Re: Dumb question

[HVAC]

On 12/28/2012 4:32 PM, June G wrote:
>
>
> Thank you. That explains a lot. Am I right in assuming that the solar wind
> would prevent a rocket from travelling in that direction too?


Hi June-

Earlier I told you that there were many smart people here.
Unfortunately, Brad Goth isn't one of them.
He in mentally unbalanced and oftentimes he talks about seeing moon men
running around on planet Venus. He also sees reservoirs and runways
on Venus as well.

Good luck in your quest for knowledge. Hopefully I've kept you away
from a well-known net lunatic.




--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[john]

Does ur new gfriend like
ur sig, HVAC?
Why didn't u answer the
solar wind Q?
john

[benj]

HVAC doesn't do science, John. He's just here as a "wordsmith".

[HVAC]

On 12/31/2012 3:30 AM, June G wrote:
>
> There's something I'm not grasping here: if there is no void in nature, how
> did the first activated particle move? Surely there must be a void (or
> voids) even if only for the tiniest fraction of a second, otherwise
> everything would have to be static, wouldn't it?
>

June: Please don't let these people deceive or mislead you.
Ether does not exist. Period. 99% of all scientists don't believe
in ether and for good reason. Ether counts in any calculations and
equations exactly as much as does god. In other words, not at all.

There is ZERO evidence for ether, either through experiment or
observation. Belief in it is religion.


Do you believe in god, June?

[benj]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:07:23 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 12/31/2012 3:30 AM, June G wrote:
>>
>> There's something I'm not grasping here: if there is no void in nature,
>> how did the first activated particle move? Surely there must be a void
>> (or voids) even if only for the tiniest fraction of a second, otherwise
>> everything would have to be static, wouldn't it?
>>
>>
> June: Please don't let these people deceive or mislead you.
> Ether does not exist. Period. 99% of all scientists don't believe in
> ether and for good reason. Ether counts in any calculations and
> equations exactly as much as does god. In other words, not at all.
>
> There is ZERO evidence for ether, either through experiment or
> observation. Belief in it is religion.
>
> Do you believe in god, June?

You need to use all your scientific credentials to explain to us all how
empty space can have properties or waves propagate in "nothing at all".

Even a "wordsmith" like you can't pull that one off with your hands in
your pockets!

But then you thin AGW is real and that all the imaginary fairy tales of
cosmology actually describe reality.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 12/31/2012 2:13 PM, benj wrote:

>
> You need to use all your scientific credentials to explain to us all how
> empty space can have properties or waves propagate in "nothing at all".

empty space is not 'nothing at all'. does that help?

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/31/12 2:13 PM, benj wrote:
> But then you thin[k] AGW is real...

What the science says...

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human
activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is
escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface
temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat.
This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are
causing global warming.

See:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

[john]

"Vertical" said, "empty space is
not empty".

Okay, Vertical, don't be a tease-
WHAT IS IT?

john

[June G]

"HVAC" <hv...@physisist.net> wrote in message
news:kbsnpc$8rn$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...

> On 12/31/2012 3:30 AM, June G wrote:
>>
>> There's something I'm not grasping here: if there is no void in nature,
>> how
>> did the first activated particle move? Surely there must be a void (or
>> voids) even if only for the tiniest fraction of a second, otherwise
>> everything would have to be static, wouldn't it?
>>
>
> June: Please don't let these people deceive or mislead you.
> Ether does not exist. Period. 99% of all scientists don't believe
> in ether and for good reason. Ether counts in any calculations and
> equations exactly as much as does god. In other words, not at all.
>
> There is ZERO evidence for ether, either through experiment or
> observation. Belief in it is religion.

I had thought that the existence of ether had been discredited long ago,
along with the four elements of earth, fire, water and air, but, as a
non-scientist, I can't argue with people who know so much more about
astrophysics than I do.

> Do you believe in god, June?

No, I don't see any evidence of a god. I don't categorically say that there
is no god, as a strong atheist would, but I do categorically state that if
it does turn out that there is a Creator, it will be nothing like the ones
imagined by Christianity, Islam or any other religion. If my cats were
capable of religious beliefs, they would believe that God is feline!

>
>
>
> --
> "OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. ??
> http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg
--
June G
# 364

[Painius]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:32:29 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Well, maybe, but Sam, the record indicates that Earth has been
undergoing an overall warming trend ever since the last ice age. The
climate shows cyclic cooling and warming periods on several levels,
but the overall trend has been that of warming. Whether or not humans
have an effect on global climate is, in my humble opinion not only
debatable, but also moot. It strongly appears that Earth would be
warming with or without human activity.


--
Happy Holidays!
and Warm Wishes for the New Year!
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"The future is much like the past and present, only more expensive."

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/31/12 4:00 PM, Painius wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:32:29 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/31/12 2:13 PM, benj wrote:
>>> But then you thin[k] AGW is real...
>>
>> What the science says...
>>
>> Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human
>> activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is
>> escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface
>> temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat.
>> This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are
>> causing global warming.
>>
>> See:
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
>
>
> Well, maybe, but Sam, the record indicates that Earth has been
> undergoing an overall warming trend ever since the last ice age. The
> climate shows cyclic cooling and warming periods on several levels,
> but the overall trend has been that of warming. Whether or not humans
> have an effect on global climate is, in my humble opinion not only
> debatable, but also moot. It strongly appears that Earth would be
> warming with or without human activity.
>
>

Hi Paine--This data, >
http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg

shows that we have been slightly cooling over the last thousand years
or so which was not unexpected given the last five glaciation cycles.
However, the trend changed with the industrial revolution.

Climate data is noisy and as you know there are arguments for this and
for that. But what has caught my attention is that the rate of change
of temperature is greater in the last few decades than anything we can
piece together from the geologic record of the last 300 million years.

-Sam

[HVAC]

On 12/31/2012 3:13 PM, benj wrote:
>
>
> You need to use all your scientific credentials to explain to us all how
> empty space can have properties or waves propagate in "nothing at all".

Oh look....Another fucking ether moron shows up.
Since you believe in god, it's just a short trip over to ether land.

No observational evidence, no experimental evidence, no factor in any
calculation... Fuck! Ether is just like god.

[Lofty Goat]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 17:00:55 -0500, Painius wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:32:29 -0600, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 12/31/12 2:13 PM, benj wrote:
>>> But then you thin[k] AGW is real...
>>
>>What the science says...
>>
>>Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human
>>activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is
>>escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface
>>temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat.
>>This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are
>>causing global warming.
>>
>>See:
>>http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
>
>
> Well, maybe, but Sam, the record indicates that Earth has been
> undergoing an overall warming trend ever since the last ice age. The
> climate shows cyclic cooling and warming periods on several levels, but
> the overall trend has been that of warming. Whether or not humans have
> an effect on global climate is, in my humble opinion not only debatable,
> but also moot. It strongly appears that Earth would be warming with or
> without human activity.

Whether or not it's a result of human activity, it is happening. Debating
who is at fault is less productive than figuring out what sorts of changes
to human activity, the only thing over which we've any control, will
ameliorate some of the problems it will cause.

Large shipping concerns, insurance companies, agribusiness and the
military are already working out how they'll cope with climate change.
While such organizations are not exemplars of social responsibility, they
damn' well are pragmatic.

--
Goat

[Brad Guth]

On Dec 31, 1:42 pm, "June G" <juneg...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> "HVAC" <h...@physisist.net> wrote in message

> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo.. ??

> >http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg
>
> --
> June G
> # 364

More ants on Earth than any other mass of species. Obviously they
were created first and evolved better than most all other species.
Perhaps God must have been an ant. Do ants have any faith-based
policies or agendas?

[HVAC]

On 12/31/2012 4:42 PM, June G wrote:
>
>> June: Please don't let these people deceive or mislead you.
>> Ether does not exist. Period. 99% of all scientists don't believe
>> in ether and for good reason. Ether counts in any calculations and
>> equations exactly as much as does god. In other words, not at all.
>>
>> There is ZERO evidence for ether, either through experiment or
>> observation. Belief in it is religion.
>
> I had thought that the existence of ether had been discredited long ago,
> along with the four elements of earth, fire, water and air, but, as a
> non-scientist, I can't argue with people who know so much more about
> astrophysics than I do.

Well, you are absolutely correct, June. Why these 'flat-earth' types
want to believe in ether is a mystery to me. I believe that it has a
strong religious component as every single person who believes in ether
also believes in god...Which leads to our next question.

>> Do you believe in god, June?
>
> No, I don't see any evidence of a god. I don't categorically say that there
> is no god, as a strong atheist would

Would you say the same thing about your belief in Tinkerbell? And if
not, why not?

--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[Deepfriedice]

On 01/01/13 12:33, HVAC wrote:
> On 12/31/2012 4:42 PM, June G wrote:
>>
>>> June: Please don't let these people deceive or mislead you.
>>> Ether does not exist. Period. 99% of all scientists don't believe
>>> in ether and for good reason. Ether counts in any calculations and
>>> equations exactly as much as does god. In other words, not at all.
>>>
>>> There is ZERO evidence for ether, either through experiment or
>>> observation. Belief in it is religion.
>>
>> I had thought that the existence of ether had been discredited long ago,
>> along with the four elements of earth, fire, water and air, but, as a
>> non-scientist, I can't argue with people who know so much more about
>> astrophysics than I do.
>
>
> Well, you are absolutely correct, June. Why these 'flat-earth' types
> want to believe in ether is a mystery to me. I believe that it has a
> strong religious component as every single person who believes in ether
> also believes in god...Which leads to our next question.
>
>
>>> Do you believe in god, June?
>>
>> No, I don't see any evidence of a god. I don't categorically say that
>> there
>> is no god, as a strong atheist would
>
>
> Would you say the same thing about your belief in Tinkerbell? And if
> not, why not?

I hate to jump in, but I think you might be confusing conversational
certainty (I know it's a Tuesday) with philosophical certainty (I know I
exist).

[sbalneav]

Bingo. Also, tinkerbell's easy, because we KNOW who created tinkerbell, as a
matter of history.

Am I 99.9999999 (repeating) percent sure a God doesn't exist? Yeah, pretty
certain. Do I *know*, philosophically, a God doesn't exist, no, I don't,
because I can't prove a negative. But to echo June, I sure as heck don't see
any evidence for one.

--
__ _ | It were not best that we should all think alike; it is
(_ |_) | difference of opinion that makes horse-races.
__)|_) | -- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"

[Deepfriedice]

I agree with you, with one caveat I left out of my post; I'm not not
sure that philosophical certainty is possible or even useful to talk
about. It doesn't really seem to have any place outside
atheismVSreligion arguments.

[SkyEyes]

Exactly. Which is why, even though most of the regulars in
alt.atheism would characterize themselves as "weak" atheists, we
behave as though we were "strong" atheists - as though we know that no
god in fact exists. Because philosophy and practical living are two
very different things.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[benj]

Sure. Then what shall we name what is there? I have a suggestion....

[benj]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:32:29 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 12/31/12 2:13 PM, benj wrote:
>> But then you thin[k] AGW is real...
>
> What the science says...

You mean what you fundies believe.

Snip that paid propaganda!

What science says is:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[benj]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 18:06:54 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 12/31/2012 3:13 PM, benj wrote:
>>
>>
>> You need to use all your scientific credentials to explain to us all
>> how empty space can have properties or waves propagate in "nothing at
>> all".
>
>
> Oh look....Another fucking ether moron shows up.
> Since you believe in god, it's just a short trip over to ether land.
>
> No observational evidence, no experimental evidence, no factor in any
> calculation... Fuck! Ether is just like god.

Properties of "empty" space are well known and established to anyone with
an actual knowledge of science, ACDC. Lawyers and spooks such as yourself
aren't expected to understand such things. Just stick with your working
knowledge of exotic drugs and their effects.

[Deepfriedice]

Wait, Climate scientists are fundies and paid propergandists, but the
opinions of a TV weather presenter is "What science says"

Is it opposite day?

[Will Janoschka]

Ah! Hand waving. So that is what Sam means by articulation! Cute.

[Will Janoschka]

Empty space has both permittivity and permeabity, each has been
measured.
What eles is required? How empty space do dat, is in a differnt
league,
perhaps philosophy!

[Will Janoschka]

On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 08:34:19, Deepfriedice <Deepfr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Perhaps, when your local weather guy is correct sometimes, but
the Allgorestas are correct never!

[HVAC]

On 12/31/2012 7:01 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
> More ants on Earth than any other mass of species. Obviously they
> were created first and evolved better than most all other species.
> Perhaps God must have been an ant. Do ants have any faith-based
> policies or agendas?

See what I mean, June? Brad Goth is bat shit crazy.

--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl

[HVAC]

On 1/1/2013 2:55 AM, benj wrote:
>
>> Oh look....Another fucking ether moron shows up.
>> Since you believe in god, it's just a short trip over to ether land.
>>
>> No observational evidence, no experimental evidence, no factor in any
>> calculation... Fuck! Ether is just like god.
>
> Properties of "empty" space are well known and established to anyone with
> an actual knowledge of science, ACDC.

Exactly. And no ether is ever factored into those equations.

So why do you believe in ether?

> Just stick with your working
> knowledge of exotic drugs and their effects.

Which drugs do you consider to be 'exotic'?

[benj]

So science is determined by the titles and former job position of those
selling the data, by the "consensus" and democratic vote of all
interested parties? Obviously your harping on WHO (SkepticalScience is
some grad student paid by a foundation to make up data and "explain" away
anything that doesn't support the religion) rather than the facts shows
you, like all climate revisionists, have no interest in science at all.

Go do your politics in some political group.

[HVAC]

On 12/31/2012 9:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>
>>> Would you say the same thing about your belief in Tinkerbell? And if
>>> not, why not?
>>
>> I hate to jump in, but I think you might be confusing conversational
>> certainty (I know it's a Tuesday) with philosophical certainty (I know I
>> exist).
>
> Bingo. Also, tinkerbell's easy, because we KNOW who created tinkerbell, as a
> matter of history.

How do you know that Tinkerbell wasn't written as an allegorical
reference to a actual being, much in the same way that the bible
recounts the allegorical god?

The fact that we have better record keeping today should not enter
into a discussion of the reality of god vs. Tinkerbell.

> Am I 99.9999999 (repeating) percent sure a God doesn't exist? Yeah, pretty
> certain.

And you feel EXACTLY the same way about Tinkerbell?

[benj]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 09:05:04 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 1/1/2013 2:55 AM, benj wrote:
>>
>>> Oh look....Another fucking ether moron shows up.
>>> Since you believe in god, it's just a short trip over to ether land.
>>>
>>> No observational evidence, no experimental evidence, no factor in any
>>> calculation... Fuck! Ether is just like god.
>>
>> Properties of "empty" space are well known and established to anyone
>> with an actual knowledge of science, ACDC.
>
>
> Exactly. And no ether is ever factored into those equations.
>
> So why do you believe in ether?

So where did you get this "scientific" idea that "nothing at all" can
have properties or propagate waves of some type? Wormley teaches science
for seniors you know. Perhaps you need to sign up.

>> Just stick with your working knowledge of exotic drugs and their
>> effects.
>
> Which drugs do you consider to be 'exotic'?

You know what I'm talking about. Wink Wink. Nudge. Nudge.

[benj]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 08:30:04 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 12/31/2012 7:01 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>
>> More ants on Earth than any other mass of species. Obviously they were
>> created first and evolved better than most all other species.
>> Perhaps God must have been an ant. Do ants have any faith-based
>> policies or agendas?
>
>
> See what I mean, June? Brad Goth is bat shit crazy.

Harlow, obviously Brad is a Wordsmith, but you are bat-shit crazy.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
> On 12/31/2012 9:55 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>>>> Would you say the same thing about your belief in Tinkerbell? And if
>>>> not, why not?
>>>
>>> I hate to jump in, but I think you might be confusing conversational
>>> certainty (I know it's a Tuesday) with philosophical certainty (I know I
>>> exist).
>>
>> Bingo. Also, tinkerbell's easy, because we KNOW who created tinkerbell, as a
>> matter of history.
>
>
> How do you know that Tinkerbell wasn't written as an allegorical
> reference to a actual being, much in the same way that the bible
> recounts the allegorical god?

We don't, but now you're conflating what tinkerbell IS (a created piece of
fiction by J. M. Barrie) and what tinkerbell REPRESENTS (a possible real life
fairy).

Atheists don't doubt that the Bible exists. They doubt that the stories the
Bible tells have any basis in reality. I don't doubt tinkerbell exists, I
doubt tinkerbell represents anything actually existing outside of pure fantasy.

Add to the fact that I can't find any references that stated JMB asserted
tinkerbell WAS real... and it makes a pretty convincing case that it's fiction.

> The fact that we have better record keeping today should not enter
> into a discussion of the reality of god vs. Tinkerbell.

Of course it should. Record keeping is part of the chain of evidence that
helps to establish the veracity of a claim.

Tell me, if there were 50 or 60 detailed extra-biblical accounts by Roman, Persian,
and Greek historians detailing that on the day that Christ supposedly died, the
dead got up from their graves en mass and walked around, including 2 autopsy
reports by greek scholars on the zombie apocalypse, would you be MORE inclined
to think something actually happened, or less?

>> Am I 99.9999999 (repeating) percent sure a God doesn't exist? Yeah, pretty
>> certain.
>
>
>
> And you feel EXACTLY the same way about Tinkerbell?

Philosophically, yeah. Practically, I see them both as works of fiction.

--
__ _ | Books are lighthouses erected in the great sea of time.
(_ |_) | -- Edwin P. Whipple
__)|_) |

[HVAC]

On 1/1/2013 9:15 AM, benj wrote:
>
>>> Properties of "empty" space are well known and established to anyone
>>> with an actual knowledge of science, ACDC.
>>
>>
>> Exactly. And no ether is ever factored into those equations.
>>
>> So why do you believe in ether?
>
> So where did you get this "scientific" idea that "nothing at all" can
> have properties or propagate waves of some type? Wormley teaches science
> for seniors you know. Perhaps you need to sign up.

If I attended a class taught by professor Wormley, I'm sure it would be
quite educational.

>> Which drugs do you consider to be 'exotic'?
>
> You know what I'm talking about. Wink Wink. Nudge. Nudge.

Actually, I have NO idea what you are talking about.

(Unless you are referring to lot 7?)

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 12/31/2012 2:44 PM, john wrote:> "Vertical" said, "empty space is
> not empty".

no, that's not what i said at all. i said empty space is not nothing at
all. empty and nothing are not the same thing.

empty space is a region where there is no matter. matter has a clear
definition which you can look up. when you remove matter, you have empty
space, which still has properties and is therefore not nothing.

if you thought matter is the only thing that can have properties, you
are wrong.

>
> Okay, Vertical, don't be a tease-
> WHAT IS IT?
>
> john
>

[Absolutely Vertical]

i bet you do. but then it's just choice of words we'd be arguing about.
empty space seems to work.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 1/1/2013 8:15 AM, benj wrote:

>
> So where did you get this "scientific" idea that "nothing at all" can
> have properties or propagate waves of some type? Wormley teaches science
> for seniors you know. Perhaps you need to sign up.
>

nothing at all doesn't have properties and can't propagate waves. but
empty space has properties and can propagate waves.

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/1/13 1:52 AM, benj wrote:
> What science says is:
>
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Ha Ha -- apparently benj has no idea what science is!

[HVAC]

BJ believes in god, ghosts and ether.

Do the math.

[HVAC]

On 1/1/2013 9:52 AM, sbalneav wrote:
>
>>> Am I 99.9999999 (repeating) percent sure a God doesn't exist? Yeah, pretty
>>> certain.
>>
>>
>>
>> And you feel EXACTLY the same way about Tinkerbell?
>
> Philosophically, yeah. Practically, I see them both as works of fiction.

So you still hold out a tiny fraction of a chance that Tink is real?

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

> On 1/1/2013 9:52 AM, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>>>> Am I 99.9999999 (repeating) percent sure a God doesn't exist? Yeah, pretty
>>>> certain.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And you feel EXACTLY the same way about Tinkerbell?
>>
>> Philosophically, yeah. Practically, I see them both as works of fiction.
>
>
> So you still hold out a tiny fraction of a chance that Tink is real?

What I think and what I can philosophically assert are two different things. I
can't assert Tinkerbell DOESN'T exist, since it's impossible to prove a
negative.

Do I think she exists? No, of course not. Geez, Harlow, if you're going to
fantasize over someone's ass, why not fantasize over someone you have a hope of
attaining? :) Besides, I think the size difference would be insurmountable
for you.

--
__ _ | As I've said many times: the future is already here;
(_ |_) | it's just not very evenly distributed.
__)|_) | -- William Gibson

[benj]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 11:51:46 -0500, HVAC wrote:

>>> And you feel EXACTLY the same way about Tinkerbell?
>>
>> Philosophically, yeah. Practically, I see them both as works of
>> fiction.
>
>
> So you still hold out a tiny fraction of a chance that Tink is real?

So you say that tinkerbell being real (which you don't define) is
"impossible"? Just use the short form, HVAC and just say you are a moron.

Tinkerbell IS real on some level! Just think of how many people are
familiar with her name!

So ACDC, just WHY are you always discussing your religious shit in a
science newsgroup? You are worse than Wormley.

[benj]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 09:59:44 -0600, Absolutely Vertical wrote:

> nothing at all doesn't have properties and can't propagate waves. but
> empty space has properties and can propagate waves.

Then if it's not "nothing at all" then what term should we use for
whatever is there doing these things? I say the name really doesn't
matter and I have a suggestion.

[benj]

Aether works for me. I'm wondering why a word choice gets everyone's
panties in a bunch? There is something political going on here...

[benj]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 11:48:34 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 1/1/2013 11:04 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 1/1/13 1:52 AM, benj wrote:
>>> What science says is:
>>>
>>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/
>>
>> Ha Ha -- apparently benj has no idea what science is!
>>
>>
>
> BJ believes in god, ghosts and ether.
>
> Do the math.

You and Sam not only are fervent believers in that totally false and
debunked AGW theory, but you both constantly thump your climate
revisionist bibles trying to sell your falsehoods to make money.

You are both not only Climate Fundies, but criminal conspirators as well.
Shame on the pair of you.

[benj]

<snicker>

Hey Sammy, repost that "skepticalscience" bullshit site again for the
1000th time while telling all lurkers it's "science".

[HVAC]

On 1/1/2013 12:21 PM, benj wrote:
>
>> BJ believes in god, ghosts and ether.
>>
>> Do the math.
>
> You and Sam not only are fervent believers in that totally false and
> debunked AGW theory, but you both constantly thump your climate
> revisionist bibles trying to sell your falsehoods to make money.

And I'm sure you can provide evidence for this claim of yours?

> You are both not only Climate Fundies, but criminal conspirators as well.

I have engaged in many 'criminal' conspiracies over the years.

> Shame on the pair of you.

Hold on while I hang my head....

[HVAC]

You and your gay little friends can call it anything you want.

Scientists such as myself will refer to it by it's name...'Space'.

[Absolutely Vertical]

in such cases, it's always good to go to the people doing the work and
ask them what word they use for the shared concept. i think empty space
is the term they have been using for a while, since ether typically has
been used to denote something else. quibbling over words is kinda useless.

[HVAC]

On 1/1/2013 12:03 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>
>>>>> Am I 99.9999999 (repeating) percent sure a God doesn't exist? Yeah, pretty
>>>>> certain.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you feel EXACTLY the same way about Tinkerbell?
>>>
>>> Philosophically, yeah. Practically, I see them both as works of fiction.
>>
>>
>> So you still hold out a tiny fraction of a chance that Tink is real?
>
> What I think and what I can philosophically assert are two different things. I
> can't assert Tinkerbell DOESN'T exist, since it's impossible to prove a
> negative.

But we began this as a discussion on belief.
I don't believe in god 100%

> Do I think she exists? No, of course not.

Have you tried clapping your hands?

> Geez, Harlow, if you're going to
> fantasize over someone's ass, why not fantasize over someone you have a hope of
> attaining?

I 'believe' that I have a shot with Tinkerbell. I have been in love
with her for years.

http://th01.deviantart.net/fs22/300W/i/2008/031/4/f/tinkerbell_by_Gali_miau.jpg

> :) Besides, I think the size difference would be insurmountable
> for you.

For HER maybe. Not for me. Besides, if her bunny foo foo get stretched
out, she can just sprinkle some pixie dust on it and it will be all good

Recently a 17 year old girl informed me that Disney will be changing the
look of Tinkerbell to this:

http://www.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Tinkerbell-New-Look.jpg

This is a product of the gayification of Disney. Gay men are in control
and want to turn Tink into a 12 year old boy.

I will boycott all Disney products in the future.

This is an abomination.

[HVAC]

On 1/1/2013 12:04 PM, benj wrote:
>
>> So you still hold out a tiny fraction of a chance that Tink is real?
>
> So you say that tinkerbell being real (which you don't define) is
> "impossible"? Just use the short form, HVAC and just say you are a moron.
>
> Tinkerbell IS real on some level! Just think of how many people are
> familiar with her name!
>
> So ACDC, just WHY are you always discussing your religious shit in a
> science newsgroup? You are worse than Wormley.

If YOU can discuss ether, *I* can discuss Tinkerbell.

Say, BJ...When was the last time you saw a ghost?

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

> On 1/1/2013 12:03 PM, sbalneav wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Am I 99.9999999 (repeating) percent sure a God doesn't exist? Yeah, pretty
>>>>>> certain.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And you feel EXACTLY the same way about Tinkerbell?
>>>>
>>>> Philosophically, yeah. Practically, I see them both as works of fiction.
>>>
>>>
>>> So you still hold out a tiny fraction of a chance that Tink is real?
>>
>> What I think and what I can philosophically assert are two different things. I
>> can't assert Tinkerbell DOESN'T exist, since it's impossible to prove a
>> negative.
>
>
> But we began this as a discussion on belief.
> I don't believe in god 100%

I don't believe in God 100% either.

>> Do I think she exists? No, of course not.
>
>
> Have you tried clapping your hands?

<clap clap>
<looks for tinkerbell>

Stop friggin' hoggin' her, Harlow.

>> Geez, Harlow, if you're going to
>> fantasize over someone's ass, why not fantasize over someone you have a hope of
>> attaining?
>
>
> I 'believe' that I have a shot with Tinkerbell. I have been in love
> with her for years.
>
> http://th01.deviantart.net/fs22/300W/i/2008/031/4/f/tinkerbell_by_Gali_miau.jpg

I've always been partial to "Slave Leia" myself :)

>> :) Besides, I think the size difference would be insurmountable
>> for you.
>
>
> For HER maybe. Not for me. Besides, if her bunny foo foo get stretched
> out, she can just sprinkle some pixie dust on it and it will be all good

... not going there not going there not going there ...

> Recently a 17 year old girl informed me that Disney will be changing the
> look of Tinkerbell to this:
>
> http://www.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Tinkerbell-New-Look.jpg
>
> This is a product of the gayification of Disney. Gay men are in control
> and want to turn Tink into a 12 year old boy.
>
> I will boycott all Disney products in the future.
>
> This is an abomination.

You can have Tinkerbell. I'll just go and re-read the "Heavy Metal" magazines
of my youth :)

--
__ _ | The question is not, Can they reason?
(_ |_) | nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?
__)|_) | -- Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) on animal rights

[June G]

"HVAC" <hv...@physisist.net> wrote in message
news:kbthtg$mm6$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
> On 12/31/2012 4:42 PM, June G wrote:
>>
>>> June: Please don't let these people deceive or mislead you.
>>> Ether does not exist. Period. 99% of all scientists don't believe
>>> in ether and for good reason. Ether counts in any calculations and
>>> equations exactly as much as does god. In other words, not at all.
>>>
>>> There is ZERO evidence for ether, either through experiment or
>>> observation. Belief in it is religion.
>>
>> I had thought that the existence of ether had been discredited long ago,
>> along with the four elements of earth, fire, water and air, but, as a
>> non-scientist, I can't argue with people who know so much more about
>> astrophysics than I do.
>
>
> Well, you are absolutely correct, June. Why these 'flat-earth' types want
> to believe in ether is a mystery to me. I believe that it has a strong
> religious component as every single person who believes in ether also
> believes in god...Which leads to our next question.
>
>
>>> Do you believe in god, June?
>>
>> No, I don't see any evidence of a god. I don't categorically say that
>> there
>> is no god, as a strong atheist would

>
>
> Would you say the same thing about your belief in Tinkerbell? And if not,
> why not?

My disbelief in Tinkerbell is even stronger, but God and Tinkerbell are not
comparable. It doesn't matter whether Tinkerbell exists or not, whereas it
just might matter if God exists. Science has pushed God into smaller and
smaller gaps, but there is one gap that I doubt science will ever be able to
answer: how did the singularity get there in the first place, and if the
singularity can be explained, how did whatever was there before it get
there? For this reason I can't say categorically that there is no God, but
until I see some evidence for such a being, then I will continue to
disbelieve.
--
June G
# 364

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/1/13 1:59 PM, June G wrote:
> Science has pushed God into smaller and
> smaller gaps, but there is one gap that I doubt science will ever be able to
> answer: how did the singularity get there in the first place, and if the
> singularity can be explained, how did whatever was there before it get
> there? For this reason I can't say categorically that there is no God, but
> until I see some evidence for such a being, then I will continue to
> disbelieve.

Ref: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0603/CMB_Timeline300.jpg

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
> In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.


There’s More to Nothing Than We Knew
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/science/space/cosmologists-try-to-explain-a-universe-springing-from-nothing.html?_r=0

"Dr. Krauss is a pint-size spark plug of erudition and ambition, who
often seems to be jetting off in several directions at once on more
missions than can be listed on a business card. Among other things he is
Foundation Professor and director of the Origins Project at Arizona
State University".

"And he knows his universe. In 1995, he and Michael S. Turner of the
University of Chicago made waves by arguing that many of the paradoxes
regarding cosmology could be resolved if a large portion of the cosmos
resided in the form of a hitherto-undiscovered energy, known then as the
cosmological constant. Three years later astronomers discovered that the
expansion of the universe was being accelerated by some “dark energy”
that behaves exactly like the cosmological constant".

________________


The Universe: the ultimate free lunch
http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/11/4/008

"It is commonly believed that the origin of the Universe must have
involved the violation of natural laws, particularly energy conservation
and the second law of thermodynamics. This need not have been the case,
the present author shows that the Universe could have begun from a state
of zero energy and maximum entropy, and then naturally evolved into what
we see today without violating any known principles of physics. The
fundamental particles and the force laws they obey then come about
through a series of random symmetry-breaking phase transitions during
the period of exponential expansion in the first fraction of a second
after the Universe appears as a quantum fluctuation".

_______________


A Universe from Nothing
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

"Adapted from The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 1st edition,
by Jay M. Pasachoff and Alex Filippenko, © 2001. Reprinted with
permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of the Wadsworth Group, a division
of Thomson Learning".

"In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were
produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following
the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy.
This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational
energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the
total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe
consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive
and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with
negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of
zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls.
But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational
energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two
energies remains zero".

"The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests
that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing
started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin).
The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without
creating net energy".

________________


Is Our Universe the Ultimate Free Lunch?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mario-livio/is-our-universe-the-ultim_b_2123732.html

"Two questions immediately arise: (1) What about conservation of energy?
(2) Why did the universe appear at all? As it turns out, conservation of
energy is not a problem. While all the mass in our universe has positive
energy, the gravitational attraction has a negative energy associated
with it, which precisely balances the positive one. The total energy of
our universe is precisely zero, so that there is no problem with the
universe materializing out of nothing. Why did the universe appear?
Because the laws of physics allowed it to. In quantum mechanics, any
process has a certain probability of occurring, and no cause is needed.
You will notice, however, that we do have to assume that the laws of
physics continue to apply even when there is nothing. I shall return to
this assumption in a future post".

[HVAC]

On 1/1/2013 2:59 PM, June G wrote:
>
>> Would you say the same thing about your belief in Tinkerbell? And if not,
>> why not?
>
> My disbelief in Tinkerbell is even stronger, but God and Tinkerbell are not
> comparable.

Funny but I was speaking with a friend about this exact subject earlier
today and my point was that anyone who elevates god above the level of
Tinkerbell is a theist. I don't know from weak or strong...I'm not a
very good atheist, but that's how I see it.

> It doesn't matter whether Tinkerbell exists or not, whereas it
> just might matter if God exists.

No love for Tinkerbell? Did you know that every time a baby laughs, a
pixie is born? Now THAT is a miracle!

> Science has pushed God into smaller and
> smaller gaps

One cannot push that which does not exist.

> but there is one gap that I doubt science will ever be able to
> answer: how did the singularity get there in the first place, and if the
> singularity can be explained, how did whatever was there before it get
> there? For this reason I can't say categorically that there is no God

Well, June...The answer is that we can with incredible precision
determine the state of the universe mili seconds after the big bang.
Since this was the beginning of time, there was no before. But why would
I ascribe this 'event' to a god? Isn't the answer, 'I don't know'
acceptable any longer? Why crowbar in god without any evidence at all?

> but
> until I see some evidence for such a being, then I will continue to
> disbelieve.

I disagree...See above.

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 1, 12:20 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/1/13 1:59 PM, June G wrote:
>
> > Science has pushed God into smaller and
> > smaller gaps, but there is one gap that I doubt science will ever be able to
> > answer: how did the singularity get there in the first place, and if the
> > singularity can be explained, how did whatever was there before it get
> > there?  For this reason I can't say categorically that there is no God, but
> > until I see some evidence for such a being, then I will continue to
> > disbelieve.
>
> Ref:http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0603/CMB_Timeline300.jpg
>
> Ref:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
>
> > In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
>

> There’s More to Nothing Than We Knewhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/science/space/cosmologists-try-to-e...

> Is Our Universe the Ultimate Free Lunch?http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mario-livio/is-our-universe-the-ultim_b...

>
> "Two questions immediately arise: (1) What about conservation of energy?
> (2) Why did the universe appear at all? As it turns out, conservation of
> energy is not a problem. While all the mass in our universe has positive
> energy, the gravitational attraction has a negative energy associated
> with it, which precisely balances the positive one. The total energy of
> our universe is precisely zero, so that there is no problem with the
> universe materializing out of nothing. Why did the universe appear?
> Because the laws of physics allowed it to. In quantum mechanics, any
> process has a certain probability of occurring, and no cause is needed.
> You will notice, however, that we do have to assume that the laws of
> physics continue to apply even when there is nothing. I shall return to
> this assumption in a future post".

Inside of black holes should offer a zero gravity environment.

[benj]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:03:23 +0000, sbalneav wrote:

> In alt.atheism HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>> So you still hold out a tiny fraction of a chance that Tink is real?

> What I think and what I can philosophically assert are two different
> things. I can't assert Tinkerbell DOESN'T exist, since it's impossible
> to prove a negative.
>
> Do I think she exists? No, of course not. Geez, Harlow, if you're
> going to fantasize over someone's ass, why not fantasize over someone
> you have a hope of attaining? :) Besides, I think the size difference
> would be insurmountable for you.

Nah. It would be a pretty good fit where it counts.

[benj]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 13:00:05 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 1/1/2013 12:04 PM, benj wrote:

>> So ACDC, just WHY are you always discussing your religious shit in a
>> science newsgroup? You are worse than Wormley.
>
> If YOU can discuss ether, *I* can discuss Tinkerbell.
>
> Say, BJ...When was the last time you saw a ghost?

I can truthfully say I have NEVER seen a ghost. On the other hand, I can
also truthfully say that I have never seen the alleged super-collider at
CERN either. I have seen photos of the collider, but those were in all
probability faked. And it did star in a movie, but I'm sure that nobody
would would be dumb enough fall for some Hollywood set as being reality!

As a scientist, ACDC, I'm sure you can agree that when some supposed
"collider" starts measuring faster than light communications it's obvious
it's as fake as any religion! You pay for my ticket over there to see
this supposed wonder and only THEN will I believe!

[benj]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:37:41 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 1/1/2013 12:06 PM, benj wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 09:59:44 -0600, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>>
>>> nothing at all doesn't have properties and can't propagate waves. but
>>> empty space has properties and can propagate waves.
>>
>> Then if it's not "nothing at all" then what term should we use for
>> whatever is there doing these things? I say the name really doesn't
>> matter and I have a suggestion.
>
>
> You and your gay little friends can call it anything you want.
>
> Scientists such as myself will refer to it by it's name...'Space'.

Scientist? Bwahaha! I've seen no evidence of that, ACDC. But clearly you
seem to have a fascination with all things gay as well as the various
anal fetishes around here. Plenty of evidence in the butt-burglar dept.

[benj]

Ah, so science is about democratic votes again. In fact, in this case,
it's WORSE than that because of the political push to erase the term
aether from science because of some agenda. So your idea is that now that
the program to erase aether (which was NEVER pushed by Einstein) has
brainwashed the science masses, you then propose to take a poll of the
brainwashed to "prove" something. I guess you never heard of something
called "tradition".

[Smiler]

Then you will forever be an atheist. So far, 5+ millenia and _still_ no
evidence.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[benj]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 19:59:21 +0000, June G wrote:

> My disbelief in Tinkerbell is even stronger, but God and Tinkerbell are
> not comparable. It doesn't matter whether Tinkerbell exists or not,
> whereas it just might matter if God exists. Science has pushed God into
> smaller and smaller gaps, but there is one gap that I doubt science will
> ever be able to answer: how did the singularity get there in the first
> place, and if the singularity can be explained, how did whatever was
> there before it get there? For this reason I can't say categorically
> that there is no God, but until I see some evidence for such a being,
> then I will continue to disbelieve.

Wait a minute. You aren't being consistent here. If you want to define
god as the "singularity creator", I see nothing wrong with that. But then
you can't just say, well, "I disbelieve in god", unless you also
disbelieve that the singularity wasn't ever created. The question of God
as a "being" which implies a consciousness and perhaps the ability to
communicate with other conscious entities one or both ways is a separate
issue from singularity creation.

[Dakota]

Science didn't push anyone's god into the gaps. Theists retreated
deeper into the gaps each time science answered a question previously
supposed by believers to be evidence of their god.

Asking how the singularity came to be and what came before it is just
more 'god of the gaps' nonsense as it deals with a question science
cannot yet answer and may never be able to answer. Science is honest
enough to admit it doesn't know the answer to many questions. Ask a
theists where their god came from and they answers that it has always
existed. Yet the same answer is considered unacceptable when it comes
to the singularity.

[June G]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8471a76b-3691-4664...@s14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 31, 1:42 pm, "June G" <juneg...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> "HVAC" <h...@physisist.net> wrote in message
>
> news:kbsnpc$8rn$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12/31/2012 3:30 AM, June G wrote:
>
> >> There's something I'm not grasping here: if there is no void in nature,
> >> how
> >> did the first activated particle move? Surely there must be a void (or
> >> voids) even if only for the tiniest fraction of a second, otherwise
> >> everything would have to be static, wouldn't it?

>
> > June: Please don't let these people deceive or mislead you.
> > Ether does not exist. Period. 99% of all scientists don't believe
> > in ether and for good reason. Ether counts in any calculations and
> > equations exactly as much as does god. In other words, not at all.
>
> > There is ZERO evidence for ether, either through experiment or
> > observation. Belief in it is religion.
>
> I had thought that the existence of ether had been discredited long ago,
> along with the four elements of earth, fire, water and air, but, as a
> non-scientist, I can't argue with people who know so much more about
> astrophysics than I do.
>

> > Do you believe in god, June?
>
> No, I don't see any evidence of a god. I don't categorically say that
> there

> is no god, as a strong atheist would, but I do categorically state that if
> it does turn out that there is a Creator, it will be nothing like the ones
> imagined by Christianity, Islam or any other religion. If my cats were
> capable of religious beliefs, they would believe that God is feline!

>
> > --
> > "OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl

> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo.. ??
> >http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

>
> --
> June G
> # 364

More ants on Earth than any other mass of species. Obviously they
were created first and evolved better than most all other species.
Perhaps God must have been an ant. Do ants have any faith-based
policies or agendas?
___________________

The next time I see an ant, I'll ask it, then I'll get back to you when I'm
given an answer.

[HVAC]

On 1/1/2013 11:22 PM, benj wrote:
>
>
> As a scientist, ACDC, I'm sure you can agree that when some supposed
> "collider" starts measuring faster than light communications it's obvious
> it's as fake as any religion! You pay for my ticket over there to see
> this supposed wonder and only THEN will I believe!

It wasn't a fake...It was a mistake.



PS- In the future, BJ, anytime you hear that something has exceeded
light speed in our universe, rest assured that it is a mistake.

[benj]

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 08:59:07 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 1/1/2013 11:22 PM, benj wrote:
>>
>>
>> As a scientist, ACDC, I'm sure you can agree that when some supposed
>> "collider" starts measuring faster than light communications it's
>> obvious it's as fake as any religion! You pay for my ticket over there
>> to see this supposed wonder and only THEN will I believe!
>
>
> It wasn't a fake...It was a mistake.

> PS- In the future, BJ, anytime you hear that something has exceeded
> light speed in our universe, rest assured that it is a mistake.

Oh wait! Faster than light motion is "impossible" you say? I guess that
proves once more you are a moron. Your super-powers just amaze the rest
of us.

As a non-scientist you don't understand the difference between
"impossible" and "has never been observed".

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 2, 2:50 am, "June G" <juneg...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Just learning how to speak ant will be a great accomplishment.

Ants have probably been here for millions if not a billion years
longer than humans, so that gives their creation and evolution the
distinct advantage. Ants and most other insects will most likely be
here long after humans have expired.

Also remember, that without diatoms no other form(s) of life could
have possibly existed on Earth, so perhaps our God/creator was a
diatom.

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 2, 3:33 am, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue
<chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <j5idnf9fbLyejHnNnZ2dnUVZ8tudn...@bt.com>,

>  "June G" <juneg...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> > The next time I see an ant, I'll ask it, then I'll get back to you when I'm
> > given an answer.
>

> Individual ants are stupid. Ant colonies are smarter than their components.
>
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\        Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father.       \'         At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked.     //               When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that!        `/  the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

Individual humans as well as entire human colonies of stupid humans
are collectively beyond worse than stupid (aka 9/11); so what's your
point?

[HVAC]

On 1/2/2013 11:35 AM, benj wrote:
>
>> PS- In the future, BJ, anytime you hear that something has exceeded
>> light speed in our universe, rest assured that it is a mistake.
>
> Oh wait! Faster than light motion is "impossible" you say? I guess that
> proves once more you are a moron. Your super-powers just amaze the rest
> of us.
>
> As a non-scientist you don't understand the difference between
> "impossible" and "has never been observed".

I said impossible because it is impossible. It has also never been
observed except in the delusions of some slipshod Italian scientists.

BJ, as you grow older and study science, you will see how easy it is to
make such proclamations.

It's just the nature of physics that such things are not allowed.

[HVAC]

On 1/2/2013 12:03 PM, HVAC wrote:
>
> I said impossible because it is impossible. It has also never been
> observed except in the delusions of some slipshod Italian scientists.
>
> BJ, as you grow older and study science, you will see how easy it is to
> make such proclamations.
>
> It's just the nature of physics that such things are not allowed.

And allow me this opportunity to apologize for spoiling your dream of
FTL star ships plying the space lanes. Because the fact that they don't
exist also ruins your belief that aliens are here on planet Earth.

So let's see.. So far I have destroyed your belief in a god, blown apart
your foolish notions regarding ether, utterly dismantled your
spooky beliefs in ghosts, and now I am ending your hope for FTL and aliens.

Boo-Fucking-Hoo

[Double-A]

On Dec 31 2012, 11:07 am, HVAC <h...@physisist.net> wrote:
> On 12/31/2012 3:30 AM, June G wrote:
>
>
>
> > There's something I'm not grasping here: if there is no void in nature, how
> > did the first activated particle move?  Surely there must be a void (or
> > voids) even if only for the tiniest fraction of a second, otherwise
> > everything would have to be static, wouldn't it?
>
> June: Please don't let these people deceive or mislead you.
> Ether does not exist. Period. 99% of all scientists don't believe
> in ether and for good reason.

Oh, so you admit that no fewer than 1% of scientists do believe in
aether! So there is a differecne of opinion in the scientific
community!

> Ether counts in any calculations and
> equations exactly as much as does god. In other words, not at all.
>
> There is ZERO evidence for ether, either through experiment or
> observation. Belief in it is religion.

All experiments for the detection of aether have had possitive
results, if not outside the error bars.

> Do you believe in god, June?

What does June's belief in God have to do with her original question?

Double-A

[HVAC]

On 1/2/2013 6:41 PM, Double-A wrote:
>
>> June: Please don't let these people deceive or mislead you.
>> Ether does not exist. Period. 99% of all scientists don't believe
>> in ether and for good reason.
>
>
> Oh, so you admit that no fewer than 1% of scientists do believe in
> aether! So there is a differecne of opinion in the scientific
> community!

Of course there is. Don't you remember we discussed this a while back?
There is a tiny % of scientists who believe in ether. 100% of them
believe in god. If they cannot be fired for one reason or another, they
are relegated to the office next to the public restrooms.

>> Ether counts in any calculations and
>> equations exactly as much as does god. In other words, not at all.
>>
>> There is ZERO evidence for ether, either through experiment or
>> observation. Belief in it is religion.
>
>
> All experiments for the detection of aether have had possitive
> results, if not outside the error bars.

Exactly. There is no evidence for ether.

>> Do you believe in god, June?
>
>
> What does June's belief in God have to do with her original question?

Nothing. Why do you ask?

[Smiler]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:50:38 -0800, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric
China Blue wrote:

> In article <pan.2013.01.02....@JoeKing.com>,

> Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>
>> Then you will forever be an atheist. So far, 5+ millenia and _still_ no
>> evidence.
>

> 100 millenia or so and most people had evidence.

Nope. Only beliefs and beliefs are NOT evidence.

[June G]

"HVAC" <hv...@physisist.net> wrote in message

news:kbvja3$uc5$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...

> On 1/1/2013 2:59 PM, June G wrote:
>>
>>> Would you say the same thing about your belief in Tinkerbell? And if
>>> not,
>>> why not?
>>
>> My disbelief in Tinkerbell is even stronger, but God and Tinkerbell are
>> not
>> comparable.
>
>
> Funny but I was speaking with a friend about this exact subject earlier
> today and my point was that anyone who elevates god above the level of
> Tinkerbell is a theist.

I think you mean a deist. A theist subscribes to a theology. I would
elevate Superman above Tinkerbell, based on the characteristics ascribed to
him. That doesn't make me a Supermanist. I don't believe in Tinkerbell,
Superman or God.

I don't know from weak or strong...I'm not a
> very good atheist, but that's how I see it.

>> It doesn't matter whether Tinkerbell exists or not, whereas it
>> just might matter if God exists.
>
>
> No love for Tinkerbell?

No, not my type.

Did you know that every time a baby laughs, a
> pixie is born? Now THAT is a miracle!

Aw.

>> Science has pushed God into smaller and
>> smaller gaps
>
>
> One cannot push that which does not exist.

Agreed. I obviously phrased it badly. There was a time when anything that
couldn't be understood was thought to be God's doing. As science explained
more and more natural phenomena, the Goddidit squad had fewer and fewer
arguments for the existence of a god.

>> but there is one gap that I doubt science will ever be able to
>> answer: how did the singularity get there in the first place, and if the
>> singularity can be explained, how did whatever was there before it get
>> there? For this reason I can't say categorically that there is no God
>
>
> Well, June...The answer is that we can with incredible precision determine
> the state of the universe mili seconds after the big bang.
> Since this was the beginning of time, there was no before. But why would I
> ascribe this 'event' to a god? Isn't the answer, 'I don't know'
> acceptable any longer? Why crowbar in god without any evidence at all?

"I don't know" is a very acceptable answer, but how can you claim to know
something that you don't know, ie that no God created it? The only
reasonable response is 'maybe'. I think there are some things that we will
never know, but I think the singularity will be sussed out eventually.

>> but
>> until I see some evidence for such a being, then I will continue to
>> disbelieve.
>
>
> I disagree...See above.

OK.

> "OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. ??
> http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[June G]

"She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue" <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote in message
news:chine.bleu-97304...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <7O6dnfr6oPmE2H7N...@giganews.com>,

> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/1/13 1:59 PM, June G wrote:
>> > Science has pushed God into smaller and
>> > smaller gaps, but there is one gap that I doubt science will ever be
>> > able
>> > to
>> > answer: how did the singularity get there in the first place, and if
>> > the
>> > singularity can be explained, how did whatever was there before it get
>> > there? For this reason I can't say categorically that there is no God,
>> > but
>> > until I see some evidence for such a being, then I will continue to
>> > disbelieve.
>

> Some people do see as evidence data which you reject and so strengthens
> their
> belief. Broadly speaking you have two response: agree that different
> people can
> interpret the same data in different ways (which, after all, empirically
> true)
> and tolerate people with different beliefs. Or you can demand that
> everyone
> agrees with you and force your beliefs on others.

There's also gentle persuasion!

>> Ref: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0603/CMB_Timeline300.jpg
>>
>> Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
>> > In quantum physics, a quantum vacuum fluctuation (or quantum
>> > fluctuation or
>> > vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in
>> > a
>> > point in space,[1] arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty
>> > principle.

Well, since you mentioned Heisenberg, I'm going to tell you something I've
sat on for over 20 years, because I didn't know anyone who would know what I
was talking about. A famous American bridge player, Billy Eisenberg, was
playing in an international match and failed to bid a grand slam, which the
opposition had done. When asked why, he said he wasn't sure how many aces
his partner had. I thought, "That's the Eisenberg Uncertainty Principle."
It amused me at the time (I'm easily amused).

>> There零 More to Nothing Than We Knew
>
> An active god is contrary to the belief of science that the universe is
> mechanical, or S |- ~G. It would therefore be absurd to think that S |- G.
> The
> closest you can get is a god shaped hole in the theories of science which
> would
> be some phenomena that is impossible to explain with science.
>
> Separately, this is a logical fallacy
> P ^ (~G -> P) -> ~G
> which is to say if you can explain some phenomena without using a god,
> that
> proves there is no god. The correct version of the above is
> P ^ (~G -> P) -> ~G | G
> which is to say the existence of a god is undecided.

You lost me with your equations - I have no mathematical background - but I
agree with your conclusion. Until this question is decided, I will remain
an atheist unless I see some irrefutable evidence for the existence of a
god.

> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.

[June G]

"Dakota" <ma...@NOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:kc0p6h$jqi$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 1/1/2013 1:59 PM, June G wrote:
>> "HVAC" <hv...@physisist.net> wrote in message
>> news:kbthtg$mm6$1...@hvac.motzarella.org...
>>> On 12/31/2012 4:42 PM, June G wrote:
>>>>

[snip]

Bingo!

[June G]

"benj" <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:y2PEs.17825$Ep5....@newsfe08.iad...

> On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 19:59:21 +0000, June G wrote:
>
>> My disbelief in Tinkerbell is even stronger, but God and Tinkerbell are
>> not comparable. It doesn't matter whether Tinkerbell exists or not,
>> whereas it just might matter if God exists. Science has pushed God into
>> smaller and smaller gaps, but there is one gap that I doubt science will
>> ever be able to answer: how did the singularity get there in the first
>> place, and if the singularity can be explained, how did whatever was
>> there before it get there? For this reason I can't say categorically
>> that there is no God, but until I see some evidence for such a being,
>> then I will continue to disbelieve.
>
> Wait a minute. You aren't being consistent here. If you want to define
> god as the "singularity creator", I see nothing wrong with that. But then
> you can't just say, well, "I disbelieve in god", unless you also
> disbelieve that the singularity wasn't ever created.

I see your point, but I don't necessarily believe that the singularity was
created. I await explanations.

The question of God
> as a "being" which implies a consciousness and perhaps the ability to
> communicate with other conscious entities one or both ways is a separate
> issue from singularity creation.
>

[June G]

"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1c5e3fb5-c092-44b6...@d10g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

____________________________

Since stars and planets were created before life, perhaps God is a sphere.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<chine.bleu-E1476...@news.eternal-september.org>,
She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue <chine...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> In article <pan.2013.01.03....@JoeKing.com>,

> Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 23:50:38 -0800, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric
> > China Blue wrote:
> >
> > > In article <pan.2013.01.02....@JoeKing.com>,
> > > Smiler <Youm...@JoeKing.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Then you will forever be an atheist. So far, 5+ millenia and _still_ no
> > >> evidence.
> > >
> > > 100 millenia or so and most people had evidence.
> >
> > Nope. Only beliefs and beliefs are NOT evidence.
>

> By what authority are you rather than billions of other people allowed to
> decide
> what is evidence?

There is a definition of evidence. And unevidenced belief is NOT
evidence.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[benj]

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 12:03:08 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 1/2/2013 11:35 AM, benj wrote:

>> Oh wait! Faster than light motion is "impossible" you say? I guess that
>> proves once more you are a moron. Your super-powers just amaze the rest
>> of us.
>>
>> As a non-scientist you don't understand the difference between
>> "impossible" and "has never been observed".

> I said impossible because it is impossible. It has also never been
> observed except in the delusions of some slipshod Italian scientists.
>
> BJ, as you grow older and study science, you will see how easy it is to
> make such proclamations.
>
> It's just the nature of physics that such things are not allowed.

So you still persist in calling yourself a moron. Only a moron would
claim to know everything in the universe as you do. This is arrogance on
an epic scale. Which of course implies ignorance on the same scale.

I spell the science out for you and rub your nose in the stink and you
are still so Bert-stooopid as to not get it. It takes super-powers
(knowledge of all the ways things can be done) to prove something
"impossible" and still you persist. You are even LESS educated and a
bigger fundie in science than Wormley!

[benj]

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 12:08:19 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> On 1/2/2013 12:03 PM, HVAC wrote:

> And allow me this opportunity to apologize for spoiling your dream of
> FTL star ships plying the space lanes. Because the fact that they don't
> exist also ruins your belief that aliens are here on planet Earth.
>
> So let's see.. So far I have destroyed your belief in a god, blown apart
> your foolish notions regarding ether, utterly dismantled your spooky
> beliefs in ghosts, and now I am ending your hope for FTL and aliens.
>
> Boo-Fucking-Hoo

(Humoring the patient) That's right Harlow, you da man! Now give some of
the other patients some time on the ward computer.

[benj]

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:57:35 -0800, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric
China Blue wrote:

>> > 100 millenia or so and most people had evidence.
>>
>> Nope. Only beliefs and beliefs are NOT evidence.
>

> By what authority are you rather than billions of other people allowed
> to decide what is evidence?

That would be because billions of people are total idiots. Plenty of
evidence of that RIGHT HERE!

[Gordon]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2013 16:10:10 -0500, HVAC <hv...@physisist.net> wrote:

>On 1/1/2013 2:59 PM, June G wrote:
>>
>>> Would you say the same thing about your belief in Tinkerbell? And if not,
>>> why not?
>>

>> My disbelief in Tinkerbell is even stronger, but God and Tinkerbell are not
>> comparable.
>
>

>Funny but I was speaking with a friend about this exact subject earlier
>today and my point was that anyone who elevates god above the level of

>Tinkerbell is a theist. I don't know from weak or strong...I'm not a

>very good atheist, but that's how I see it.
>
>

>> It doesn't matter whether Tinkerbell exists or not, whereas it
>> just might matter if God exists.
>
>

>No love for Tinkerbell? Did you know that every time a baby laughs, a

>pixie is born? Now THAT is a miracle!
>
>

>> Science has pushed God into smaller and

>> smaller gaps
>
>
>One cannot push that which does not exist.
>
>

>> but there is one gap that I doubt science will ever be able to
>> answer: how did the singularity get there in the first place, and if the
>> singularity can be explained, how did whatever was there before it get

>> there? For this reason I can't say categorically that there is no God
>
>
>Well, June...The answer is that we can with incredible precision
>determine the state of the universe mili seconds after the big bang.
>Since this was the beginning of time, there was no before. But why would
>I ascribe this 'event' to a god? Isn't the answer, 'I don't know'
>acceptable any longer? Why crowbar in god without any evidence at all?
>

Isn't it odd that the Bible mentions the "beginning" while people at
that time had no concepts at all about the Big Bang? How did the
writers of the Bible get this idea in mind? The Bible refers to God as
"eternal" seemingly indicating that He exists outside our time frame.

It's really strange that those ancient scribes would suck so many
things like this out of their thumbs and get them right. Gordon

>
>
>> but
>> until I see some evidence for such a being, then I will continue to
>> disbelieve.
>
>

>I disagree...See above.

[HVAC]

On 1/2/2013 8:41 PM, June G wrote:
>
>> Well, June...The answer is that we can with incredible precision determine
>> the state of the universe mili seconds after the big bang.
>> Since this was the beginning of time, there was no before. But why would I
>> ascribe this 'event' to a god? Isn't the answer, 'I don't know'
>> acceptable any longer? Why crowbar in god without any evidence at all?
>
> "I don't know" is a very acceptable answer, but how can you claim to know
> something that you don't know, ie that no God created it? The only
> reasonable response is 'maybe'.

Well, now we come full circle.

Would you answer 'maybe' to the question of if Tinkerbell created
the singularity? I believe you will answer 'no'.

By doing so you elevate god over Tinkerbell.

That makes you a (ahem) deist.


Note that I am not looking for an argument here, I just want to clarify
your thinking on this matter.



PS- Tinkerbell would kick Superman's ass. Just an FYI



--

"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[HVAC]

On 1/3/2013 9:21 AM, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue wrote:

> In article<kc413m$7f0$1...@hvac.motzarella.org>, HVAC<hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
>
>> By doing so you elevate god over Tinkerbell.
>

> There's still no evidence provided that Tink predated Barrie or that Barrie
> claimed she was a real god.


Who is Barrie?

[HVAC]

On 1/3/2013 9:39 AM, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric China Blue wrote:
>
>>> By what authority are you rather than billions of other people allowed to
>>> decide
>>> what is evidence?
>>
>> There is a definition of evidence. And unevidenced belief is NOT
>> evidence.
>

> There are many definitions of evidence. You are evading the question.
>
> Quite simply you cannot define evidence without reference to unevidenced belief;
> to claim otherwise is a circular argument.


Well then forget the definition. What is *your* evidence for god?

[hanson]

HVAC<hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
By doing so you elevate god over Tinkerbell.
>>

"Twat Trouble in Blue" wrote:

There's still no evidence provided that Tink predated
Barrie or that Barrie claimed she was a real god.
>

HVAC<hv...@physisist.net> wrote:
Who is Barrie?
>
hanson wrote:
Harlow, you are slow on the uptake. "TTBlue" is gay.
... and obviously, Barrie is the Mermaid that you yearn
for and believe in, and always ask about: "Is she hot?"
Thanks for the laughs, you goons. ahahahahanson

[Will Janoschka]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 14:32:56, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric
China Blue <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Out of billions and one people, I am expected to believe in one person and
> ignore the billions.

You are not even requested to bleiieve at all! It would be nice if
you would
consider, then make up your own mind about "possibilities". Time and
again
out of billions only one is correct. The "correct" is a belief, for
a short while.

[Brad Guth]

Yes indeed, an expanding cosmic sphere or the ongoing flow of aether
seems even more likely. Our brief existence as a supposedly
intelligent species is simply less than a cosmic drop in the bucket of
whatever created us. At best we'll have existed for at most 0.01% the
life of our sun, and for most of that time we have been downright
nasty and haven't been smart enough to keep from killing other humans
and destroying our global biodiversity, not to mention trashing the
global environment as we hoard and consume most everything in sight.

Btw; it's looking as though you've lost control over this topic.

Got another one for us?

[benj]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 06:32:56 -0800, She's a Witch of Trouble in Electric
China Blue wrote:

> In article <Tq9Fs.28071$411...@newsfe02.iad>, benj <be...@iwaynet.net>
> wrote:
>

> Out of billions and one people, I am expected to believe in one person
> and ignore the billions.

Sure HVAC will tell you why. Of course he's talking about believing HIM.

[benj]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2013 09:45:23 -0500, HVAC wrote:

> Well then forget the definition. What is *your* evidence for god?

Well, the evidence for God is that the Big Bang exists!

Ha ha ha! NOW, I'm on YOUR side!