Now suppose that b is a square. Then if a isn't square either
a = -k^2, 2k^2 or -2k^2. As before use Dirichlet and the CRT to find
a prime p with p not dividing k, and p = 3 (mod 4), p = 3 (mod 8) or
p = 7 (mod 8) in the three cases respctively. Then another Jacobi
symbol computation gives (a/p) = -1.
Robin Chapman + "They did not have proper
Department of Mathematics - palms at home in Exeter."
University of Exeter, EX4 4QE, UK +
r...@maths.exeter.ac.uk - Peter Carey,
http://www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.html + Oscar and Lucinda
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>If an integer is a perfect square mod m for every integer m>1, is it
>necessarily a perfect square?
A simpler argument than Robin Chapman's is that if a is not a perfect
square, either there is some prime p such that p^(2n-1) divides a but
p^2n does not, or a = -k^2 for some k. In the former case a is not
a perfect square mod p^2n. In the latter case we take a prime p
which does not divide k and is congruent to 3 mod 4, as in Robin's
argument.
--Adam
I suppose that the condition in the original proposition could be
weakened. For if x mod m is a square for a m > x then x is
trivially a square. Or maybe I have misunderstood the statement.
M. K. Shen
On Wed, 13 May 1998, Mok-Kong Shen wrote:
> I suppose that the condition in the original proposition could be
> weakened. For if x mod m is a square for a m > x then x is
> trivially a square. Or maybe I have misunderstood the statement.
Or you misunderstood something else. For example, 2 is a square
modulo 7 as 3^2 == 2 (mod 7), but 2 isn't a square number.
2 is a square mod 7 (the square of +-3 mod 7).
Enjoy, Gerhard
--
* Gerhard Niklasch <ni...@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de> * spam totally unwelcome
* http://hasse.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~nikl/ ******* all browsers welcome
* This .signature now fits into 3 lines and 77 columns * newsreaders welcome
Simpler: it's an instance of the Hasse local-global principle.
-Bill Dubuque
What is that principle?
Is it a result saying that if an equation satisfying conditions ______ has
a solution mod p for every p, then it has an integer solution.
>Simpler: it's an instance of the Hasse local-global principle.
Don't you also need solvability in R to apply that?
--Adam (posted and mailed)
Yes indeed. It didn't occur to me to consider composite m :-( Of course
to construct the primes p, all one needs here is that there are infinitely
many prime p = 3 (mod 4), which, unlike Dirichlet's theorem, is
completely elementary.
Robin Chapman + "They did not have proper
Department of Mathematics - palms at home in Exeter."
University of Exeter, EX4 4QE, UK +
r...@maths.exeter.ac.uk - Peter Carey,
http://www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~rjc/rjc.html + Oscar and Lucinda
> --Adam
On 13 May 1998, Bill Dubuque wrote:
> Simpler: it's an instance of the Hasse local-global principle.
Hmm... Simpler, or harder according as you want a reference or a proof!
To reply to someone else, you don't need to check the local condition at
the "infinite prime", ie solvability in \R, because solvability can only
fail at an even number of places (including \R), and the orginal question
covered all but one place (namely \R).
John Wilson.
Very perceptive of you -- the local-global principle, when applied to a
number field, require local solvability in _all_ completions of a field.
But for the rational number field, it's sufficient to work only in all
p-adic completions; I quote exercise 3.6 from Cassels' "Lectures on
Elliptic Curves":
Do you observe anything about the parity of the number N of
primes (including \infty) for which there is insolubility? If not,
construct similar exercises [to numerical problems in exercise 5]
and solve them until the penny drops.
Likewise, Borevich&Shafarevich prove the Hasse-Minkowski Theorem
(section 1.7.2) and remark that one never needs to verify solvability
at p=2 in order to deduce global solvability.
dave
Scott Surgent <sur...@math.la.asu.edu> writes:
>Nerve endings would be killed off in a full-thickness burn.
>Therefore, your first few moments in Hell would be painful, but then,
>nothing. No pain. Just burned skin and dead nerve endings.
>
>SAS
Scott, hell is in a spiritual realm. The science laws, etc., that apply
to the physical world don't apply to the afterlife. The following true
account can help you understand empirical evidence of hell:
A former atheist told a popular pastor of having suffered a cardiac
arrest. Doctors pronounced the atheist clinically dead, although they
later resuscitated him. He said that during his death he experienced
the following: He sank into a realm of darkness, a place of dark
shadows--yet he still had a body. He found himself in great agony
pushing a huge stone into a pit. (One Bible description of hell is of a
bottomless pit.) He was in great pain and there was nothing he could do
to diminish it.
"If you got shot in the arm," he said, "you could at least grab your
arm and get some slight lessening of the pain, but not so with this."
The pastor asked, "Where was it? Was it localized?"
He answered, "No, it was everywhere. I am quite certain that if I had
cut my throat I would not have lessened that pain at all."
When the pastor asked how severe the pain was, he said, "It was worse
than anything I have ever experience in this world."
The man said that his leg had been severed in a train accident. The
pastor then asked him to compare the two pains. He replied, "It was
insignificant," he answered. "I wouldn't even compare it."
The pastor told him, "I once burned my hand rather severely and
experienced a pain unlike anything I have ever known before or since.
Did you ever burn yourself?"
He answered, "Yes, I knocked a can of gasoline off a shelf over a
candle onto my leg and set my remaining leg on fire. As a result I
spent several weeks in the hospital." He raised his pant-leg and showed
the pastor scars
When the pastor asked him to compare the leg burn pain with that of the
hell experience, he said, "It was one thousand times worse than when my
leg was on fire! I tried every way I knew to explain that away, but
everything dissolved before my attempts to do it. I did not believe in
hell before and I did not want to believe in it then. On the face of
this earth, no matter what you did to me, I don't think you could
experience the pain that I experienced in that hospital."
Explaining the origins of the pain, he said, "Why, I feel that it
definitely had to be something other than on this earth, so the only
place I can think of is that there must be a hell, and I was in it."
He later told the pastor that when he thought about that after he got
out of the hospital, he began to tremble with an uncontrollable
trembling.
He believes the Bible now. He was given another chance to repent and
turn to Christ. [Medical doctors have noted and documented the reality
of hundreds of near-death experiences every year.]
Mark Hines
During near death when the brain is starved of oxygen, synapses misfire
all over the place, rather like what happens during dreams, only more
localised and more severe. If there is an afterlife, near-death
experiences are certainly no confirmation of its existence, just as
dreams don't necessarily correspond to any reality as they're just
caused by random synapses firing.
Thanks, cheers,
Adrian Cable.
Hmmm.... "empirical evidence of hell"....
In order for this account to qualify, you would need some
evidence that in fact, the man was in Hell. All you have
here is evidence that a man experienced pain (while unconscious)
that was beyond anything that he had previously experienced.
There is really not even evidence that he died, considering
that he recovered.
I contend that this account does nothing more than illuminate
the level of pain that is possible in life. It does nothing
to describe the level of pain possible in Hell, because
no (really) dead person has ever been able to report to us.
After all, that's the definition of dead.
Bryan
Mark Hines wrote:
> Scott Surgent <sur...@math.la.asu.edu> writes:
>
> >Nerve endings would be killed off in a full-thickness burn.
> >Therefore, your first few moments in Hell would be painful, but then,
> >nothing. No pain. Just burned skin and dead nerve endings.
> >
> >SAS
>
> Scott, hell is in a spiritual realm. The science laws, etc., that apply
> to the physical world don't apply to the afterlife. The following true
> account can help you understand empirical evidence of hell:
>
There are a number of reported true anti-stories that go
along with this one. The National Enquirer has reported tales of
near-death experience involving light at the end of the tunnel,
with no pain or pass codes required. Inquiring minds should get
their info on the possiblilty of afterlife from NE rather than
the BIBLE CODES. Less homework is required.
[updated Dante trimmed]
>
> He believes the Bible now. He was given another chance to repent and
> turn to Christ. [Medical doctors have noted and documented the
reality
> of hundreds of near-death experiences every year.]
>
> Mark Hines
>
Medical doctors probably don't document them for the reason you think.
---
Jim
I'm posting a reply in talk.religion.misc, which is where I
suspect this thread belongs!
Keith Ramsay "Thou Shalt not hunt statistical significance with
kra...@aol.com a shotgun." --Michael Driscoll's 1st commandment
Messianic Jew Yacov Rambsel (in his book _His Name is Jesus_) and
others have discovered a Bible code mega-find. Looking for words
encoded in equidistant letter sequences (ELS), Rambsel discovered in
Isaiah 53 over fifty names that deal with Christ's crucifixion. Yeshua,
the three Mary's, the Disciples, Herod, His Cross and other words
dealing with the Crucifixion are, appropriately, encoded below the
text of Isaiah 53, the Suffering Servant chapter. This clearly
Messianic chapter of Isaiah leaves no doubt about God's only plan of
Redemption.
Over fifty terms associated with the Crucifixion are clustered together
at minimal skip distances in the short twelve-verse chapter of Isaiah
53. The KJV translation of Isaiah 53 is quoted below. Tears should flow
in the eyes of believers who read the below encoded names, together
with the exact verse each term starts and the skip distance of each
term, in the Suffering Servant verses. When one compares the number of
names encoded and the tightness of the grouping with that of other
finds, one can realize how impressive evidence for the Bible's
supernatural design is.
Other ELS finds have been impressive, too, such as the 25 plant names
that are encoded in 19 verses of Genesis, a section dealing with the
Garden of Eden. The chance probability of these 25 names is 100,000 to
one. The chance probability of 16 "Eden" names encoded (Genesis 2:4-10)
is about 10,000 to one. The name "Aaron" is encoded 25 times in the
first chapter of Leviticus at a probability of 400,000 to one.
It is becoming more and more clear that those who go to hell cannot
claim that they did not have ample proof of God's existence and did not
have ample warning of the consequences of not loving God and trusting
in His Son's blood atonement for sins as the only hope of Salvation.
They will have only themselves to blame in eternal blackness and burn
pain, the most severe kind of pain, forever and forever. God describes
hell as a place where there are a lake of fire (Revelation 20:15), a
furnace of fire (Matthew 13:50), everlasting fire (Matthew 25:41),
everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46), eternal damnation (Mark 3:29),
wailing and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:42), outer darkness and
weeping (Matthew 25:30) torments in flames (Luke 16:24).
Here is the Isaiah 53 mega-find:
Name Isaiah Skip Distance
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
My God 53:12 -26
The Lord Almighty 53:9 49
The Lord Almighty 53:3 -55
Yeshua 53:10 -20
Lamp of the Lord 53:5 20
Exceedingly high, Yeshua is my strong name 53:11 -20
the Almighty 53:11 -19
My Prince 53:10 19
Nazarene 53:6 47
Messiah 53:11 -42
Shiloh 53:12 19
Passover 53:10 -62
Galilee 53:7 -32
The man Herod 53:6 -29
Satan 53:8 48
Neutralize Lucifer 53:3 20
To twist, to roam, the serpent 53:12 -19
The evil Roman city 53:9 -7
Trouble 53:2 -19
Worm (from which red dye was made) 53:6 -19
Caiaphas High Priest 52:15 41
Annas High Priest 53:3 -45
Tremble Mary 53:9 28
Mary 53:11 -23
Mary 53:10 44
The Disciples mourn 53:12 -55
Peter 53:10 -14
John 53:10 -28
Andrew 53:4 -48
Thomas 53:2 35
Thaddaeus 53:12 -50
Matthias 53:5 -11
Let Him be crucified 53:8 15
His Cross 53:6 -8
Lamp of the Lord 53:5 20
Bread 53:12 26
Burnt offering 53:8 -26
Ram 53:2 -26
Enter into our Salvation 53:5 -26
To life 53:7 26
for my brothers 53:7 26
Bride 53:10 -26
Bridegroom 53:12 26
Obed (servant) 53:7 -19
Pharisee 53:9 -64
Mountain of grace, the prophets of God 53:2 49
The Levites 53:2 -49
-----Isaiah 53
1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD
revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out
of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see
him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted
with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised,
and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did
esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our
iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his
stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his
own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth:
he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her
shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare
his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for
the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his
death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his
mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief:
when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his
seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall
prosper in his h
and.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by
his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall
bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall
divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul
unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the
sin of m
any, and made intercession for the transgressors.
>Hmmm.... "empirical evidence of hell"....
>
>In order for this account to qualify, you would need some
>evidence that in fact, the man was in Hell. All you have
>here is evidence that a man experienced pain (while unconscious)
>that was beyond anything that he had previously experienced.
>There is really not even evidence that he died, considering
>that he recovered.
>
>I contend that this account does nothing more than illuminate
>the level of pain that is possible in life. It does nothing
>to describe the level of pain possible in Hell, because
>no (really) dead person has ever been able to report to us.
>After all, that's the definition of dead.
>
>Bryan
Hi, Bryan. If one cares to do honest investigation, one can verify that
there is, indeed, evidence even meeting scientific standards, for the
existence of hell. Catholic priests and others have taken careful
notes, tape recordings, etc., of exorcisms.
Father Malachi Martin, Ph.D., wrote _Hostage to the Devil_. He used to
be a Papal advisor and Jesuit priest. The book is a factual account of
the exorcisms of five different Americans. If one is interested, one
can check it out through interlibrary loan, where I obtained it.
Taking careful notes and tape recordings, priests recorded
preternatural events, such as levitation and many other events that are
impossible for an ordinary human to do. The possessed people also
threw in the priests' faces details of the priests' sexual sins. (The
possessed people could not have known these details without
preternatural powers.) In all exorcisms, only the name and authority of
Christ Jesus drove out the demons and Satan. Nothing else works.
The movie _Exorcism_ is loosely based on the book _Possessed_ by
Thomas Allen. The book is a factual account of the exorcism of a
fourteen-year-old boy who became possessed after playing with a Ouija
board. A few months ago there was a TV show about this possession case.
The priests interviewed were honest and convincing and their memories
of the exorcism were clear.
The boy, with his eyes always closed, never missed hitting the exorcist
or his assistants with spit--usually splattering the victim between the
eyes. As one priest noted, from a distance of four or five feet, the
boy was an "absolute marksman." During the exorcism, the boy often
urinated copiously and farted loudly, creating quite a stench in the
room. Priests recorded that sometimes when the boy was prone, the bed
vibrated and banged up and down on the floor. Several times a dresser
weighing about fifty pounds slid on its own across the wooden floor and
blocked the door. At one point the boy, who was known to sing poorly,
sang at a professional level. Various bloody claw marks and words, such
as "HELL," appeared on the boy's chest. The marks seemed to come from
inside the boy's body. Priests noted that the boy, being watched
continuously, could not have created the marks by himself. The red
marks would disappear as quickly as they appeared. The record of one
preternatural power, taken by itself, may not mean much, but the
cumulative, carefully recorded evidence of many preternatural events
cannot be ignored.
Mark Hines
Ph.D. math professors and other qualified folks have contributed to
Bible codes findings. Much more work needs to be done to find all of
the codes. Work in the Greek New Testament is only in its infancy.
There is certainly no more interesting or important mathematical
subject.
At the following Web site is an introductory article about evidence of
God's use of number codes or gematria in the Hebrew and Greek
manuscripts of the Bible: www.trf.org.au/sunlttr.htm. The article is by
Ivan Panin, who discovered about 30 separate, meaningful multiples of
the number "seven" interwoven beneath the text of Genesis and Matthew.
Excited about his initial discovery, he found multiples throughout the
Bible and spent much of his life detailing his findings in 43,000
pages. He found codes within codes and many more than 30 multiples
until his mind reeled.
In recent years, prominent mathematicians have discovered modern
word-pairs and references to modern-day people and events in the Torah,
the first five books of the Bible. These sites detail impressive
findings: members.xoom.com/bcodes/, j51.com:80/~jrsflw/codes.htm,
www.torahcodes.co.il/, www.filmnoir.com/genesis.htm
"We conclude that the proximity of ELS's with related meanings in the
Book of Genesis is NOT DUE TO CHANCE." ("Equidistant Letter Sequences
in the Book of Genesis," Statistical Science, August 1994, p. 434 )
Statistical Science is a peer-reviewed journal for professional
mathematicians. Robert Kass, editor of Statistical Science, said about
the Witztum-Rips-Rosenberg codes experiment: "When the authors used a
randomization test to see how rarely the patterns they found might
arise by chance alone they obtained a very highly significant result,
with p = 0.000016. Our referees were baffled: their prior beliefs made
them think the Book of Genesis could not possibly contain meaningful
references to modern-day individuals, yet when the authors carried out
additional analyses and checks the effect persisted." (Statistical
Science, August 1994, p.306.) Harold Gans, a retired Senior
Cryptologic Mathematician, U.S. Department of Defense, presently an
independent mathematical consultant, independently verified the Witztum
results. At this site is an article about Mr. Gans' supportive Bible
code work: j51.com:80/~jrsflw/codes.htm
Five distinguished mathematical scholars, two from Harvard, two from
Hebrew University and one from Yale said that the present work
represents serious research carried out by serious investigators and
that the results obtained are sufficiently striking to deserve a wider
audience and to encourage further study. (Biblical Review, "Divine
Authorship?", October 1995, p.31)
Stephen Yulish, who was a professor at the University of Arizona gives
reasons why he accepts Bible codes evidence
(mac29.comm.nau.edu/110696/per1.html), as does Daniel Michelson, who
was professor of mathematics at the University of California, Los
Angeles (www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Religions/Numerics/torah.html).
I just finished listening to Chuck Missler's daily radio broadcast. The
RealAudio file of it perhaps will be at Chuck's K-house website soon if
it follows the usual pattern. Tomorrow Chuck will cover part two of his
inter esting Bible codes talk. He brought out that the eight
distinguished mathematicians who rechecked the Wiztum findings spent
six years going over their methodology and calculations before
publishing the Statistical Science articles. Dr. Harold Gans, who was
a senior mathematician at the NSA and who is now a private consultant,
also verified the Witztum findings. Although these nine gentlemen
started as skeptics, to their credit, they were sane enough to accept
the impartial evidence. So impressive are the results that all nine of
these people, according to Chuck, are now teaching the Torah codes. Dr.
Gans even improved on the Witztum results (from p = 0.000016 to p =
0.000000013), after he found over 30 additional famous rabbi's names
encoded.
Chuck also brought out the clustering effect of the ELS codes. For
instance, in the relatively short Genesis passage (Genesis 2:4-10) that
deals with plants in the Garden of Eden, there are encoded the names of
25 trees. These trees were evidently all in the Garden of Eden: wheat,
vine, grape, chestnut, forest, date, acacia, bramble, cedar, nut,
fig, willow, pomegranate, aloe, tamarisk, oak, poplar, cassia, almond,
mastic, thorn, hazel, olive, citron and fir. The probability of these
25 plant names occurring withing this short space is about 0.00001.
The word "Eden" itself is encoded 16 times within this (Genesis 2:4-10)
passage. The probability of these 16 "Edens" closely grouped together
is about 0.0001.
Another example of clustering is found in the first chapter of
Leviticus, a chapter dealing with the Levitical priesthood (Aaron, the
High Priest of Israel, was of the tribe of Levi, the only tribe from
which God chose priests). Aaron is mentioned four times on the surface
of the text and 25 times beneath the surface. The probability of these
25 ELS names of Aaron occurring by chance is less than p = 0.0000025.
Here are some of these skip distances for Aaron: -4, -6, -9, 18, -21,
26, -26, -32, 36, -44, 62, -64, 76, -78, 87, -87, 109, 136, -139,
141, 150 and 180.
It is this clustering effect, the fact that the encoded names are
directly and logically associated with the text, and the fact that they
are all within a short distance of each other, that drives the
probabilities through the roof. The skeptics cannot adequately address
the significance of the clustering.
The 24 Greek alphabet letters (alpha beta gamma, etc.) stand for the
following numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70,
80, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800. If one adds up the values
of letters, one can assign numbers to words. An interesting observation
about the Bible is that if a number is mentioned on the surface of the
text, one can find the same number under the surface. For instance,
under the surface of the passage starting at John 21:11, in which
Christ's disciples caught exactly 153 fish, various words associated
with fishing have gematria divisible by 153: FISHES has a value of 153
x 8, THE NET has the same 153 x 8 value, MULTITUDE OF FISHES is 153 x 8
x 2, FISHERS OF MEN is 153 x 14, etc.
The word "Torah" is encoded in a revealing way in the Torah, the first
five books of the Bible. In the book of Genesis, if one takes the
first "T," then counts 49 letters, the next letter, the 50th, is "O,"
the next 50th is "R," and the next 50th is "H." In the Book of Exodus,
the same pattern occurs. In the fourth book of the Torah, the Book of
Numbers, there are the same 49-space skip distances between letters,
but the word is spelled backwards (HROT). Likewise with the Book of
Deuteronomy! The middle book in the Torah, Leviticus, has the sacred
and unpronounceable name for God "YHWH" spelled out with a skip
distance of seven. Visually the patterns would look like this.
Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy
TORH TORH YHWH HROT HROT
-----> -----> <----- <-----
In other words, Torah (TORH), the Word of God, always points towards
and brings us to God.
One does not even need to look beneath surface of the text to find
God's clever use of hidden meanings. For example, here are the names
of the first ten men born on earth (in the line of David and Christ),
along with the Hebrew meanings of the roots of their names: Adam (man),
Seth (appointed), Enosh (mortal), Kenan (sorrow), Mahalelel (The
Blessed God), Jared (shall come down), Enoch (teaching), Methusalah,
(his death shall bring), Lamech (the despairing) and Noah (rest or
comfort). If one looks at the meanings of the names, in the
chronological order each man was born, one will see the basic message
of the Bible: Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow (but) the blessed God
shall come down teaching. His death shall bring the despairing rest and
comfort.
Perhaps, among other things, God used the codes as a kind of watermark
of authenticity. (For instance, since they are not in the Book of
Mormon, the Koran or the Apocrypha, we have evidence that these books
are not authored by God.) The Panin multiples alone are so difficult to
reproduce that, as far as I know, no mathematician, even with the aid
of computers, has been successful reproducing even one page of them in
original prose.
Mark Hines
and bla bla bla, bla bla bla...
Anton is right : go elsewhere with your crap !
I never saw any difference between a so-called religion and a supersitition,
and you confort my point of view.
Vade retro stupiditas !
I'd like to see the results of your control experiments, where you look
for the names of the England team that won the 1966 Soccer World Cup,
the entire case and crew of the movie "Earth Girls Are Easy", the names
of the entire phone book of Santa Barbara, and so on. Are you guys
lazy, or just unaware of the necessity to measure the sensitivity of
your detection apparatus?
--
Sherilyn|Had a premonition lately? Get it registered! Get it noticed!
misc.predictions.registry http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/news/faq.htm
Mark Hines wrote in message <6jnbd4$i...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
>In <355C4627...@ecars147.nortel.ca> Bryan Cronk
><bcr...@ecars147.nortel.ca> writes:
>
>>Hmmm.... "empirical evidence of hell"....
>>
>>Bryan
>
>Hi, Bryan. If one cares to do honest investigation, one can verify that
>there is, indeed, evidence even meeting scientific standards, for the
>existence of hell. Catholic priests and others have taken careful
>notes, tape recordings, etc., of exorcisms.
Reading a book about something that allegedly happened to someone else has
as much scientific validity as watching the movie about the book.
The Catholic Church has always been rather moot on this point.
You would think that with their resources they would publish fully peer
reviewed information about this crap.
They don't. They haven't. They won't.
The tobacco industry did better at defending themselves.
Even if we accept these accounts to be true (for the sake of argument),
they can only validate the existence of the phenomenon they document.
They do not prove or disprove the existence of hell.
Bryan
I have stated this once and I will state this again. The opinions of a
few math professors are not gospel (pun unintentional), even if they
have Ph.D.s to their names. They are infallible human beings. They are
often wrong. If you want examples of math professors who are wrong about
maths, you need look no further (on this very newsgroup) than Alexander
Abian, Eddie Escultura ... and that's two, already, just from this
group, which represents a very, very small portion of the total maths
community.
Thanks, cheers,
Adrian Cable.
OK, enough quoting the fantastic experiences of other writers.
What kind of experiences have YOU PERSONALLY had that prove to
you beyond a doubt of the existence of Hell after death, etc.
And I'm not arguing these points with you. But people should
first speak from their own experience. If something is really
important enough, God will grant you the experience necessary
to understand it. He's not unjust, is He?
So, what are *your* experiences?
Mark Hines wrote:
>
> In <355C4627...@ecars147.nortel.ca> Bryan Cronk
> <bcr...@ecars147.nortel.ca> writes:
>
> >Hmmm.... "empirical evidence of hell"....
> >
> >In order for this account to qualify, you would need some
> >evidence that in fact, the man was in Hell. All you have
> >here is evidence that a man experienced pain (while unconscious)
> >that was beyond anything that he had previously experienced.
> >There is really not even evidence that he died, considering
> >that he recovered.
> >
> >I contend that this account does nothing more than illuminate
> >the level of pain that is possible in life. It does nothing
> >to describe the level of pain possible in Hell, because
> >no (really) dead person has ever been able to report to us.
> >After all, that's the definition of dead.
> >
> >Bryan
>
> Hi, Bryan. If one cares to do honest investigation, one can verify that
> there is, indeed, evidence even meeting scientific standards, for the
> existence of hell. Catholic priests and others have taken careful
> notes, tape recordings, etc., of exorcisms.
>
Adrian Cable wrote in message <35607B...@jimc.demon.co.uk>...
>
They are infallible human beings.
oops.
I thought it was me.
> Ph.D. math professors and other qualified folks have contributed to
> Bible codes findings. Much more work needs to be done to find all of
> the codes. Work in the Greek New Testament is only in its infancy.
> There is certainly no more interesting or important mathematical
> subject.
This is wrong-headed on two levels: (1) The argument that some guy who
has a Ph.D. says so - so it must be true - is called an argument from
authority. Such arguments have no (read that zero, zippo, zilch)
credibility in science even though they may be accepted in religion.
Credentials mean nothing; (2) A statistical analysis of text has never
(not once!) been demonstrated to contribute any information at all about
authorship much less divine authorship. This leaves aside the obvious
question of the accuracy (and precision) of the texts being studied.
>
> At the following Web site is an introductory article about evidence of
> God's use of number codes or gematria in the Hebrew and Greek
> manuscripts of the Bible: www.trf.org.au/sunlttr.htm. The article is by
> Ivan Panin, who discovered about 30 separate, meaningful multiples of
> the number "seven" interwoven beneath the text of Genesis and Matthew.
> Excited about his initial discovery, he found multiples throughout the
> Bible and spent much of his life detailing his findings in 43,000
> pages. He found codes within codes and many more than 30 multiples
> until his mind reeled.
There's nothing unusual about an obsessive mind being amused by little
things.
>
> In recent years, prominent mathematicians have discovered modern
> word-pairs and references to modern-day people and events in the Torah,
> the first five books of the Bible. These sites detail impressive
> findings: members.xoom.com/bcodes/, j51.com:80/~jrsflw/codes.htm,
> www.torahcodes.co.il/, www.filmnoir.com/genesis.htm
>
> "We conclude that the proximity of ELS's with related meanings in the
> Book of Genesis is NOT DUE TO CHANCE." ("Equidistant Letter Sequences
> in the Book of Genesis," Statistical Science, August 1994, p. 434 )
Ooooooo "Equidistant Letter Sequences!" These could just be a sign of
clever writing.
[Lots of silly superstition and numerology (laden with references to
credentials, nifty universities and even the government) skipped]
>
> Perhaps, among other things, God used the codes as a kind of watermark
> of authenticity.
Or perhaps not. If you feel the need to look for a "watermark of
authenticity" what need do you have of faith? Congratulations! You've
just taken junk science and turned it into junk theology.
> (For instance, since they are not in the Book of
> Mormon, the Koran or the Apocrypha, we have evidence that these books
> are not authored by God.)
That does not constitute evidence of anything, unless you count *your*
speculation as evidence (You used the word "Perhaps," remember?). I
seem to recall that the Book of Mormon and the Koran were written in
languages other than Greek or Hebrew. What are the original language(s)
of the Apocrypha? Any reasonable statistical analysis would have to
account for differences in language structure - don't you think? Does
the vulgate have the same statistical characteristics. How about the
KJV?
>The Panin multiples alone are so difficult to
> reproduce that, as far as I know, no mathematician, even with the aid
> of computers, has been successful reproducing even one page of them in
> original prose.
I suggest to you that, while a statistician may not be able to do it
with a computer, a poet, who is skilled in the art of using assonance,
onomatopoeia, alliteration and rhythm can generate such sequences.
Can you show that such correlations do not appear in Shakespere's
sonnets or other poetry - or even in popular songs?
Your "theories" aren't even wrong.
Chuck Szmanda
chu...@ultranet.com
Why not give Hebrew transliterations of the stuff below so we can see
just how short these things are in the original language. As has been
said before, Hebrew is written in a highly compressed form with almost
all vowel information lost. In addition Hebrew nouns are typically only
2 or 3 letters long - so words like "Passover", or "mountain" that look
so impressive in English - become PSCH (where the CH is a single
character) or HR. Note also that the word "the" is a single letter
prefix H-, the word "my" is a single letter suffiy -Y, "to" is L- and
hebrew infinitives don't have a separate word "to". Your table is in
fact full of three letter words - any idiot can find those in just about
any hebrew text with very little bother - without even using a computer.
> Name Isaiah Skip Distance
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> My God 53:12 -26
> The Lord Almighty 53:9 49
> The Lord Almighty 53:3 -55
...
> Obed (servant) 53:7 -19
> Pharisee 53:9 -64
> Mountain of grace, the prophets of God 53:2 49
> The Levites 53:2 -49
--
Dan Piponi PhD
http://www.grin.net/~tanelorn
In <356499...@snaps.nrlssc.navy.mil> Matthew Lybanon
Since the publication of Rips/Witztum's Statistical Science article
over three years ago, the armchair skeptics above and elsewhere have
had the same opportunity as every other mathematician to submit a
refutation. Unfortunately for them, editors and referees who evaluate
submitted articles are more impressed with sound methodology and
accurate calculations, and less impressed with signatures and faulty
math. Skeptics are welcomed to take positions, if they can back up
their conclusions with mathematical proof. Anybody can be an armchair
critic; however, armchair critics enjoy little respect.
Because armchair skeptics, Ph.D. or otherwise, lack the math skills to
refute Rips/Witztum, they are reduced to presenting their case in a
signature poll. One can well understand that they are embarrassed about
not being able to pass peer review with Statistical Science editors,
and not being able to present a refutation of Rips/Witztum. The fact
that no refutation has been published in Statistical Science speaks for
itself.
"We conclude that the proximity of ELS's with related meanings in the
Book of Genesis is NOT DUE TO CHANCE." ("Equidistant Letter Sequences
in the Book of Genesis," Statistical Science, August 1994, p. 434 )
Statistical Science is a peer-reviewed journal for professional
mathematicians. Robert Kass, editor of Statistical Science, said about
the Witztum-Rips-Rosenberg codes experiment: "When the authors used a
randomization test to see how rarely the patterns they found might
arise by chance alone they obtained a very highly significant result,
with p = 0.000016. Our referees were baffled: their prior beliefs made
them think the Book of Genesis could not possibly contain meaningful
references to modern-day individuals, yet when the authors carried out
additional analyses and checks the effect persisted." (Statistical
Science, August 1994, p.306.)
Dr. Harold Gans, a retired Senior Cryptologic Mathematician, U.S.
Department of Defense, presently an independent mathematical
consultant, independently verified the Witztum results. At this site
is an article about Mr. Gans' supportive Bible code work:
j51.com:80/~jrsflw/codes.htm
Although the nine gentlemen who rechecked the Witztum results started
as skeptics, to their credit, they were sane enough to accept the
impartial evidence. Dr. Gans even improved on the Witztum results (from
p = 0.000016 to p = 0.000000013), after he found over 30 additional
famous rabbi's names encoded.
Five distinguished mathematical scholars, two from Harvard, two from
Hebrew University and one from Yale said that the present work
represents serious research carried out by serious investigators and
that the results obtained are sufficiently striking to deserve a wider
audience and to encourage further study. (Biblical Review, "Divine
Authorship?", October 1995, p.31)
Stephen Yulish, who was a professor at the University of Arizona gives
reasons why he accepts Bible codes evidence
(mac29.comm.nau.edu/110696/per1.html), as does Daniel Michelson, who
was professor of mathematics at the University of California, Los
Angeles (www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Religions/Numerics/torah.html).
Mark Hines
> I'll see your (referring to the original poster) Ph.D.s and raise you
> by quite a bit. Surf to http://math.caltech.edu/code/petition.html
To quote from that web page:
All the individuals whose names appear above hold PhDs in
Mathematics or Statistics or are faculty members...at a
college or university. Anyone who meets this criterion
and wants to add their name to this petition...
This is rather pathetic and is certainly not the way to rebut a paper. Anyone
outside of the Mathematics and Statistics community would find ample evidence
here to convince themselves there was really some controversy going on here
even though there isn't (just a few misguided or dishonest people making a lot
of noise). Members of a Mathematics department ought to know better than using
an argument by authority to make their case.
--
Torquemada
http://www.grin.net/~tanelorn
In <35649345...@manex-group.com> Dan Piponi <d...@manex-group.com>
writes:
>Why not give Hebrew transliterations of the stuff below so we can see
>just how short these things are in the original language.
This is a good idea. Since I have this information, I can present it.
Give me a day.
>Your table is in fact full of three letter words - any idiot can find
>those in just about any hebrew text with very little bother - without
>even using a computer.
Please verify your sources. There are lots of Hebrew words exceeding
three letters in the list. For example, this sentence has twelve Hebrew
letters: "Exceedingly high, Yeshua is my strong name."
The case for intelligent design is actually so strong that I didn't
even use various phrases I could have used, various phrases encoded in
Isaiah 53, such as "mountain of grace, the prophets of God" (ten
Hebrew letters), or "Bosom Lamb to be observant of a snare" (twelve
Hebrew letters). Why win with a Royale Flush when a Full House will do?
Mathematicians who ignore this data, and who do not do their own honest
research, do so at their own peril. It is becoming more and more clear
that mathematicians who go to hell cannot claim that they did not have
abundant proof of God's existence and did not have ample and fair
warning of the consequences of not loving God and following His word.
They will have only themselves to blame in eternal blackness and burn
pain, the most severe kind of pain, forever and forever. Hell is
described as a bottomless pit, a place wailing and gnashing of teeth,
weeping in torments of flames. Those in hell will have the sensation of
eternally falling in blackness and severe burn pain, as though being
flushed out a toilet away from God and away from the mathematicians
who had the logic, problem solving abilities, math skills, etc., to
accept Bible codes evidence.
Mark Hines
>In <35649345...@manex-group.com> Dan Piponi <d...@manex-group.com>
>writes:
>
>>Why not give Hebrew transliterations of the stuff below so we can see
>>just how short these things are in the original language.
>
>This is a good idea. Since I have this information, I can present it.
>Give me a day.
>
>>Your table is in fact full of three letter words - any idiot can find
>>those in just about any hebrew text with very little bother - without
>>even using a computer.
[...]
>
>Mathematicians who ignore this data, and who do not do their own honest
>research, do so at their own peril. It is becoming more and more clear
>that mathematicians who go to hell cannot claim that they did not have
>abundant proof of God's existence and did not have ample and fair
>warning of the consequences of not loving God and following His word.
>They will have only themselves to blame in eternal blackness and burn
>pain, the most severe kind of pain, forever and forever. Hell is
>described as a bottomless pit, a place wailing and gnashing of teeth,
>weeping in torments of flames. Those in hell will have the sensation of
>eternally falling in blackness and severe burn pain, as though being
>flushed out a toilet away from God and away from the mathematicians
>who had the logic, problem solving abilities, math skills, etc., to
>accept Bible codes evidence.
>
Mark: Sounds like you really get off on this hellfire and brimstone crap.
If hell flushes us away from mathematicians, it can't be all bad!
earle
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his
creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short,
who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the
individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor
such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."
--Albert Einstein
In <ejones12-ya023680...@news.concentric.net>
ejon...@concentric.net (Earle Jones) writes:
>Mark: Sounds like you really get off on this hellfire and brimstone
>crap.
Keep your same additude, and when you die you will more than dearly
wish you were born crap. At least crap will not feel severe burn pain
of hell forever.
>If hell flushes us away from mathematicians, it can't be all bad!
Only away from the ones who couldn't correctly evaluate Bible codes and
other strong evidence of God's existence. I prefer the company of
quality ones who could make the cut and who could evaluate such
evidence accurately.
Mark Hines
>In <ejones12-ya023680...@news.concentric.net>
>ejon...@concentric.net (Earle Jones) writes:
>
>>Mark: Sounds like you really get off on this hellfire and brimstone
>>crap.
>
>Keep your same additude, and when you die you will more than dearly
>wish you were born crap. At least crap will not feel severe burn pain
>of hell forever.
--
Mark: I distinctly get the feeling that your only joy comes from my pain!
Is that the Christian thing to do?
Is your role to judge? What does your religion tell you about judging
others? Shall I quote you the scripture?
And learn to spell "attitude".
earle
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me,
it is the parts that I do understand."
--Mark Twain
"The most preposterous notion that Homo sapiens has ever dreamed up
is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes,
wants the saccherin adoration of his creatures, can be swayed by their
prayers, and becomes petulent if he does not receive this flattery. Yet
this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all
the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in
all history."
--Lazarus Long
"Time Enough For Love"
R. A. Heinlein
And what about counting distances between your messages and EEE posts in
order to prove existence of incurable stupidity ?
I think you (we) are losing your (our) time, with such idiots.
Actually, one theorem suffices (abundant historical and nowadays proofs):
religion = obscurantism (see Mark Hines) = oppression = sadism (see Mark
Hines again, your remark above is very true) = fanatism = war
So the only thing to do is to fight them, if we want to stay alive and free-
thinking !
With best regards !
It isn't just the shortness of the number of letters (and 12 letters is
not a lot - I can find words of twelve letters in pretty much any
monospaced block of text (downwards, upwards, and so on) within a
minute, and that's in English, where far, far fewer random combinations
of 12 letters result in a real word than they do in Hebrew.
The point is that, in finding these "codes" in the Bible, so many
hundreds of skip distances, starting positions and so forth are used
that the number of "reading permutations", if you like, is well into the
millions or even billions, making probabilities of 0.0000001, say,
totally worthless.
> The case for intelligent design is actually so strong that I didn't
> even use various phrases I could have used, various phrases encoded in
> Isaiah 53, such as "mountain of grace, the prophets of God" (ten
> Hebrew letters), or "Bosom Lamb to be observant of a snare" (twelve
> Hebrew letters). Why win with a Royale Flush when a Full House will do?
The case for design is not strong. That's why most people (if you excuse
your 5 selected Ph.D. mathematicians - credentials mean nothing) err on
the side of disbelief. The case, for example, for gravity is strong.
We've all seen apples fall of trees, and we all see how our feet seem to
stick to the ground rather than to the ceiling. That's what I'd call a
strong case. The case for the existence of gravity is very, very strong.
The case for the existence of Bible codes is not strong when you apply
simple statistical tests correctly, if you incorporate the potential
number of permutations and combinations into the probability figures,
which Drosnin et al. have NOT (read exactly how they're calculated, and
any statistician who knows anything about combinatorics will immediately
realise why they are totally unrepresentative of the situation).
It's very sad that you're driven by such a strong will to believe in
this that you are unable to apply objective rather than subjective
things like correct statistical tests to show that you are wrong.
Thanks, cheers,
Adrian Cable.
Might I suggest people take a look at the article at
http://www.csicop.org/si/9711/bible-code.html
The author points out several serious problems with the data mining techniques
used by the Bibel Code author.
>> The case for intelligent design is actually so strong that I didn't
>> even use various phrases I could have used, various phrases encoded in
>> Isaiah 53, such as "mountain of grace, the prophets of God" (ten
>> Hebrew letters), or "Bosom Lamb to be observant of a snare" (twelve
>> Hebrew letters). Why win with a Royale Flush when a Full House will do?
>The case for design is not strong. That's why most people (if you excuse
>your 5 selected Ph.D. mathematicians - credentials mean nothing) err on
>the side of disbelief. The case, for example, for gravity is strong.
>We've all seen apples fall of trees, and we all see how our feet seem to
>stick to the ground rather than to the ceiling. That's what I'd call a
>strong case. The case for the existence of gravity is very, very strong.
>The case for the existence of Bible codes is not strong when you apply
>simple statistical tests correctly, if you incorporate the potential
>number of permutations and combinations into the probability figures,
>which Drosnin et al. have NOT (read exactly how they're calculated, and
>any statistician who knows anything about combinatorics will immediately
>realise why they are totally unrepresentative of the situation).
Actually, similar codes can be found in Moby Dick and in Supreme court
decisiion. The case for design is non-existent.
Wes Taylor wrote in message <35671522...@NEWS.TELEPORT.COM>...
>
>Actually, similar codes can be found in Moby Dick and in Supreme court
>decisiion. The case for design is non-existent.
Some time back someone proved conclusively that Margaret Truman daughter of
President Truman wrote all of Shakespeare.
If them bible codes are false then this may also be true and I will be heart
broken.
Has anyone searched new age music for code?
>Wes Taylor wrote in message <35671522...@NEWS.TELEPORT.COM>...
> >
>>Actually, similar codes can be found in Moby Dick and in Supreme court
>>decisiion. The case for design is non-existent.
[...]
--
"There is a common belief in the general community to the effect that
many mathematicians, statisticians, and other scientists consider the
[Bible Code] claims to be credible. This belief is incorrect. On the
contrary, the almost unanimous opinion of those in the scientific world who
have studied the question is that the theory is without foundation. The
signatories to this letter have themselves examined the evidence and found
it entirely unconvincing."
This document is signed by 45 PhD Mathematics Professors from all over the
world.
For more details, please see:
http://math.caltech.edu/code/petition.html
for the original Cal Tech statement.
earle
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
Post-Christian humanist
You would be right if that was their case, but it isn't. Go to
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/torah.html to see detailed papers
on the subject (and there are more in preparation).
The "petition" is there because we are annoyed that the codes people
keep claiming to have the support of many senior mathematicians and
statisticians. They don't.
Brendan.
And just how does a list of mathematicians who don't support the ideas
refute the claim that there are "many senior mathematicians and statisticians"
who do support them?
Steve Monson
--
Q: Who was the bloodthirsty Jew who conquered central Asia?
A: Genghis Cohen
> Look, will you people get real? If you take a real look at the =
>Hebrew language in the written form it is only a numbers system, and =
>alphabet all in one. So, when the primitive people started running out =
>of discriptions for detailing events and plants a part of that is going =
>to fill in the gaps...
[...clipalot here...]
--
Actually, there's nothing wrong with finding unexpected "messages" using
letter sequences. What's wrong is concluding that there is some ancient
mystery revealed by so doing.
Please see:
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html
where you will find the assassinations of a dozen people "encoded" in Moby
Dick. Using *exactly* the same methodology as the "Bible Codes", it is
shown that Kennedy, Lincoln, Trotsky, Rabin, ML King, and many others will
be assassinated. It even identifies ("reveals") the weapon, the
circumstances, and the killer in some cases.
You might also want to see:
http://math.caltech.edu/code/petition.html
This is a document at Cal Tech where 45 PhD Mathematics Professors from
universities in several countries gave their opinion on the subject of
"Bible Codes". Here is an excerpt:
"There is a common belief in the general community to the effect that
many mathematicians, statisticians, and other scientists consider the
[Bible Code] claims to be credible. This belief is incorrect. On the
contrary, the almost unanimous opinion of those in the scientific world who
have studied the question is that the theory is without foundation. The
signatories to this letter have themselves examined the evidence and found
it entirely unconvincing."
earle
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones -- post-christian humanist
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
--Delo McKown
"Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence
of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones."
--Bertrand Russell
>Mathematicians who ignore this data, and who do not do their own honest
>research, do so at their own peril. It is becoming more and more clear
>that mathematicians who go to hell cannot claim that they did not have
>abundant proof of God's existence and did not have ample and fair
>warning of the consequences of not loving God and following His word.
>They will have only themselves to blame in eternal blackness and burn
>pain, the most severe kind of pain, forever and forever. Hell is
>described as a bottomless pit, a place wailing and gnashing of teeth,
>weeping in torments of flames. Those in hell will have the sensation of
>eternally falling in blackness and severe burn pain, as though being
>flushed out a toilet away from God and away from the mathematicians
>who had the logic, problem solving abilities, math skills, etc., to
>accept Bible codes evidence.
>
>Mark Hines
>
You are one sick fuck, as is the god you believe in, and all of fundie
religion.
This sounds like something MegaHAL would say.
I could also make fun of Jesus being "exceedingly high" here, but that's
just too easy.
> The case for intelligent design is actually so strong that I didn't
> even use various phrases I could have used, various phrases encoded in
> Isaiah 53, such as "mountain of grace, the prophets of God" (ten
> Hebrew letters), or "Bosom Lamb to be observant of a snare" (twelve
> Hebrew letters). Why win with a Royale Flush when a Full House will do?
I really like the phrase "Bosom Lamb to be observant of a snare".
The images this brings to mind are very distrubing.
--
I)/\(, - Dag Agren - dag...@abo.fi - Goaway on IRC
Please don't go to http://www.abo.fi/~dagren/
-> Legalize oregano! <-
You see with the popularity of the Bible scientists, and mathematicians
that are of that Theology typically try to use their Ph.D to prove the
Universe was created in seven days. Every time they work out the equations
they all say the same thing, that the Universe is younger than the light
from the farthest stars. Now, if that means that some very significant part
of the fission fussion reaction is invalid based on the gravity of stars,
and there is some form of lasing action as a result of the quantum dynamics
of like charges in very close proximity of eachother that would make star
light less dependant on the fission fussion action, and more dependant on
electrons changing energy levels in just maintaining an orbit around the
nuclie of the atom, which would very well explain the temperature of Gaseous
Giants like Saturn and Jupiter as a result of mass and density, where the
absolute density of the planet places one atom so close to the next that
electrons literally vear out of the natural course of the orbit into another
energy level to complete an orbit due to the neighboring atom and its
electrons orbits being the same charge and too close to complete a normal
orbit without the same change in energy levels, releasing two photons as a
result of proximity.
This is in light of the topics of this newsgroup, that express the the
works of Bruno, Dunn, and H. G. Drickamer of the University of Illinois that
may one day lead to a Ultra-High Pressure Thermodynamic Quantum Reactor,
that utilizes natural valence, p, and K shell electron orbits in a
non-nuclear reaction to generate heat, like found on Saturn or Jupiter where
the sun's light isn't enough to explain the temperature. Duh!!
If the Universe is only as old as the Earth, that if an object is
traveling 1/4th the speed of light and coming straight at the Earth, but is
more than a Billion Light Years away. If it don't exist based on your
calculations, How can we detour it when it couldn't exist based on you
teachings? I am not saying that in four billion years that there's nothing
to worry about, but what if it is gradually accellerating being a Star with
a crater on its rotational axis that is actually acting as a thruster,
saying that the solar wind from a star is the same based on its surface area
and the increase there in it surface area concentrates the energy into a
contant thrust?
If Newton invented telescopes in a day without gasoline that the
scientist that supported certian laws of thermodynamics once it was
impossible to run a car on gasoline because it burned too hot. Later, a
man desided to use a water pump to cool of the block of his engine, and used
it anyways, before that they honestly believed that the engine would just
melt the metal it was made of, and the gasoline was great for torches. Are
you going to say that tests that would prove or disapprove light speed or
velocities above that were impossible given a new means of propulsion were
unpresedented, or well worth testing since the payload, and the weight of
the fuel aren't the real problem this time?
So, who's stop something Kids ain't allowed to believe exists? Where
are you going to get the Science right enough to survive? Why don't you
care? Is Science too complicated, well somebody else really cares, so don't
go out there into the world and argue that God is still Sponatiously
Generating flies for sake of shear boredom, or trying to fit all of the
angels in heaven on a universe that fits on a pin. It's just another
universe, and this is the first that's second, and angels are like software,
model every logical part, (cell) for all of it's chemical actions and
reactions and once you finish out the basic cell groups you've finished
building the body.
I believe that the real God is too strong for you to stomach, and too
smart, because atoms ensure that no-one cannot be saved. Counting in
binary, using a squared number of digits demonstrates just how each pixel
could be lit in that square, every letter I type is only a group of pixels,
binary uses every possible possibility of combintations of 1's or 0's never
excluding any one combination. My God never looses, but my God has no face.
I have found that God's only true possible place of existance is the
absolute vacumm, a vacant space that encompasses all objects from the
electron to the stars, and that space between elementary particals is
present from right in front of your face, clear to the ends of the universe.
And frankly, I don't see the end of it, it is infinity. Boredom, and
monotony, where the same is always true, you don't raise your kids right,
and that is more important than hypocrocy. In all due respect your God
appears evil in my eyes because of the hypocracy, and you yourself can read
Isa 45:7, Matt 5:48, Ps 66:5, Cor 5:5, and just remeber all of the sermons
you heard. Practice is inclined to perfection, it's not by the rod, but by
love and understanding that these things are so.
These are some of the laws that I have to uphold as an individual.
1. Do not bruise, cut, burn, nor sacrifice your children.
2. You are to punish your children for; Lying.
3. You are to punish your children for; Cheating.
4. You are to punish your children for; Stealing, even within ones' own
household.
5. You are to punish your children for; Arguing.
6. You are to punish your children for; Hitting.
7. You are to punish your children for; Sexual misconduct, that they would
not fondle themselves, nor eachother, to prevent miscarriage, death in
childbearing, and spread of disease.
8. Do not punish your children for what they have no words to explain.
9. Do not punish your children without explanation of worldly, and infinite
consequence.
10. Do not punish your children by means of confinement, for it is a root of
rebellion.
11. You are to punish your children by spoken, or written phrase from the
hundredth to the
thousanth time, Built on what they will do, will not do, and enjoy doing in
obedience of these laws that they would hate evil, love good and want to do
what is right..
12. It is better to punish a child for an evil left undone than to have
never punished them at all,
and reward them for their works, That they would Hate Evil, and Love Good.
13. Do not attend orgies.
14. Do not rape.
15. Anyone who hates God is thankless for every friend who was created,
brother, sister,
husband, wife, father, or mother, even every morsel of food in all of its
variety, and every drop of water they ever drank. A true righteous God
does not curse the innocent based upon their forefathers sins, even if they
hate God.
16. Do not destroy what any one man love, honor, or cherish of what is good
and right.
There is no church, chapel, no synogog. I have no followers. I assume that
each person should accept their own responsibilities. Responsibility,
before Authority in all things. I don't want no following, I want to see
parents use what they know about themselves in all the exersizes that they
have done to practice what they do for a career, and utilize that to it's
fullest potential for the sake of the children first then their own. But,
if the sensless fighting over how repititiouse your religion is like so many
others in chanting, hymns, meditation, thanks, praise, all of the different
ways you mask your repititions in the bible or Koran are written repeating
over and over the name of their gods, heros, icons.
Now, if you want to look at neural trends, practice makes perfect, and
when you are becoming perfect at being wrong, and calling yourself right and
handing that down one generation to the next America slayed the indians, and
the Pigrims were Christians. Your cities are filled with whores, muggers,
thieves, liars, rapists, murders, and you can go look at just how
beastiality sells. Now, you have had almost an entire generation bombarded
with radio sermons, televised sermons, and nothing works like politics, and
cops. All you've really proven is that practice makes perfect even when you
call wrong right. Bottom line when it comes down to caring, it by God is
too complex for you to appreciate at the terms it is granted to you. All
things are not possible, because that is lawless, wicked, and evil in the
mind and imagination of a child. A child learns the first word they say,
then the next, eventually the meanings of those words, and the difference
between right and wrong, both, good and evil are the same. What really
sucks is that I understand what is wrong with your world and why.
And you will listen, and I will hurt your feelings, and I will help you
to understand, because you are Christian. Here's where I hurt you, and know
it, but it is for the better, Isa 45:7, Mat 5:48, Cor 5:5, Ps 66:5 but you
don't understand.
Be careful what you hear, you've trained your mind to ignore me, but
will you raise your children right? Ha, even Satan uses reverse Psychology.
Yes, you are very generic. What I've been pointing at is what clouds a
childs mind the most, and that can cloud an adults mind.
A childs mind is like a musicians mind, it can play any song, and
practice at anything can result in a high level of achievement, but, unlike
tying your shoes, and how little thought that it would require to accomplish
the task for 356 days a year and after the fourth taken for granted. That a
child has a real need for direct guidance. There's a clock that tells you
what the given Population of the Earth is at, and a child is born every
second, but confusion is finding them first. I know that I am no Son of
Your God, or any other for that matter, and there is no demand for celebacy
on me, but you Christians are jerks, and dick choppers, psychological dick
choppers, and I hate you. One way or another you always push me into an
extreem, anti-christ, the beast, a son, and a rebell son, but do care? No,
You want somebody else all of the time, you don't know me, you don't know
what I am about, you don't even what I do. I have been to more than thirty
churches, and I have seen falsified miricals, I have been invited to defile
the temple on your standards, and all I asked for was a wife, ironically I
wanted the right woman, but I have seen the Satanists come into churches in
pairs to ask god in jesus name that satan would be god, as a part of their
initiation. There were no lightning bolts no thunder, and nobody dropped
dead. You can't make me believe that any of you know God.
You want to know what is wrong with your marriage? Every day you go to
Church your spouse is sitting next to you and your willing to drop
everything or sacrifice you on children to God for only your own life, every
sunday. Every sunday, you tell yourselves your helpless, hopeless, evil
minded, wicked, sinners, and your kids believe that too, but you don't just
make mistakes, you aren't taught that, you don't teach your children that,
and so you suffer. Because, you are ignorant of your children in the same
fashion as you parents, and friends around you are or were.
I have tried to guess at, calculate how many children would be saved if
God, or Jesus Made all things possible enough to actually put those laws
into the hands of Moses, and I prayed, but God not doing what he was asked
at that time was wrong. I have no doubt that you people worship no real God
of love. Love is enough, and greater than faith is Knowlage, for there is
no doubt. Jesus, could have helped allot, but didn't, so after a few months
humbly asking, I came to a bottom line and said FUCK YOU, don't bitch about
how you cause yourself all of your own god damned problems, when you refuse
to instruct these people properly.
There is no sense in arguing what good these laws would be, but, Moses
broke the tablets, and Jesus is concieted. Jesus Christ's conciete is
mentioned in the book of Daniel.
1. Do not bruise, cut, burn, nor sacrifice your children.
2. You are to punish your children for; Lying.
3. You are to punish your children for; Cheating.
4. You are to punish your children for; Stealing, even within ones' own
household.
5. You are to punish your children for; Arguing.
6. You are to punish your children for; Hitting.
7. You are to punish your children for; Sexual misconduct, that they would
not fondle themselves, nor eachother, to prevent miscarriage, death in
childbearing, and spread of disease.
8. Do not punish your children for what they have no words to explain.
9. Do not punish your children without explanation of worldly, and infinite
consequence.
10. Do not punish your children by means of confinement, for it is a root of
rebellion.
11. You are to punish your children by spoken, or written phrase from the
hundredth to the
thousanth time, Built on what they will do, will not do, and enjoy doing in
obedience of these laws.
12. It is better to punish a child for an evil left undone than to have
never punished them at all,
and reward them for their works, That they would Hate Evil, and Love Good.
13. Do not attend orgies.
14. Do not rape.
15. Anyone who hates God is thankless for every friend who was created,
brother, sister,
husband, wife, father, or mother, even every morsel of food in all of its
variety, and every drop of water they ever drank. A true righteous God
does not curse the innocent based upon their forefathers sins, even if they
hate God.
16. Do not destroy what any one man love, honor, or cherish of what is good
and right.
If you want to live you need science, and a clear head, where right and
wrong are absolute, and properly defined. God is really invisiable, quantum
physics could be used to prove that the dynamic logical capacity of space
itself is enough to store, and maintain all of the information about
anything if it were a nano-computer built shearly on the nature of the
unverse, and charges in play, but if you looked at one brain cell of a man
4,000, and couldn't see what he was doing then you would never know what it
was for, even if were just the word "THE", by association.
God is seriousely trying to build a civilization here, on Earth, and
that is really all that is going on. But, if you looked at an adversary
of all of mankind, then you wouldn't think of no camouflage, but would
include it, no ingenuity, but would include it, but Satan being the lesser
of two evils? Only one third of the Earth believes, but only one third of
the angels followed satan.
> You see with the popularity of the Bible scientists, and mathematicians
> that are of that Theology typically try to use their Ph.D to prove the
> Universe was created in seven days. Every time they work out the equations
> they all say the same thing, that the Universe is younger than the light
> from the farthest stars.
Actually, none of the equations say that. See the Cosmology FAQ entry
on this:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#age
This renders most of the rest of your post irrelevant.. in fact, I
wasn't able to discern the point of the rest of your post.
[Note followups.]
>Every time they work out the equations
>they all say the same thing, that the Universe is younger than the light
>from the farthest stars.
This is nonsense- they don't say that at all. You are citing newspaper
reports from a few years ago. The findings on which they were based have
been shown to be wrong.
As the rest of your article is based on this fallacy, it seems ot be making
no valid point of any kind.
--
Peter
Of course there was intelligent design. Intelligent people (most
likely the brightest people in the society) wrote that document.
Many of them were mystics and numerologists and their society gave
them lots of free time to muck about with such things. It should
not be surprising that some things are encoded in it.
>Mathematicians who ignore this data, and who do not do their own honest
>research, do so at their own peril. ...
The peril concerns the interpretation one places on finding things
post hoc in a document. This should be especially clear when the
challenge (IIRC it was to find some specific text in Moby Dick) of
the original author was met.
Note followups to a more appropriate subset of newsgroups, which
do not include the one where I am reading this.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | desired to this or any address
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | that resolves to my account
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | for any reason at any time.
IMO, that would be the only real grounds for believing that it exists.
Also, if the Bible Code is false, how about getting a few false
predictions from it? Surely, they would be easier to get than true ones?
--
Matthew Wootton
I guess Drosnin's astute publisher must have looked at the manuscript
and predicted mathematical discoveries making tabloid news.
>
>IMO, that would be the only real grounds for believing that it exists.
:)
>
>Also, if the Bible Code is false, how about getting a few false
>predictions from it? Surely, they would be easier to get than true ones?
Taking a letter-spacing of 1 yields the original text, so I think it's
safe to leave the determination of the answer to this question to
biblical scholars.
--
Sherilyn|Had a premonition lately? Get it registered! Get it noticed!
misc.predictions.registry http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/news/faq.htm
Before reading THE BIBLE CODE I considered finding codes in other text.
Using the same algorithms I have been able to find themes in
Literature, such as, THE WIZARD OF OZ. Proving such themes as
Little old GOLD STANDARD, and William Jennings Bryant's CROSS OF GOLD.
Some of the themes are crazy, yet they can be found in code.
Having studied other texts, in English, I find this idea ludicrous.
I have read the book, THE BIBLE CODE, and have no appreciation for it.
Themes can be proven if bias exists.
Truth lies.....discover the difference between truth and The Truth....a
difference that may indeed prove that the bible is true.......
-
RESEARCH ARTICLE
http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~csquitti/index.html
Caesar J. B. Squitti © 1998
ANTI+TRUTHS: Truths, Half-Truths & Lies.
"The Light....The Rainbow of Truth."
SPONSORED BY
SQUITTI'S
" A Beautiful Difference" © 1997
Fine Diamonds and Gold Jewelery
http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~csquitti/webdoc.5.html
&
The People of Thunder Bay
"Superior by Nature"
kenn_t...@hotmail.com wrote in article
<6kplr2$mvm$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>...
Check out these offsets and step sizes into the King James version of Genesis:
99752 ribet (30)
99773 theorem (47)
100358 last (-44)
100786 true (-50)
100819 true (9)
100887 weil (-41)
101411 weil (45)
101474 true (-32)
101492 last (-48)
101538 weil (-24)
101538 weil (-26)
102052 fermat (-21)
102105 last (40)
102313 true (29)
(The 'F' of fermat is the 'f' in "learn by this experiment o*f* the divine
assistance" in Genesis 32:24. This is my character number 102052. Calculate
all other character positions in your text relative to this character.)
(BTW If I remember correctly - Ribet showed FLT follows from the Taniyama-Weil
conjecture).
--
Torque
http://www.grin.net/~tanelorn
not to belittle you in any way but if i may say so you dont sound to be
very comfortable with your own beliefs...so ill fight fire with fire (im
the son of a preacher)..."The greatest in the kingdom of heaven is the
one who humbles himself..." mathew 18:4-5...so why dont you humble
yourself and try to have a bit of respect for the beliefs of others (at
least the religious beliefs of those im a math news group)...and
speaking of that, what does this have to do with math anyways...
Hawkhaven