Wave bye-bye to [M]adman's fantasies
chris thompson
Setterfield, Magueijo, Barrow Albrecht and Moffat. (None published
anything with Setterfield, who's about as credible as a pair of Hush
Puppies dug up out of Paluxy Sandstone.)
I did a brief search this morning and found a paper by two of those
guys. Here's a link:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9811018
cite:
Albrecht & Magueijo 1999 Phys. Rev. D59 (sorry no pages given; the pdf
starts on page 1).
My initial objection to [M]add's assertion was that the timespan we're
talking about here would probably be measured in femtoseconds. I got
that wrong.
[M]adman, in that paper they're measuring time using Planck time. A
unit of Planck time, [M]adds, is equal to just about
5.39 x 10 E-44 seconds
(that's a NEGATIVE exponent there, [M]adder)
Granted, they're saying that light increased it's speed by 64 orders
of magnitude. So it was moving reeeeeeeealllllllly
sssssslllllllloooooooooowwwwwwwwww for what must be...the first 1/1
000 000 000 000 000 000 000 second after the Big Bang!
How much time does that shave off the age of the universe? Shall we be
generous and knock off 2.008 seconds from 14 500 000 000 years?
You're a hoot, [M]adster. What's next? I feel like I'm watching Rocky
& Bullwinkle and you're gonna pull something really silly out of that
hat.
Chris
roki...@cox.net
What kind of idiot would be so brain dead that they keep going back to
creationist sources as if they were valid sources of information.
adman can't put up a single anti-evolution argument that he has gotten
from those sources that he can claim is honest and reliable. You'd
think that he might have tried 3 or 4 before catching on, but he has
tried hundreds. All with the same result. It is like a moron going
around thinking that it is funny to poke a finger at people and tell
them to pull it, so that he can fart and laugh.
One thing that adman does is bring up the bogus junk so anyone can see
just how bogus it is one more time. It is sort of like watching
reruns, but my kids haven't seen Gilligan's Island and don't know what
it is, so adman serves that meager purpose. If it wasn't for clowns
as badly off as adman we would probably have to institute a rerun
channel to aquaint the newbies with the classic anti-science idiocy.
You can't parody an anti-science creationist. Their arguments really
are that bad.
Ron Okimoto
wf3h
>
> How much time does that shave off the age of the universe? Shall we be
> generous and knock off 2.008 seconds from 14 500 000 000 years?
>
> You're a hoot, [M]adster. What's next? I feel like I'm watching Rocky
> & Bullwinkle and you're gonna pull something really silly out of that
> hat.
>
> Chris
yeah i found the same from a paper at the u. of new s. wales...they
had to use quasars to measure the change in the speed of light. it's
changed so slowly...if it's changed at all...that they had to go to
the oldest objects in the universe to measure a change which was at
the limits of resolution of the measurement.
adman seems to think scientists just read our instruments and take the
results at face value when we make a measurement. he's never spent a
day in a lab so doesn't understand how metrology...the science of
measurement...works
![[M]adman's profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
[M]adman
Standard PAT answers outta U.
What did you guys do? get together and make a laundry list of TO approved
responses?
[M]adman
You guys are in such D E N I A L
You did not refute *this* one however. <s>
Please note:
1) NOT from a creationist site
2)It has been through peer review
3)It was independently tested and the outcome was THE SAME.
4) It is recent work
So you are OUT of handwaves
Read it and weep
Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial
College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the
University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of
Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was
much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages
of the "Big Bang" than it is today. (It's important to note that none of
these researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer,
biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical
worldview.)
[]
It's important to recognize the resistance that the current hierarchy of
science has to the possibility that light speed may not be constant. Dr.
Joao Magueijo was forced to wait for over a year between submission of his
initial work on varying light speed and publication. Setterfield, Dr. Tifft,
Dr. Paul Davis, Dr. John Barrow and others have been subjected to peer
review which borders on ridicule.
[]
After Dr. Tifft's initial publication, several astronomers devised extensive
experiments in attempts to prove him wrong. Among them two Scottish
astronomers, Bruce Gutherie and William Napier from the Royal Observatory in
Edinburgh observed approximately 300 galaxies in the mid 1990s. They found
to their surprise confirmation of quantum banding of red-shift data.
They also had difficulty publishing their data.
[]
It's intriguing to note that the first measurement of light speed by Olaf
Roemer in the late 17th century was an attempt to disprove the Aristotelian
belief that light speed was infinite. Despite overwhelming and repeatable
evidence, over 50 years passed before the scientific hierarchy of the time
accepted evidence which, in retrospect was clear, compelling and
unimpeachable.
</quote>
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733
[M]adman
wf you have never set foot in a lab.
Get over your delusions,
please.
And take your meds.
VoiceOfReason
I think too that for someone with limited science education,
pseudoscience and creationist writings are simpler and much more
interesting. That they're fantasy doesn't seem to register with their
adherents. Real science is much more difficult and, for the layman,
as interesting as cold oatmeal.
Science can appear to them to be dominated by those know-it-all
smartypants types, while pseudscience and creationism welcomes
everybody.
wf3h
really? gee i got my MS from the university where mike behe teaches.
so you're saying they don't teach lab science at lehigh?
where'd you get your science degree? bob jones madrassa?
>
> And take your meds.-
meds?
creationists dont believe in them. monsters under the bed is your view
of the world
Burkhard
>
> Please note:
> 1) NOT from a creationist site
> 2)It has been through peer review
> 3)It was independently tested and the outcome was THE SAME.
> 4) It is recent work
>
> So you are OUT of handwaves
>
> Read it and weep
>
> Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial
> College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the
> University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of
> Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was
> much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages
> of the "Big Bang" than it is today. (It's important to note that none of
> these researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer,
> biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical
> worldview.)
Note the expression: "in the early stages of the "Big Bang" - i.e. as
Chris (and i on another thread where you posted this) pointed out, in
the 5.39 x 10 E-44 seconds after the big bang started. This means
there are simply no consequences for the age of the universe, and no
such claim is made in ANY paper by Magueijo, Moffat or Petit that I
could find
>
> It's important to recognize the resistance that the current hierarchy of
> science has to the possibility that light speed may not be constant. Dr.
> Joao Magueijo was forced to wait for over a year between submission of his
> initial work on varying light speed and publication.
Which for top journals which are swamped with submissions and rely on
unpaid reviewers is not unsusual.
Setterfield, Dr. Tifft,
> Dr. Paul Davis, Dr. John Barrow and others have been subjected to peer
> review which borders on ridicule.
Barrow's group was asked to include data that had become available
between their work and publication. A perfectly normal and sensible
procedure, nothing ridiculous and the work was published.
> []
> After Dr. Tifft's initial publication, several astronomers devised extensive
> experiments in attempts to prove him wrong. Among them two Scottish
> astronomers, Bruce Gutherie and William Napier from the Royal Observatory in
> Edinburgh observed approximately 300 galaxies in the mid 1990s. They found
> to their surprise confirmation of quantum banding of red-shift data.
>
> They also had difficulty publishing their data.
I.e.; They did publish the data
> It's intriguing to note that the first measurement of light speed by Olaf
> Roemer in the late 17th century was an attempt to disprove the Aristotelian
> belief that light speed was infinite. Despite overwhelming and repeatable
> evidence, over 50 years passed before the scientific hierarchy of the time
> accepted evidence which, in retrospect was clear, compelling and
> unimpeachable.
>
So what? new theories are tested rigorously. in another thread on peer
review, you complained that science made new findings prematurely
available and was risking life for profits. Which one is it? Make up
your mind.
wf3h
> chris thompson wrote:
> > In [M]addy's recent thread about c-decay, he brought up the work of
> > Setterfield, Magueijo, Barrow Albrecht and Moffat. (None published
> > anything with Setterfield, who's about as credible as a pair of Hush
> > Puppies dug up out of Paluxy Sandstone.)
>
> > I did a brief search this morning and found a paper by two of those
> > guys. Here's a link:
>
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9811018
you do realize this paper is 10 years old?
you do realize that we've discovered dark energy in the last 10 years?
you do realize that measurements of the speed of light from quasars,
and the measurement of the fine structure constant from the 1.5B year
old oklo natural reactor shows, at best, a minimal change in the speed
of light?
oh. you don't know any of this. to you, a 10 year old paper is
current. to you, who've never spent a day in a lab, scientists just
push buttons on machines and take whatever number we get.
to you, the creationist explanation is right...
even though creationism cant even explain why sewage in drinking water
causes disease...creationists say they can explain the speed of light.
wow. it's always nice when you can explain something that's never been
observed and you CANT explain what happens in daily life
>
> You guys are in such D E N I A L
>
> You did not refute *this* one however. <s>
>
> Please note:
> 1) NOT from a creationist site
> 2)It has been through peer review
> 3)It was independently tested and the outcome was THE SAME.
> 4) It is recent work
uh no it's not. it's 10 years old. and if it's CORRECT the age of the
universe would change by a matter of hours in 14B years
oh. you don't know how to do the math to figure out the relative
scaling of time.
figures
>
> So you are OUT of handwaves
>
> Read it and weep
>
> Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial
> College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the
> University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of
> Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was
> much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages
> of the "Big Bang" than it is today.
do you know long the 'early stages' of the big bang lasted?
about 10E(-39) seconds. so you're commenting on 1-E9-39)/10E(-44) or
1/100,000 part of the earliest millionth of a milionth of a millionth
of a second.
oh. you didn't know that.
yep, figures.
>
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733- Hide quoted text -
>
worldnetdaily is a creationist website
so your numbers are wrong
when calculated it turns out that, if the paper is correct the speed
of light changed radically over a millionth of a millionth of a
millionth of a second and has been constant for the last 14B years.
and you rely on a paper that's 10 years old
wow. no wonder creationism is dead. you guys cant even use SCIENTIFIC
data correctly let along your own supersitions!!
[M]adman
Please tell me you did not go there.
These are two completly different issues and clearly shows how low some of
you will go to disceredit any post that cast a shadow of doubt on evolution
and main stream science.
er...@swva.net
It is a standard answer because it nails you so accurately.
>
> What did you guys do? get together and make a laundry list of TO approved
> responses?
If you want new responses, try something that wasn't long-refuted
before ever you dragged it out. In all the thousand posts you've
made, you've _never_ come up with anything that was an actual argument
against evolution. And every time some explains why, you are _morally
obligated_ to change your mind, not babble about pat (note lack of
capitalization) answers.
Get this: God does _not_ want you to be a pig-headed a-hole, and you
can present no argument that he does.
Eric Root
Mark Isaak
> [snip c-decay stuff]
> You guys are in such D E N I A L
>
> You did not refute *this* one however. <s>
>
> Please note:
> 1) NOT from a creationist site
> 2)It has been through peer review
> 3)It was independently tested and the outcome was THE SAME.
> 4) It is recent work
5) It supports the standard evolutionist version and refutes whatever
insanity (M)adman is pushing.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mike Dworetsky
news:ejRsl.13091$v8....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Hey chum, YOU were the one who started both threads, and you were shown to
be a fool on both. In one case, you said peer-review had not stopped a
scientific fraus (it was a commercial fraud and had nothing to do with
evolutionary science published in peer-reviewed journals). In the other
case, you read an article in WingNutDaily and so massively misunderstood the
science of cosmology that you have been ducking and diving ever since. You
want a medal for that?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Chris
Which is the greater difference: the 64 orders of magnitude I
mentioned (from the primary literature, Madds, someplace you don't
seem willing to venture) or 10 to the 10th power? Quit being such a
piker.
Chris
snip
[M]adman
No, but distinctions need to be made. And differences need to be pointed
out. In the one thread peer review failed in the early stages. In this
thread there was a clear prejudice within the peer review process. Which is
suppose to be an objective process.
So in the first case we have an early failure and in the second case we have
dishonest objectiveness. Both within the peer review process.
I doubt you will see the distinction; Chum. Because you worship science as
though it were a god. But science is man made and will have faults just like
man has faults. You still want your medal though? Here ya go [toss].
And as far as "ducking" the other thread, well I made my opinion clear, and
I read yours. What else do you want? We obviously disagree so adding dozens
more of the same opinion is redundant.
In this paticular thread however, my original premise above still stands:
"These are two completly different issues and clearly shows how low some of
you will go to disceredit any post that cast a shadow of doubt on evolution
and main stream science."
And the data that everyone is hammering at [and that has been peer reviewed
BTW] clearly casts that shadow.
Now, does the peer review process work or not?
If it does, then the data is valid.
If it does not then i am correct in this thread and the other one that peer
review can be wrong.
[M]adman
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:41:19 -0500, [M]adman wrote:
>
>> [snip c-decay stuff]
>> You guys are in such D E N I A L
>>
>> You did not refute *this* one however. <s>
>>
>> Please note:
>> 1) NOT from a creationist site
>> 2)It has been through peer review
>> 3)It was independently tested and the outcome was THE SAME.
>> 4) It is recent work
>
> 5) It supports the standard evolutionist version and refutes whatever
> insanity (M)adman is pushing.
And that makes it wrong ---> HOW?
Greg G.
Check out the supernova seen in 1987, the brightest one seen from
earth in 400 years.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm
It's 167,000 light years from here so the light as traveled for
167,000 years. The size of the ring around it can be measured by
parallax. It shows that the speed of light has not changed in 167,000
years.
Mike Dworetsky
First of all, peer review does not guarantee that whatever is published is
valid data. You have started with a mistaken premise. Secondly, what was
published was not data, but speculative theories. Data are observations.
Peer review is a method that science uses to subject a submission to
critical review, looking for weaknesses and errors. Many articles do not
get published until the authors have made revisions and corrections
requested by the reviewer. Once an article gets published, its contents are
available to all who might agree with it or take issue with the theory,
data, or interpretation.
It works well enough that no one has found a better method for deciding what
gets published and what does not. It isn't perfect, but it's all we have.
If you have a better idea (which I doubt totally) why don't you say what it
is? And once something is published, it does not become instant Holy Writ,
and it could still end up on the trash heap. Only time and further testing
can decide.
In the case of the herbicide, peer-review was not the issue, the fact seems
to be that the chemical was allowed to be marketed before a proper review
was done. (Not a peer review as in journal publications, but a review by a
regulating authority for potentially dangerous substances).
In the second case, peer review worked, because the papers did get
published. The problem here is not peer review, but your complete personal
inability to actually understand the science in the articles.
The rest is innuendo and fairy tales made up by WingNutDaily, which you seem
to believe is Trvth. And there is your problem, well one of them anyways.
gregwrld
Nobody here takes you seriously
except guys like Ray.
'Nuff said.
gregwrld
TomS
<d499f7e5-e38c-4765...@c11g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, Greg G.
stated..."
You can also see the Wikipedia article SN 1987A.
I understand a few of the details a little differently:
The distance is about 168,000 light years.
The distance can be measured directly by triangulation, which is
similar to parallax, but parallax ordinarily means something
different. In this case, the size of the object is determined
by assuming the speed of light at the object; once the size is
determined, the distance can then be determined.
The distance measured by this method is in close agreement with
the distance as measured earlier by other means.
It is *conceivable*, and *consistent* with these observations,
that the speed of light changed between the time and place of
the supernova event and our observations of it. Howeer, other
observations, such as the patterns of radioactive decay, and
neutrinos detected at earth, strongly suggest that there was no
significant change to nuclear physics since then. This event
presents quite a bit of data to cope with, for anyone attempting
to be reasonable about a universe younger than 168,000 years.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
wf3h
>
> Now, does the peer review process work or not?
>
> If it does, then the data is valid.
uh...no. peer review is to make sure the proper protocols were
followed. it does not guarantee the conclusions are valid
another failure of creationist understanding of science. adman thinks
science is a vending machine. you put in a quarter and out pops a
result
what an idiot
>
Steven L.
Rocky was a lot more sensible than [M]adman.
I'd sooner listen to him.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Burkhard
>
> And the data that everyone is hammering at [and that has been peer reviewed
> BTW] clearly casts that shadow.
Nobody hammers the data from the peer reviewed papers you cited. They
just don't make the claim, or lead to the conclusions the (non
reviewed, partisan) website you got them from claim
heekster
roki...@cox.net
Hey, adman! Why don't you pull the trigger on that moon dust argument
again. It should be good for giggles and you've probably already
forgotten how bogus it is.
Ron Okimoto
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "[M]adman" <gr...@hotmail.et>:
If you pick 10 people at random and ask each one "What's the
sum of 2 plus 2", do you assume collusion if all ten answer
"Four"?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
John Vreeland
The validity of the argument is irrelevant to him. He assumes that
since it is an argument that supposedly supports his viewpoint that it
must be correct---not the argument, but his viewpoint. Most of the
arguments he makes actually undermine his viewpoint but that is
irrelevant as long as he can ignore those parts and make a tick mark
on his mental score card.
When people point out how stupid his arguments are he ignores them. At
best he identifies the shortest response and exclaims "that's all
you've got?" and declares victory. If Bernie Madoff had stolen his
money he would still be defending the guy in public by claiming that
he "made up" that fifty billion figure. There is no evidence that he
has actually stolen fifty billion, you see, therefore no one was
robbed.
--
Three Creation Scientists can have an argument, if two of them are sock puppets." (Apologies to Mark Twain)
[M]adman
You failed to recognize that /after/ the peer review and after the paper was
published a group of scientists did exactly what you said. They disagreed
with the findings and set out to prove the theory wrong.
They could not.
Quite the contrary.
They discovered the same evidence. And that evidence is the universe is
slowing down.
Which equals what?
It equals doubt that evolution is a valid theory because you may not have
had enough time for 1) the right conditions on the earth to develop for
spontaneous life to begin and 2) enough time for slow mutations from a
single cell life form to evolve into everything we see today.
Despite the edcuation some of you clain to have you cannot see this simple
fact.
Forrest for the trees is how it is described.
.
Mike Dworetsky
> roki...@cox.net wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 7:28 am, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In [M]addy's recent thread about c-decay, he brought up the work of
>>> Setterfield, Magueijo, Barrow Albrecht and Moffat. (None published
>>> anything with Setterfield, who's about as credible as a pair of Hush
>>> Puppies dug up out of Paluxy Sandstone.)
>>>
>>> I did a brief search this morning and found a paper by two of those
>>> guys. Here's a link:
>>>
>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9811018
>>>
>>> cite:
>>> Albrecht & Magueijo 1999 Phys. Rev. D59 (sorry no pages given; the
>>> pdf starts on page 1).
>>>
>>> My initial objection to [M]add's assertion was that the timespan
>>> we're talking about here would probably be measured in femtoseconds.
>>> I got that wrong.
>>>
>>> [M]adman, in that paper they're measuring time using Planck time. A
>>> unit of Planck time, [M]adds, is equal to just about
>>>
>>>
While we are at it, when are you going to post that proof you say you have,
of the Earth and Moon touching each other far more recently than 4.3 billion
years ago? Still waiting...
wf3h
> >news:8SSsl.13180$qa.1...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> >> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
IOW he adman didn't read page 3 of albrecht's paper where he
specifically says the speed of light variation applies only to the
intial duration of inflation. the speed of light, according to
albrecht, today is constant.
DAMN!! another creationist who can't read
Burkhard
.
>
> > The rest is innuendo and fairy tales made up by WingNutDaily, which
> > you seem to believe is Trvth. And there is your problem, well one of
> > them anyways.
> You failed to recognize that /after/ the peer review and after the paper was
> published a group of scientists did exactly what you said. They disagreed
> with the findings and set out to prove the theory wrong.
>
> They could not.
>
> Quite the contrary.
>
> They discovered the same evidence. And that evidence is the universe is
> slowing down.
No. Croasdale, Napier and Guthrie confirmed Tifft's idea that
redshifts of galaxies occur preferentially as multiples of a set
number.
here are their articles:
http://tinyurl.com/cs4wt9
http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jaa/18/455-463.pdf
While the results are interesting, the most dramatic conclusion one
"might" draw from them is that the universe is not expanding - an idea
Tifft initially proposed, but then gave up.
It has nothing to do with speed of light. That is where your
(unrefereed , journalistic) source gets it wrong, by connecting this
idea somehow (heaven knows how) with the idea of a decreasing speed of
light, and that in turn with the idea of a younger universe. Nowhere
in Tifft, Croasdale, Napier or Guthries 's work are claims about a
variable speed of light made, let alone about a young universe. (If
you disagree, show me where)
[M]adman
I find it intresting that eact time i post the specifics they are cut out
(not necessarly by you)You are not even addressing the OP or the OLink
"Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial
College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the
University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of
Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was
much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages
of the "Big Bang" than it is today. (It's important to note that none of
these researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer,
biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical
worldview.) "
Dr. Magueijo is the /only/ one to believe that the speed was faster in the
initial stages of the BB
The rest believe it is still it is slowing down AND/OR irregular.
"recent observations of the signals received from the aging satellites
Galileo, Ulysses and Pioneer are also in the category of speed of light
anomalies. A unexplained Doppler frequency shift has been detected from all
of these satellites, even though the satellites' distances from the Earth
are only about 20 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun - way too
close for a traditional Doppler shift to occur in the electromagnetic
spectrum. NASA scientists have attempted with little success to attribute
the anomalies to an unknown acceleration. Setterfield suggests that equally
plausible explanations are variations in c.
It's important to recognize the resistance that the current hierarchy of
science has to the possibility that light speed may not be constant. Dr.
Joao Magueijo was forced to wait for over a year between submission of his
initial work on varying light speed and publication. Setterfield, Dr. Tifft,
Dr. Paul Davis, Dr. John Barrow and others have been subjected to peer
review which borders on ridicule.
Dr. Tifft's discussion of red-shift anomalies was published with seeming
reluctance in the Astrophysical Journal in the mid 1980s with a rare
editorial note pointing out that the referees "neither could find obvious
errors with the analysis nor felt that they could enthusiastically endorse
publication.
After Dr. Tifft's initial publication, several astronomers devised extensive
experiments in attempts to prove him wrong. Among them two Scottish
astronomers, Bruce Gutherie and William Napier from the Royal Observatory in
Edinburgh observed approximately 300 galaxies in the mid 1990s. They found
to their surprise confirmation of quantum banding of red-shift data.
They also had difficulty publishing their data. It has been reported that
the prestigious Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics refused publication
until an additional set of observations from 97 other spiral galaxies was
included. A Fourier analysis of the 302 early data points, and the
subsequent total of 399 data points strongly confirmed the quantum shifts.
Despite this - and additional observations by Bell in 2003 - many scientists
are still reluctant to give up on the theory that red shifts are solely
caused by Doppler shifts and have continued to claim that the red-shift
quanta results by Tifft and others are due to sloppy research or
insufficient data.
VoiceOfReason
The simple fact is that people aren't impressed when you stamp your
feet and pout when nobody takes you seriously. If you'd READ the
responses, you'd learn something, and people might take you more
seriously.
Chris
I do not accept that. Please provide information from primary sources.
>
> "recent observations of the signals received from the aging satellites
> Galileo, Ulysses and Pioneer are also in the category of speed of light
> anomalies. A unexplained Doppler frequency shift has been detected from all
> of these satellites, even though the satellites' distances from the Earth
> are only about 20 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun - way too
> close for a traditional Doppler shift to occur in the electromagnetic
> spectrum. NASA scientists have attempted with little success to attribute
> the anomalies to an unknown acceleration. Setterfield suggests that equally
> plausible explanations are variations in c.
>
> It's important to recognize the resistance that the current hierarchy of
> science has to the possibility that light speed may not be constant. Dr.
> Joao Magueijo was forced to wait for over a year between submission of his
> initial work on varying light speed and publication. Setterfield, Dr. Tifft,
> Dr. Paul Davis, Dr. John Barrow and others have been subjected to peer
> review which borders on ridicule.
You post this over and over. Setterfield is a dishonest idiot-
dishonest because he deliberately abuses the tools of science and an
idiot because he thought he could get away with it.
>
> Dr. Tifft's discussion of red-shift anomalies was published with seeming
> reluctance in the Astrophysical Journal in the mid 1980s with a rare
> editorial note pointing out that the referees "neither could find obvious
> errors with the analysis nor felt that they could enthusiastically endorse
> publication.
Does this editorial quote end here? You never close it.
>
> After Dr. Tifft's initial publication, several astronomers devised extensive
> experiments in attempts to prove him wrong. Among them two Scottish
> astronomers, Bruce Gutherie and William Napier from the Royal Observatory in
> Edinburgh observed approximately 300 galaxies in the mid 1990s. They found
> to their surprise confirmation of quantum banding of red-shift data.
>
> They also had difficulty publishing their data. It has been reported that
> the prestigious Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics refused publication
> until an additional set of observations from 97 other spiral galaxies was
> included. A Fourier analysis of the 302 early data points, and the
> subsequent total of 399 data points strongly confirmed the quantum shifts.
>
> Despite this - and additional observations by Bell in 2003 - many scientists
> are still reluctant to give up on the theory that red shifts are solely
> caused by Doppler shifts and have continued to claim that the red-shift
> quanta results by Tifft and others are due to sloppy research or
> insufficient data.
It wouldn't surprise me that someone who once did sloppy research,
continued to do sloppy research.
Look at your posts.
> It's intriguing to note that the first measurement of light speed by Olaf
> Roemer in the late 17th century was an attempt to disprove the Aristotelian
> belief that light speed was infinite. Despite overwhelming and repeatable
> evidence, over 50 years passed before the scientific hierarchy of the time
> accepted evidence which, in retrospect was clear, compelling and
> unimpeachable. "
This is another little gem you regurgitate over and over. Roemer was
wrong; you've been shown over and over he was wrong, but you keep
putting it back up. Why should anyone take *anything* you post
seriously?
Chris
Burkhard
Sure do. your argument was that the original findings were later
confirmed. The original link and the OP mentions just one research
project, that one by Tifft, that was later empirically (to an extend)
validated. However, nothing that Tifft says, or the people who
confirmed his data , has anything to do with variable speed of light
or the age of the universe, this os made up nonsense by wingnut. I
gave you the links to the original works cited by wingnut for you to
check If you don't believe me. the wingnut article is deeply
dishonest. It mentions one group of proper scientists who work on
variable light - but their work does not have the consequences wingnut
claims. they mention another group of scientists who work on something
totally unrelated, to give it a 2conspiracy" spin. And then finally
they get the unrefereed and quite ridiculous work by Setterfield that
nobody takes serious.
this way, they make it "look" as if Setterfield claims have been
validated by the research of these proper scientists. it has not.
>
> "Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial
> College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the
> University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of
> Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was
> much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages
> of the "Big Bang" than it is today. (It's important to note that none of
> these researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer,
> biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical
> worldview.) "
>
> Dr. Magueijo is the /only/ one to believe that the speed was faster in the
> initial stages of the BB
>
> The rest believe it is still it is slowing down AND/OR irregular.
Tifft doesn't, nor do the people who confirm his data. Moffat doesn't.
Albrecht or Barrow don't. Petit used to claim something vaguely along
these lines, but changed his interpretation when new data came in.
The only one who does is Setterfield, and guess what, he is the only
one of the bunch without relevant publications that underwent proper
scrutiny.
>
> "recent observations of the signals received from the aging satellites
> Galileo, Ulysses and Pioneer are also in the category of speed of light
> anomalies. A unexplained Doppler frequency shift has been detected from all
> of these satellites, even though the satellites' distances from the Earth
> are only about 20 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun - way too
> close for a traditional Doppler shift to occur in the electromagnetic
> spectrum. NASA scientists have attempted with little success to attribute
> the anomalies to an unknown acceleration. Setterfield suggests that equally
> plausible explanations are variations in c.
Note who is talking here: Setterfield, not any other of the people
wingnut dropped into this mess.
I have answered all other aspects of the post separately.
wf3h
this may have happened in the first 10E(-39)th second of the big bang.
IOW it has no effect on the age of the universe.
adman's not a scientist and doesn't know how to read a scientific
paper. he thinks the bible is a scientific paper.
>
> It's intriguing to note that the first measurement of light speed by Olaf
> Roemer in the late 17th century was an attempt to disprove the Aristotelian
> belief that light speed was infinite. Despite overwhelming and repeatable
> evidence, over 50 years passed before the scientific hierarchy of the time
> accepted evidence which, in retrospect was clear, compelling and
> unimpeachable. "-
and it's been 2000 years of creationism and creationists still believe
in magical explanations for nature. creationism is a failure. it
explains nothing.
TomS
<c5614f7a-852d-48c7...@e18g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, Burkhard
stated..."
>
>On 9 Mar, 02:19, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>> Burkhard wrote:
>> > On 8 Mar, 22:09, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>> > .
>>
>> >>> The rest is innuendo and fairy tales made up by WingNutDaily, which
>> >>> you seem to believe is Trvth. And there is your problem, well one of
>> >>> them anyways.
>>
>> >> You failed to recognize that /after/ the peer review and after the
>> >> paper was published a group of scientists did exactly what you said.
>> >> They disagreed with the findings and set out to prove the theory
>> >> wrong.
>>
>> >> They could not.
>>
>> >> Quite the contrary.
>>
>> >> They discovered the same evidence. And that evidence is the universe
>> >> is slowing down.
>>
>> > redshifts of galaxies =A0occur preferentially as multiples of a set
>f
>> Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed =
>was
>> much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stage=
>s
>> of the "Big Bang" than it is today. (It's important to note that none of
>> these researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer,
>al
>> worldview.) "
>>
>> Dr. Magueijo is the /only/ one to believe that the speed was faster in th=
>e
>> initial stages of the BB
>>
>> The rest believe it is still it is slowing down AND/OR irregular.
>
>Tifft doesn't, nor do the people who confirm his data. Moffat doesn't.
>Albrecht or Barrow don't. Petit used to claim something vaguely along
>these lines, but changed his interpretation when new data came in.
>The only one who does is Setterfield, and guess what, he is the only
>one of the bunch without relevant publications that underwent proper
>scrutiny.
If there were any relevance to evolution, it would be that somehow
the speed of light varied (1) over the last few billion years
(2) by a significant factor (3) to affect the measurements of the
ages of fossils.
If the discussion is about what happened 5 or 10 billion years ago,
or before the formation of the earth - indeed, even if we're
talking about time before the Cambrian ...
If the discussion is about variations of less than a few percent ...
If the variation of the speed of light does not have a substantial
effect on the measurement of time ...
If any of those three, then it has no relevance to evolution.
[M]adman
You guys have absolutly NO idea what happened 65 million years ago much less
4.5 Billion years ago. And you know it. And when ever something like this
subject (and others) come up, the flood of posts to discredit the
information is simply amusing.
wf3h
> TomS wrote:
> > "On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 03:19:10 -0700 (PDT), in article
sure we do. you creationists just believe that demons and ghosts cause
everything so can't wrap your head around the methods of science
creationism is superstition. and for 2000 years superstition got us
nowhere.
VoiceOfReason
Actually science knows quite a bit about what happened 65 million
years ago. So would you, if you'd take the time to learn.
> And when ever something like this
> subject (and others) come up, the flood of posts to discredit the
> information is simply amusing.
It's amusing to you that your posts make you look foolish?
Burkhard
> TomS wrote:
> > "On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 03:19:10 -0700 (PDT), in article
Nobody here has discredited the information that was discovered by
the scientists that your articles quotes - though we pointed out that
according to their _own_ assessment, the empirical data remains weak,
and by now is partly superseded. What was discredited is the spin the
journalist from wingnut gave to their findings, on an unrefereed
website.
Again, there is little, if anything wrong with their research, The
research just doesn't have the implications for the age of the
universe that you stated. Not just according to us, but to the
scientists themselves - there are no claims in their papers that the
age of the universe needs revisiting in light of their findings. and
the scientists in questions do not claim that there are implications
for the age of the universe either.
I gave you on more than one occasion links to the original articles,
so you can easily check for yourself that they do not contain the
implications the wingnut journalist claims they have.
Chris
> > "On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 03:19:10 -0700 (PDT), in article
If that's the case, why do you so desperately quote-mine real science
publications?
> And you know it. And when ever something like this
> subject (and others) come up, the flood of posts to discredit the
> information is simply amusing.
(Translation: My brain takes refuge in inappropriate laughter when I
can't take the heat of criticism from people who know more than I do.)
If you think this is tough, try sending the sort of claptrap you post
here to a real journal. When you're able to sit again, post the
editorial comments you receive.
Chris
B Richardson
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:41:19 -0500, [M]adman wrote:
>>
>>> [snip c-decay stuff]
>>> You guys are in such D E N I A L
>>>
>>> You did not refute *this* one however. <s>
>>>
>>> Please note:
>>> 1) NOT from a creationist site
>>> 2)It has been through peer review
>>> 3)It was independently tested and the outcome was THE SAME.
>>> 4) It is recent work
>>
>> insanity (M)adman is pushing.
>
> And that makes it wrong ---> HOW?
>
A whole flock of 'em flew over that time.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> I find it intresting that eact time i post the specifics they are cut out
> (not necessarly by you)You are not even addressing the OP or the OLink
> "Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial
> College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the
> University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of
> Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed
> was much higher - as much as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early
> stages of the "Big Bang" than it is today. (It's important to note that
> none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined
> answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward
> a biblical worldview.) "
> Dr. Magueijo is the /only/ one to believe that the speed was faster in the
> initial stages of the BB
> The rest believe it is still it is slowing down AND/OR irregular.
Thi is simply not true. You are making claims about what individuals
(who I know and have worked with) believe. You claims easily checked.
They are false.
I have talked to Albrecht about this question, and corresponded with
Barrow. Both of them work on models in which the only large changes in
the speed of light take place immediately after the Big Bang, and any
subsequent changes are either nonexistent or tiny and slow. I haven't
talked to Moffat, but I've read the papers the article you quote is talking
about -- you can check yourself at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0109350.
Moffat also assumes a constant or very nearly constant speed of light
except at a phase transition just after the Big Bang, at which it changes
abruptly by a large amount.
Steve Carlip
Mike Dworetsky
news:gp3nvd$6md$2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
Ah, but to someone like Madman, what scientists actually say about the
interpretation of their own work doesn't matter. All that matters to him is
that *his* interpretation (gained second hand from creationist sources) gets
put forward and noticed.
As you well know, Madman doesn't understand anything about science.
Literally, if his postings are anything to go by.
Ye Old One
Please provide evidence to back up that claim.
>
>Quite the contrary.
>
>They discovered the same evidence. And that evidence is the universe is
>slowing down.
No it is not. Nor, for that matter, is the speed of light.
>
>Which equals what?
>
>It equals doubt that evolution is a valid theory because you may not have
>had enough time for 1) the right conditions on the earth to develop for
>spontaneous life to begin
That only took about 200,000,000 years.
> and 2) enough time for slow mutations from a
>single cell life form to evolve into everything we see today.
That has taken about 4 billion years.
>
>Despite the edcuation some of you clain to have you cannot see this simple
>fact.
I see no facts in your posts, only claims you fail to back up.
>
>Forrest for the trees is how it is described.
--
Bob.
wf3h
wrote:
> <carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
> > Moffat also assumes a constant or very nearly constant speed of light
> > except at a phase transition just after the Big Bang, at which it changes
> > abruptly by a large amount.
>
> > Steve Carlip
>
> Ah, but to someone like Madman, what scientists actually say about the
> interpretation of their own work doesn't matter. All that matters to him is
> that *his* interpretation (gained second hand from creationist sources) gets
> put forward and noticed.
>
> As you well know, Madman doesn't understand anything about science.
> Literally, if his postings are anything to go by.
>
yeah that's pretty much the whole point of creationism. take that 11th
figure past the decimal point and use it to 'prove' the universe is
50 years old.
kind of like saying that the 0.2lbs i lost last week means i weighed
9000 lbs.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
And what is meant by "the early stages of the BB" seems to be going
right over your empty hear.
>(It's important to note that none of
>these researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer,
>biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical
>worldview.) "
>
>Dr. Magueijo is the /only/ one to believe that the speed was faster in the
>initial stages of the BB
>
>The rest believe it is still it is slowing down AND/OR irregular.
Do they?
>
>"recent observations of the signals received from the aging satellites
>Galileo, Ulysses and Pioneer are also in the category of speed of light
>anomalies. A unexplained Doppler frequency shift has been detected from all
>of these satellites, even though the satellites' distances from the Earth
>are only about 20 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun
Wrong, as usual. Pioneer 10 is now over 8 billion miles away. Since
the Earth is only 93 million miles from the Sun that means P10 is over
86 times further away.
> - way too
>close for a traditional Doppler shift to occur in the electromagnetic
>spectrum.
Doppler shift is NOT a product of distance but speed.
>NASA scientists have attempted with little success to attribute
>the anomalies to an unknown acceleration. Setterfield suggests that equally
>plausible explanations are variations in c.
No, it isn't.
>
>It's important to recognize the resistance that the current hierarchy of
>science has to the possibility that light speed may not be constant. Dr.
>Joao Magueijo was forced to wait for over a year between submission of his
>initial work on varying light speed and publication.
That is NOT an undue delay for most publication. A journal will try to
produce a balanced issue, if they get too many submissions on a given
subject then there will be delay.
> Setterfield, Dr. Tifft,
>Dr. Paul Davis, Dr. John Barrow and others have been subjected to peer
>review which borders on ridicule.
Not surprising.
>
>Dr. Tifft's discussion of red-shift anomalies was published with seeming
>reluctance in the Astrophysical Journal in the mid 1980s with a rare
>editorial note pointing out that the referees "neither could find obvious
>errors with the analysis nor felt that they could enthusiastically endorse
>publication.
So? Not unheard of.
>
>After Dr. Tifft's initial publication, several astronomers devised extensive
>experiments in attempts to prove him wrong. Among them two Scottish
>astronomers, Bruce Gutherie and William Napier from the Royal Observatory in
>Edinburgh observed approximately 300 galaxies in the mid 1990s. They found
>to their surprise confirmation of quantum banding of red-shift data.
But this has nothing to do with the speed of light.
>
>They also had difficulty publishing their data. It has been reported that
>the prestigious Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics refused publication
>until an additional set of observations from 97 other spiral galaxies was
>included. A Fourier analysis of the 302 early data points, and the
>subsequent total of 399 data points strongly confirmed the quantum shifts.
But this has nothing to do with the speed of light.
>
>Despite this - and additional observations by Bell in 2003 - many scientists
>are still reluctant to give up on the theory that red shifts are solely
>caused by Doppler shifts and have continued to claim that the red-shift
>quanta results by Tifft and others are due to sloppy research or
>insufficient data.
Other explanations are also on record.
>
>It's intriguing to note that the first measurement of light speed by Olaf
>Roemer in the late 17th century was an attempt to disprove the Aristotelian
>belief that light speed was infinite. Despite overwhelming and repeatable
>evidence, over 50 years passed before the scientific hierarchy of the time
>accepted evidence which, in retrospect was clear, compelling and
>unimpeachable. "
One thing we can be sure of, C is a constant.
--
Bob.
[M]adman
yeah and on usenet i can claim my grandmother is a wagon.
It seems to me you think gravity is static.
> Steve Carlip
Stuart
> carlip-nos...@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
It shouldn't take too long to confirm Carlip is on the faulty. On
the other that does require a minimal amount of intelligence in using
the internet.
>
> It seems to me you think gravity is static.
Nature thinks that too, and has for the last 13.7 Billion years.
Stuart
Chris
That doesn't seem so far-fatched.
Anyway, according to
http://www.physics.ucdavis.edu/facultylist.php
Prof. Albrecht's office is in the Physics/Geology Building Rm. 511,
while Prof. Carlip's office is Phy/Geo 437.
(BTW the UC Davis directory makes the distinction between different
professorial levels; they're both full professors.)
I did that search before my morning coffee, You could have done it
before your pointless insinuation, [M]adds.
Chris
Mike Dworetsky
Now that I could believe. Haven't you done that already?
Steve Carlip is a prof at UC Davis, and Albrecht is in an office on the
floor above in the same department.
Ever thought of checking facts before insulting? No, I thought not.
wf3h
actually i already did that. he is. (sorry dr. carlip).
it's hysterical watching a creationist who reads church bulletins
trying to argue relativistic astrophysics with a professional
physicist.
Mike Dworetsky
news:d79d66b9-beb5-46ac...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do realise we like poking Adman/Madman with our sticks largely for the
entertainment value? I can't see any other reason to participate here, can
you? OK, we get to hang out with some good biologists, other scientists,
and a dubious philosopher...but aside from that?
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
[...]
> You do realise we like poking Adman/Madman with our sticks largely
> for the entertainment value? I can't see any other reason to participate
> here, can you? OK, we get to hang out with some good biologists, other
> scientists, and a dubious philosopher...but aside from that?
well, it's a nice break from grading papers. And some of us "enjoy" puns,
which I'd hesitate to call entertainment.
Steve Carlip
heekster
Tales from the ponderomotive bucket
A neutron walks into a bar.
He says, "Hey bartender... how 'bout a beer?"
The bartender gives him a beer.
The neutron says, "How much is it?"
The bartender says, "For you - no charge."
A helium nucleus bursts into a bar.
Frantically, He proclaims, "Hey! Somebody just stole one of my
electrons!!"
The bartender says, "Are you sure?"
The nucleus says, "Yeah - I'm positive!"
Mike Dworetsky
news:gp70o5$lbs$2...@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
There's also the educational value, of being able to see and prepare for
every conceivable wacky theory that comes along during question time at
public nights at the observatory in London, etc. Over the years I've had
Moon conspiracy theorists, various creationists, etc. Though none quite so
weird as those seen in various newsgroups.
Michael Siemon
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
Back when I was an undergraduate, I did the planetarium lecture gig at
the Adler Planetarium in Chicago -- and there were the obligatory nut-
cases who would invariably come up afterwards for their expectation of
validation for their various theories. My favorite was the fellow who
was so happy I had confirmed him (though I have no idea how what I said
might have done so!) in his belief in [spelling below intended to convey
his idiom...] "Reenee Dess Cartees and his vorticees". I managed to
avoid (since the audience didn't know that I was a math major) the
confrontation with circle-squarers, Cantor-deniers, etc., though I've
had more private episodes with all of these as well... It is quite
amazing how some of these folks will "follow" (as in, nod in agreement)
along every step of the way in the Cantor diagonal argument about the
cardinality of the reals, but immediately reject the final conclusion.
Uh, hello?
John S. Wilkins
Me too. We should ask that dubious [is there any other kind?]
philosopher whether puns are entertainment.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Walter Bushell
heekster <heek...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
A baby harp seal walks into a bar,
"What'll it be, baby harp seal?"
"Anything but Canadian Club on the Rocks."
Paul J Gans
Try being a chemist. I go to parties, meet people who ask what
I do, and I stupidly tell them. Those that don't discover a
serious need to be somewhere else often ask questions. The most
popular is, seriously, "How can I get blood stains out of a
carpet?"
--
--- Paul J. Gans
TomS
<gp8qh6$a50$3...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
boring things that are thought clever to say to these occupations
Mathematician: I was never any good at mathematics.
English professor: I better watch my grammar.
Psychologist: I bet you're reading my mind.
Bass fiddle player: How do you get that on the bus?
Greek professor: That's all Greek to me.
and these are snappy things for people from
Chicago: (holding the hand like a pistol) Bang! Bang! (this is
common among Europeans, but I've never heard it from an American)
Johnstown, Pennsylvania: The only thing I know about Johnstown
is the flood.
.. and the list goes on and on ...
Michael Siemon
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> <carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
> > Mike Dworetsky <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > You do realise we like poking Adman/Madman with our sticks largely
> > > for the entertainment value? I can't see any other reason to participate
> > > here, can you? OK, we get to hang out with some good biologists, other
> > > scientists, and a dubious philosopher...but aside from that?
> >
> > well, it's a nice break from grading papers. And some of us "enjoy" puns,
> > which I'd hesitate to call entertainment.
> >
> Me too. We should ask that dubious [is there any other kind?]
doubtful...
Walter Bushell
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Rocky was a lot more sensible than [M]adman.
> I'd sooner listen to him.
He was better in football too.
Walter Bushell
Mike Dworetsky
news:gp8qh6$a50$3...@reader1.panix.com...
Well, come on, surely you know the answer. Or ask, "Depends how long the
body was there." Or, "Do you need clean enough for your mother in law, or
clean enough for criminal forensics?"
[M]adman
Too bad none of you are intelligent enough to come up with REAL "puns"
Or much else for that matter.
John S. Wilkins
> "On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:57:10 +0000 (UTC), in article
> <gp8qh6$a50$3...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
> >
> >Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
...
Philosopher: So what's the meaning of life, then?
Burkhard
>
> Philosopher: So what's the meaning of life, then?
> --
That one is easy to answer: "Try and be nice to people, avoid
eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in,
and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all
creeds and nations."
Then offer whoever asked some gratuitous pictures of penises to spark
some sort of controversy
Walter Bushell
<2c38b9d8-0d97-47a0...@g38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Actually fat is OK, it's carbohydrates you should eschew. But that is, a
question strictly speaking beyond the field of philosophy.
Just do what you think will make you happy and note the results.
Robert Grumbine
> "On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:57:10 +0000 (UTC), in article
><gp8qh6$a50$3...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans stated..."
>>
>>Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>In article <i4CdnRkRlvawwCrU...@bt.com>,
>>> "Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
[trim]
Meteorologist: You guys are always wrong
Climatologist: You're just trying to take away my SUV
> and these are snappy things for people from
>
> Chicago: (holding the hand like a pistol) Bang! Bang! (this is
> common among Europeans, but I've never heard it from an American)
Me either. Also common among Europeans is Al Capone references.
Not uncommon among Americans is to ask how many times you
(or a deceased ancestor) voted in the last election.
> Johnstown, Pennsylvania: The only thing I know about Johnstown
> is the flood.
>
> .. and the list goes on and on ...
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences