolshoyhuy
>
> Interesting. Your god apparently likes to mess with space probes
> more than stopping the slaughter of six million Jews, feeding starving
> babies or stopping violent crime.
>
> Warlord Steve
> BAAWA
LOL! how true!
not to mention rolling back the speed of Hurricane Katrina or that
Tsunami in Asia.
Listen, here is what god does just for kicks:
he/she/it places dinosaur bones and ancestors of homo sapiens all over
to trick scientists into believing man evolved from other species
instead of being created.
spreads disease, pests, blood etc. all over Egypt, thereby hurting
innocent people,
just so that the Pharaoh would let the Jews go.
Tells the Jews to invade the Land of Canaan, to set up Israel.
Alex Terrell
raven1 wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2006 15:37:43 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
>
> >
> >http://www.rense.com/general20/probe.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >Mysterious Force Pulls Back NASA Probe In Deep Space
> >
> >
> >Science Correspondent
> >
> >The Telegraph - London
> >2-11-2
> >
> >
> >force that has baffled scientists and could rewrite the laws of
> >physics.
>
> And your point is...?
Why does he need a point? I found the article interesting (which I
would never have expected looking at the title).
Henry Spencer
>: ...or against the direction of motion.
>
>How do you pick a "direction of motion"?
>Or equivalently, how do you single out an inertial frame
>in which to reckon this direction?
Given that the mysterious force is acting in a generally sunward direction,
if it's some kind of drag, the obvious inertial frame is a Sun-fixed one.
The Pioneers were heading outward much more slowly than the solar wind, so
it can't be solar-wind drag -- that would speed them up, not slow them
down -- and the galactic wind is in another direction entirely.
>Not that whatever direction is discovered wouldn't be interesting...
There is, of course, the interesting option that the exact direction of
the mysterious force is none of the four possibilities I mentioned. In
which case, people will start looking hard for *some* phenomenon
associated with that direction.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | he...@spsystems.net
Henry Spencer
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>It's certainly true that the force of the Sun's gravity on these space
>probes would diminish at the rate of 1/(r^2); however, the
>gravitational force of the Oort cloud only begins to diminish at that
>rate _once one is no longer *inside* the Oort cloud_.
>Hence, eliminating gravity seems to be premature.
Trouble is, it's hard to make the Pioneer effect fit orthodox gravity. If
memory serves, it appears to operate only in the outer solar system, and
there appears to be essentially a steady force, not showing any strong
variation with distance. This fits neither the gravity of a single object
nor the gravity of a homogeneous or spherically-symmetrical cloud.
>Also, how was it determined that the motions of these space probes had
>been disturbed?
Precision measurement of range and range rate -- velocity along the range
direction -- via radio tracking. Range rate is particularly easy to
measure precisely because you do it by measuring Doppler effect -- the
change in frequency of a radio signal repeated back by the probe -- which
is something modern electronics can do very precisely indeed.
>...such a small deviation, barely
>detectable by those means, would not be detectable by triangulation.
You might be surprised at just how precisely VLBI techniques can measure
the direction of a radio source. However, as far as I know those weren't
applied to the Pioneers to any useful extent.
>So, it's possible that the speed of light in a _true_ vacuum, as found
>in distant space, is just faster than the speed of light in the vacuums
>we can make and measure light in upon Earth! I'll admit that's
>unlikely, but the results don't really eliminate that alternate
>possibility either.
No, this doesn't explain changes in the measured *velocity* of the probes.
The velocity was measured directly, not by taking differences in successive
distance measurements.
Stephen Knight
wrote:
>
>>
>> Interesting. Your god apparently likes to mess with space probes
>> more than stopping the slaughter of six million Jews, feeding starving
>> babies or stopping violent crime.
>>
>> Warlord Steve
>> BAAWA
>
>LOL! how true!
>not to mention rolling back the speed of Hurricane Katrina or that
>Tsunami in Asia.
That's the point. Religers will tell how their 'god' does this and
that.... like mess with the velocity of a space probe, become Mary at
a gas station urine stain or eyes of Jeebus in knot holes on a door...
but he can't do one significant act to prove his existence.
They flout, screech with dreamy eyes, with their hands held high,
evidence that shouts out crop circles, the Bermuda Triangle and penis
enlargement pills as being proof of their deity.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
Roy Jose Lorr
Denial is good.
Roy Jose Lorr
Dearheart, I said: "take your pick". That means you can
chose any step in science to see that they all show the
existence of an Intelligent Designer. Do you have in mind a
particular scientific outcome to the contrary or are you
afraid that I'm right in stating that you have nothing to
show that my assertion is wrong?
Roy Jose Lorr
> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
>>Mark D J. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>>>news:nm2bi2150l0d26te0...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 5 Oct 2006 15:37:43 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
>>>><soundoftrumpet@
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>A space probe launched 30 years ago has come under the influence of a
>>>>>force that has baffled scientists and could rewrite the laws of
>>>>>physics.
>>>>
>>>>And your point is...?
>>>
>>>
>>>His point is this: "If science doesn't know everything, then science doesn't
>>>really know anything. If scientists can still be surprised, then we don't
>>>need to believe anything they say. Our book of fairy-tales could still be
>>>true. God could still be there".
>>
>>Sorry, dearheart, every step "science" takes goes to proving
>>the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
>
>
> Bwahahaha tehehehe
> Oh fuck it's royboy again.
>
> There is no evidence for an intelligent designer you fucken moron, none
> whatsoever. There is, however, plenty of evidence for evolution, now
> FOAD you troll
I said: "take your pick". That means you can chose any step
raven1
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sorry, dearheart, every step "science" takes goes to proving
>>>>>>>the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For example?
>>>>>
>>>>>Take your pick.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Non-answer noted.
>>>
>>>You mean you have nothing to show that my assertion is wrong.
>>
>>
>> Burden of proof's on you, Sparky.
>
>Dearheart, I said: "take your pick".
Burden of proof is still on you, Bitch. Put up or shut up.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
Let's see, what else do you believe is good? We can list a few
things, at least. Stupidity is good. Vacuous claims are good.
Ignorance is good. Insanity is good. Torture is good. Lying is
good.
And we know you think being the joke of Usenet is good, or you
wouldn't work so hard at it.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>Lucifer wrote:
In logic, retard, it is not the duty of anyone, ever, to *dis*prove
someone else's assertion. It's the duty of the one making the
assertion to support it. Otherwise it simply collapses of its own
weight.
Roy Jose Lorr
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:05:39 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>>>>Sorry, dearheart, every step "science" takes goes to proving
>>>>>>>>the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For example?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Take your pick.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Non-answer noted.
>>>>
>>>>You mean you have nothing to show that my assertion is wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>Burden of proof's on you, Sparky.
>>
>>Dearheart, I said: "take your pick".
>
>
> Burden of proof is still on you, Bitch. Put up or shut up.
Looks like you're the one 'shutting up'.
raven1
Nope; I'm continuing to demand an example. You're continuing to refuse
to provide one.
Kevin Anthoney
I thought the idea was that we could pick anything - plate tectonics, say -
and he would then explain exactly how plate tectonics implies an
intelligent designer.
Or not, as the case may be ;)
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
Roy Jose Lorr
Denial is good.
Roy Jose Lorr
Now you're getting it.
Lars Eighner
<1160087863.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and
talented Sound of Trumpet broadcast on alt.atheism:
> http://www.rense.com/general20/probe.htm
> Mysterious Force Pulls Back NASA Probe In Deep Space
This is really fascinating. Gravity is such a weak force in comparison
to the others, that if a force much weaker than gravity exists, the
discovery would greatly advance science.
However, your Subject header is completely erroneous and has nothing to
do with the article. The "dreams of travel to stars" have never had
a scientific foundation. They are entirely science fiction in which the
"science" is a fiction. Manned exploration of other star systems is
a religious proposition of the Church of Star Trek and it's splinter
cult the Church of Star Wars.
If we wrecked on the economics of Earth, sure a manned fly-by of Alpha
Centori might be in the cards some time late in this century. Mass
migrations or colonizations of other star systems will never be possible and
neither will whizzing around the Galaxy at faster-than-light speeds.
That stuff is as illusionary as your Heaven and Hell.
--
Lars Eighner *Atheist #1965* use...@larseighner.com <http://larseighner.com/>
War hath no fury like a noncombatant. - Charles Edward Montague
Kevin Anthoney
Right, then. How does Plate Tectonics establish the existence of an
intelligent designer?
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>raven1 wrote:
>
>> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>>
>>>raven1 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:05:39 -0700, Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Sorry, dearheart, every step "science" takes goes to proving
>>>>>>>>>>>the existence of an Intelligent Designer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>For example?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Take your pick.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Non-answer noted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You mean you have nothing to show that my assertion is wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Burden of proof's on you, Sparky.
>>>>>
>>>>>Dearheart, I said: "take your pick".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Burden of proof is still on you, Bitch. Put up or shut up.
>>>
>>>Looks like you're the one 'shutting up'.
>>
>>
>> Nope; I'm continuing to demand an example. You're continuing to refuse
>> to provide one.
>
>Denial is good.
Cowardice combined with contemptible dishonesty is better.
Roy Jose Lorr
Merely by its presence which can not be explained in any
other way.
Wayne Throop
: Merely by its presence which can not be explained in any
: other way.
Of course, the issue is, it can't be explained that way either.
Unless you are willing to accept essentially empty "explanations",
in which case there are cheaper empty explanations.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Bill Snyder
wrote:
"It just grew." There's one other way. "It was the product of an
UN-intelligent designer." There's another.
Roy Jose Lorr
> : Roy Jose Lorr <Ken...@comcast.net>
> : Merely by its presence which can not be explained in any
> : other way.
>
> Of course, the issue is, it can't be explained that way either.
> Unless you are willing to accept essentially empty "explanations",
> in which case there are cheaper empty explanations.
Intelligent design explains it quite well.
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>Wayne Throop wrote:
Only in the minds (?) of its proponents. And even then, only until
you point out that by their own arguments, the existence of an
intelligent designer must imply the existence of an even *more*
intelligent designer-designer. At that point, they start spluttering
and typing vacuous nonsense like "denial is good," utterly unable to
respond in any honest or cogent way.
Wayne Throop
: Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
: Only in the minds (?) of its proponents. And even then, only until
: you point out that by their own arguments, the existence of an
: intelligent designer must imply the existence of an even *more*
: intelligent designer-designer. At that point, they start spluttering
: and typing vacuous nonsense like "denial is good," utterly unable to
: respond in any honest or cogent way.
The typical response I've seen is that the ID is transcendent, and
doesn't need to be created. Why the universe itself can't be transcendent
and not need to be created is normally not discussed, that I've seen.
And of course "explains it quite well" for life requires that one simply
ignore most of the available evidence about when species originated
and how they are genetically related, since no known form of design produces
patterns like those we see in genetics. The typical response here is the
"mysterious ways" reponse; your puny finite mortal mind can't comprehend
the wonderfullness of the ID's design.
Which of course is where the "explanation" gets diluted to the point of
making a homeopathic remedy look like a concentrate: an ID which you
don't understand is not an explanation. If an ID explains everything,
as in every possible state of affairs, then it actually explains nothing.
And of course, the "explains it quite well" for plate tectonics
is totally empty: "the ID did it" is not an explanation at all.
So. If you are willing to equate "quite well" with
"dilute to the point of pointlessness", then sure.
A "mysterious ways" designer explains everything.
The explanation is worth what you pay for it, of course.
( Now do you suppose someone will snip all but one sentence,
and do the "glad to see you admit it" thing? Gosh, how clever
of anybody would could think of such a devastating ploy. )
Roy Jose Lorr
> :: Intelligent design explains it quite well.
>
> : Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
> : Only in the minds (?) of its proponents. And even then, only until
> : you point out that by their own arguments, the existence of an
> : intelligent designer must imply the existence of an even *more*
> : intelligent designer-designer. At that point, they start spluttering
> : and typing vacuous nonsense like "denial is good," utterly unable to
> : respond in any honest or cogent way.
>
> The typical response I've seen is that the ID is transcendent, and
> doesn't need to be created. Why the universe itself can't be transcendent
> and not need to be created is normally not discussed, that I've seen.
Everything that exists in this universe must have had a
beginning. Beginning indicates intelligent design. Unless
of course you can name something that appeared without a
beginning.
<snip gobbledygook>
2744 Dead
wrote:
>Wayne Throop wrote:
>
>> :: Intelligent design explains it quite well.
>>
>> : Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
>> : Only in the minds (?) of its proponents. And even then, only until
>> : you point out that by their own arguments, the existence of an
>> : intelligent designer must imply the existence of an even *more*
>> : intelligent designer-designer. At that point, they start spluttering
>> : and typing vacuous nonsense like "denial is good," utterly unable to
>> : respond in any honest or cogent way.
>>
>> The typical response I've seen is that the ID is transcendent, and
>> doesn't need to be created. Why the universe itself can't be transcendent
>> and not need to be created is normally not discussed, that I've seen.
>
>Everything that exists in this universe must have had a
>beginning.
Including, of course, God. How did THAT get started?
Beginning indicates intelligent design. Unless
>of course you can name something that appeared without a
>beginning.
>
><snip gobbledygook>
--
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>Wayne Throop wrote:
>
>> :: Intelligent design explains it quite well.
>>
>> : Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
>> : Only in the minds (?) of its proponents. And even then, only until
>> : you point out that by their own arguments, the existence of an
>> : intelligent designer must imply the existence of an even *more*
>> : intelligent designer-designer. At that point, they start spluttering
>> : and typing vacuous nonsense like "denial is good," utterly unable to
>> : respond in any honest or cogent way.
>>
>> The typical response I've seen is that the ID is transcendent, and
>> doesn't need to be created. Why the universe itself can't be transcendent
>> and not need to be created is normally not discussed, that I've seen.
>
>Everything that exists in this universe must have had a
>beginning.
Assertion with zero accompanying evidence to back it up is duly noted.
>Beginning indicates intelligent design.
Assertion with zero accompanying evidence to back it up is duly noted.
>Unless
>of course you can name something that appeared without a
>beginning.
Your stupidity and dishonesty clearly have no end; it's only logical
that they also have no beginning.
><snip gobbledygook>
Who intelligently-designed the designer? And who
intelligently-designed *that* designer? And that one?
mr_antone
wrote:
And with good diseases like malaria and tuberculosis, the intelligent
designer must be a fucking bastard.
mr_antone
Wayne Throop
: 2744 Dead <zepp22...@finestplanet.com>
: Including, of course, God. How did THAT get started?
But you see, God[1] isn't "in the universe", so it *doesn't* include God.
That's the traditional answer. The traditional crucial point to overlook
is that the universe isn't in the universe either. You will note that
Roy completely ignores the actual issue.
:: Beginning indicates intelligent design.
Actually, no. That's just another assumption being snuk in.
[1] Or rather, the figleaf of "The Intelligent Designer".
Stephen Rush
Inebredeism explains all observations better than any other theistic
theory.
DarkAngel
> We have to know where it is we wish to be, before
> we can take even the very first step.
That's not the scientific method. In science, you do not start from a
preconceived notion, you have to start by observing the facts. Then you
use those to form an understanding of the world. You do not know in
advance what facts are going to be significant and which aren't.
> Unless of course
> you believe science to be about randomness and
> guessing.
That's pretty much what it is. You get data, you guess at a
relationship, then you get more data that supports or infer that
hypothesis, and update your hypothesis.
> Traveling to find out about reality, and our existence, is
> not worthy of being called science and is a step backwards.
Travelling elsewhere to explore and observe, that is *empiricism*, is
the only form of truthseeking that can reasonably be called science.
> Imagination discovers the path needed to find a better future!!!
Imagination devoid of empirical grounding is nothing more than a path
towards insanity, which you demonstrate with every one of your words.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
raven1
wrote:
How exactly do you figure that?
raven1
wrote:
>Wayne Throop wrote:
>
>> :: Intelligent design explains it quite well.
>>
>> : Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
>> : Only in the minds (?) of its proponents. And even then, only until
>> : you point out that by their own arguments, the existence of an
>> : intelligent designer must imply the existence of an even *more*
>> : intelligent designer-designer. At that point, they start spluttering
>> : and typing vacuous nonsense like "denial is good," utterly unable to
>> : respond in any honest or cogent way.
>>
>> The typical response I've seen is that the ID is transcendent, and
>> doesn't need to be created. Why the universe itself can't be transcendent
>> and not need to be created is normally not discussed, that I've seen.
>
>Everything that exists in this universe must have had a
>beginning.
So?
> Beginning indicates intelligent design.
Non Sequitur.
> Unless
>of course you can name something that appeared without a
>beginning.
Red Herring. "Having a beginning" does not equal "having a designer".