so where did the Law of Gravity come from?
stephenj
--
I wanted to see the powerful, mystical Elvis
that had crash-landed from a burning star onto
American soil .. that's the Elvis that inspired us
to all the possibilities of life. But that Elvis
had left the building.
- Bob Dylan
honkifyoulovejustice
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm
From falling apples. Duh.
DanS.
9/3/2010 in writing
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm
Amazing how one's ego can get in the way of the facts.
--
Yours,
Dan S.
There are 10 kinds of people, those who can read binary and those who
can't.
dam
"Gravity is not the force # 4 but a refraction process effective on
all particles. The refraction approach conforms to the results of the
Einsteinian way at least up to the Schwarzschild solution"
http://ag-physics.org/gravity/
HTH.
dam
-----
All the biblical miracles will at last disappear with the progress of
science. – Matthew Arnold
the_andr...@yahoo.com
> On Sep 3, 12:12 am, stephenj <sjar...@cox.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm
>
> > --
> > I wanted to see the powerful, mystical Elvis
> > that had crash-landed from a burning star onto
> > American soil .. that's the Elvis that inspired us
> > to all the possibilities of life. But that Elvis
> > had left the building.
>
> > - Bob Dylan
>
> "Gravity is not the force # 4 but a refraction process effective on
> all particles. The refraction approach conforms to the results of the
> Einsteinian way at least up to the Schwarzschild solution"
>
> http://ag-physics.org/gravity/
That's exactly what I was going to say.
> -----
> All the biblical miracles will at last disappear with the progress of
> science. – Matthew Arnold
"...the Universe can...create itself from nothing." - Steven Hawking,
Dumbass
deem...@aol.com
Gomer Jones
To each his own. That question is kinda like the one the each one of
my kids have eventually asked after their first communion ..... " ....
well then who created God?"
deem...@aol.com
Shoot, if the universe can create itself, why can't Gawd?
stephenj
To me, by definition ('the alpha and the omega') God, as the ultimate
creator, could not have been created. Thus, it's a null question. So as
you say, to each his own.
--
Even if U.S. atom bombs were dropped on China and blasted
a hole in the earth or blew it to pieces, this might be
a big thing for the solar system, but it would still be
an insignificant matter as far as the universe as a whole
is concerned.
- Mao Tse Tung, 1958
the_andr...@yahoo.com
Can = Stupid.
By definition, "Nothing" can't create.
a.
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>On Sep 3, 12:12=A0am, stephenj <sjar...@cox.com> wrote:
>> http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm
>>
>> --
>> I wanted to see the powerful, mystical Elvis
>> that had crash-landed from a burning star onto
>> American soil .. that's the Elvis that inspired us
>> to all the possibilities of life. But that Elvis
>> had left the building.
>>
>> - Bob Dylan
>
>
>"Gravity is not the force # 4 but a refraction process effective on
>all particles. The refraction approach conforms to the results of the
>Einsteinian way at least up to the Schwarzschild solution"
>
>http://ag-physics.org/gravity/
>
>HTH.
>
>
>dam
All Hawking needs to do to prove his theory is do the same thing God
did - create a universe in his lab (on a smaller scale will be
sufficient). But he can't use any of God's materials - he has to come
up with his own.
Hugh
The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy
> > > >http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm
>
> > > > --
> > > > I wanted to see the powerful, mystical Elvis
> > > > that had crash-landed from a burning star onto
> > > > American soil .. that's the Elvis that inspired us
> > > > to all the possibilities of life. But that Elvis
> > > > had left the building.
>
> > > > - Bob Dylan
>
> > > "Gravity is not the force # 4 but a refraction process effective on
> > > all particles. The refraction approach conforms to the results of the
> > > Einsteinian way at least up to the Schwarzschild solution"
>
> > >http://ag-physics.org/gravity/
>
> > That's exactly what I was going to say.
>
> > > -----
> > > All the biblical miracles will at last disappear with the progress of
> > > science. – Matthew Arnold
>
> > "...the Universe can...create itself from nothing." - Steven Hawking,
> > Dumbass-
>
> Can = Did?
<
<Can = Stupid.
<
<By definition, "Nothing" can't create.
Except they've already demonstrated it can.
--Tedward
Tom Enright
> >http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm
> From falling apples. Duh.
Before Newton, man could fly on his own. Bastard.
-Tom Enright
dam
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 07:00:15 -0700 (PDT), dam <dave.mel...@gmail.com>
Please to be proving a god created the universe as the burden of proof
is on you. After all, you just said so it in your statement above.
dam
-----
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. –
Christopher Hitchens
Tom Enright
> Please to be proving a god created the universe as the burden of proof
> is on you. After all, you just said so it in your statement above.
Well, it's scientifically proven that God made little green apples.
-Tom Enright
> dam
>
> -----
> What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. –
> Christopher Hitchens- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy
> >http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm
> From falling apples. Duh.
<
<Before Newton, man could fly on his own. Bastard.
Didn't some Greek skeptic walk off a cliff? That's what I
think creationists should do. After all, gravity is just
another unproven theory. Go meet your creator.
--Tedward
DanS.
in writing
Its no more on him than the onus would be on the one who claims matter
has always existed. That sounds like about as much nonsense if you
think about it. That it is means that it had to come from somewhere -
uh, as your sig would attest.
RaginPage
wrote:
> "Tom Enright" <freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote
I thought you were a libertarian?
If you really are it would seem you would let people believe what they
want to believe instead of repeatedly wishing death on Christians.
Just a thought.
Oh, and Go Mizzou Tigers!!!! Put hurtin' on thos Illini!!!!
In my opinion Missouri has a shot to win the MNC this year!!!
Let me believe! Let me believe!!!
Brent
deem...@aol.com
Well, they ARE undefeated.....
Kyle T. Jones
Except for God, right? You think God is, but you don't think he was
created, right?
Cheers.
DanS.
You are correct. He is eternal. You aren't expected to understand.
In "science" we are. So, in effect, the onus then rests even more
heavily on the side of the anti-creationist than on the side of the
creationist.
The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy
> > >http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm
> > From falling apples. Duh.
>
> <
> <Before Newton, man could fly on his own. Bastard.
>
> Didn't some Greek skeptic walk off a cliff? That's what I
> think creationists should do. After all, gravity is just
> another unproven theory. Go meet your creator.
>
<
<I thought you were a libertarian?
<
>If you really are it would seem you would let people believe what they
Oh, I think it should be perfectly to believe in Santa Clause,
and also perfectly legal for me to mock those who do.
<want to believe instead of repeatedly wishing death on Christians.
I don't actually expect anyone to walk off a cliff, but I have
some slight hope of convincing them that well tested theories
and some common sense go a long way to distinguish evolutionary
theory from creationism.
HTH.
--Tedward
The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy
>>>>>> I wanted to see the powerful, mystical Elvis
>>>>>> that had crash-landed from a burning star onto
>>>>>> American soil .. that's the Elvis that inspired us
>>>>>> to all the possibilities of life. But that Elvis
>>>>>> had left the building.
>>>>
>>>>>> - Bob Dylan
>>>>
>>>>> "Gravity is not the force # 4 but a refraction process effective on
>>>>> all particles. The refraction approach conforms to the results of the
>>>>> Einsteinian way at least up to the Schwarzschild solution"
>>>>> http://ag-physics.org/gravity/
>>>>
>>>>> HTH.
>>>>
>>>>> dam
>>>>
>>>> All Hawking needs to do to prove his theory is do the same thing God
>>>> did - create a universe in his lab (on a smaller scale will be
>>>> sufficient). But he can't use any of God's materials - he has to come
>>>> up with his own.
>>>>
>>>> Hugh
>>>
>>> Please to be proving a god created the universe as the burden of proof
>>> is on you. After all, you just said so it in your statement above.
>>>
>>>
>>> dam
>>>
>>> -----
>>> What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. -
>>> Christopher Hitchens
>>
>> Its no more on him than the onus would be on the one who claims matter
>> has always existed. That sounds like about as much nonsense if you think
>> about it. That it is means that it had to come from somewhere - uh, as
>> your sig would attest.
>>
>
> Except for God, right? You think God is, but you don't think he was
> created, right?
He always was and always will be -- JUST LIKE MATTER! Why
he woke up one "day" and decided to create a universe is
left as an exercise to the amature philosophers.
--Tedward
RaginPage
wrote:
> "RaginPage" <btpage0...@yahoo.com> wrote
No, it doesn't help. You snipped the football content out of my post
so I can't respond to this.
Brent
DanS.
Half of this is based on traditional faith, and half is based on faith
you just now posited.
Emperor Wonko the Sane
wrote:
> <the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
IFYPFY
Doug
The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy
>> He always was and always will be -- JUST LIKE MATTER!
>
> Half of this is based on traditional faith, and half is based on faith you
> just now posited.
I'm just poking at both sides. We can't have any hard knowledge of
anything before the big bang even by our own theory. But we can
have intelligent speculation. A more meaningful question would
first be what the true nature of concepts like "time" and "forever"
mean outside or our own universe, which is finite and self-enclosed.
--Tedward
The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy
You don't believe the experiments where paired particles spontaneously
appeared in a vaccuum? Why not?
--Tedward
Kyle T. Jones
>>> Its no more on him than the onus would be on the one who claims
>>> matter has always existed. That sounds like about as much nonsense
>>> if you think about it. That it is means that it had to come from
>>> somewhere - uh, as your sig would attest.
>>>
>>
>> Except for God, right? You think God is, but you don't think he was
>> created, right?
>>
>> Cheers.
>
> You are correct. He is eternal. You aren't expected to understand. In
> "science" we are. So, in effect, the onus then rests even more heavily
> on the side of the anti-creationist than on the side of the creationist.
>
Yes. Self-contradictory arguments (your last two posts: "That it is
means that it had to come from somewhere", "(God) is eternal") *are*
difficult for me to understand.
You're on the road to Hell, Dan. In the Fast Lane. It has everything
to do with your actions, which have more meaning than any empty claims
about how righteous you are with the Lord. You aren't expected to
understand, but, in Biblical terms, your phony faith - your propensity
to pay lip-service to God then back it up with abhorrent behavior - is
even worse than no faith at all. Personally, I'd look into that new
CoolMax (TM) technology, dewd.
Like I said, you won't be able to understand this faith stuff. But,
really, I just feel truly sorry for you, dewd. It's Hot Down There.
Seriously. Hot. Worse torment than anything that has ever happened
between human beings here on Earth - and we've done some pretty shady
stuff to each other. If there was some way I could open up your heart
to Jesus - to true faith - which would allow you to start behaving in a
less debasing manner - I would. But I can't. I fear your inability to
control your baser urges - your obsession with physical gratification -
might be too much for you to overcome. You might be Doomed.
Cheers.
DanS.
on 9/3/2010 in writing
Your feeble attempt at holy spirit junior do nothing to advance your
arguments. Make a point or concede. No one said you need to grasp it
in a mathematical formula. You're trying to, it seems.
stephenj
I'm not sure i agree with your interpretation of the results:
"To us, vacuums appear to contain nothing at all. But, it you were to
look closely, very, very closely (to the order of 10^-35m), space is
actually a foaming mass of quantum activity. This quantum foam is made
of particles and micro-black holes popping in and out of existence,
apparently in contravention of the second law of thermodynamics, they
appear out of nothing with energy, then disappear again just as quickly.
The key to this is the uncertainty principle. The disturbance is
permitted to ‘borrow’ a tiny amount of energy and exist for a very short
length of time, and then it must return the energy and disappear again."
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae332.cfm
--
It is easier to win over people to pacifism than socialism.
We should work first for pacifism, and only later for socialism.
- Albert Einstein
the_andr...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com> wrote
Then they didn't start with nothing.
a.
the_andr...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> "Emperor Wonko the Sane" <d...@sorensensdomain.net> wrote
For the same reasons we no longer believe in the spontaneous
generation of fruit flies?
a.
The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy
Isn't one interpretatoin of the Big Bang that a similar but much larger
disturbance created it?
--Tedward
dam
wrote:
> "stephenj" <sjar...@cox.com> wrote
You are correct. One of the latest variations is that two branes
touched each other sparking the Big Bang (think two flags in parallel
billowing in the wind and a small part of one touches the other).
dam
-----
Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a
dose of common sense. – Chapman Cohen
The Ghost Of Edward M. Kennedy
Yeah, I've read about branes. Alas, it is darn near impossible to
test any of it imperically like the cosmic background radiation.
--Tedward
Kyle T. Jones
Dear Your Holiness,
It's so hilarious that you get even more arrogant and self-righteous
when I put on my "trademarked DanS 'I know more than you and I'm so
special' uberpretentious" hat and respond to you.
It's a little disturbing that you can't see that you spend a huge amount
of time doing the "holy spirit junior" thing, telling folks they aren't
quite whatever enough to get what you get, and we're all just so lacking
compared to Mr. Holy Pants (that's you).
How can you not see that I'm just echoing it right back?
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the most pretentious of them all?
<winner, winner, chicken dinner!>
Cheers.
Kyle T. Jones
Stephen - must it return the energy? I'm going by memory here, but I
thought one of the best explanations for the Casimir effect (sp?)
involved an actualization of zero-point energy.
>> Isn't one interpretatoin of the Big Bang that a similar but much larger
>> disturbance created it?
>>
>> --Tedward
> <
> <You are correct. One of the latest variations is that two branes
> <touched each other sparking the Big Bang (think two flags in parallel
> <billowing in the wind and a small part of one touches the other).
>
> Yeah, I've read about branes. Alas, it is darn near impossible to
> test any of it imperically like the cosmic background radiation.
>
> --Tedward
>
>
>
Don't worry... we'll build those Ring-Around-The-Rosy-Sun accelerators
eventually!
Cheers.
DanS.
The Holy Spirit convicts people of sin (what you weakly attempted to
do). I debate facts on here. If you feel convicted, that is indeed
not me doing it.
> How can you not see that I'm just echoing it right back?
>
> Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the most pretentious of them all? <winner,
> winner, chicken dinner!>
>
> Cheers.
--
Google Beta User
<DanUNDERSCOREgoesHEREslaugh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > Please to be proving a god created the universe as the burden of proof
> > is on you. After all, you just said so it in your statement above.
>
> > dam
>
> > -----
> > What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. –
> > Christopher Hitchens
>
> Its no more on him than the onus would be on the one who claims matter
> has always existed. That sounds like about as much nonsense if you
> think about it. That it is means that it had to come from somewhere -
> uh, as your sig would attest.
THE PARABLE OF THE ARROW
The Buddha was sitting in the park when his disciple Malunkyaputta
approached him. Malunkyaputta had recently retired from the world and
he was concerned that so many things remained unexplained by the
Buddha. Was the world eternal or not eternal? Was the soul different
from the body? Did the enlightened exist after death or not? He
thought, ‘If the Buddha does not explain these things to me, I will
give up this training and return to worldly life’.
Thus, he approached the Buddha with this question, who replied:
“Suppose, Maunkyaputa, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared
with poison, and his friends and companions brought a surgeon to treat
him. The man would say: “I will not let the surgeon pull out the
arrow until I know the name and clan of the man who wounded me;
whether the bow that wounded me was long bow or crossbow; whether the
arrow that wounded me was hoof-tipped or curved or barbed.
All this would still not be known to that man and meanwhile he would
die. So too, Malunkyaputta, if anyone should say: “I will not lead
the noble life under the Buddha until the Buddha declares to me
whether the world is eternal or not eternal, finite or infinite;
whether the soul is the same as or different from the body; whether an
awakened one ceases to exist after death or not,” that would still
remain undeclared by the Buddha and meanwhile that person would die.
Whether the view is held that the world is eternal or not,
Malunkyaputta, there is still birth, old age, death, grief, suffering,
sorrow and despair – and these can be destroyed in this life! I have
not explained these other things because they are not useful, they are
not conducive to tranquility and Nirvana. What I have explained is
suffering, the cause of suffering, the destruction of suffering and
the path that leads to the destruction of suffering. This is useful,
leading to non-attachment, the absence of passion, perfect knowledge.”
Thus spoke the Buddha, and with joy Malunkyaputta applauded his words.
Jim Gysin
stephenj sent the following on 9/2/2010 11:12 PM:
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-09-03-hawking02_ST_N.htm
Cue the multiverse proponents...
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
dam
So what about Zeus, Isis, Njorn, Thor, et al? Maybe one of them
created the universe. Bet you never thought of that, huh.
dam
-----
Which is it, is man one of God’s blunders or is God one of man’s? –
Friedrich Nietzsche
Michael Press
DanS. <DanUNDERSCOREgo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> The Holy Spirit convicts people of sin
I never hear that, until now.
--
Michael Press
DanS.
on 9/3/2010 in writing
Basic Christian doctrine. Act 17:11
DanS.
9/3/2010 in writing
> Act 17:11
Oops, John 16:7-10
Michael Press
DanS. <DanUNDERSCOREgo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> DanS. added the following to the totality of all human wisdom on
> 9/3/2010 in writing
> > Act 17:11
>
> Oops, John 16:7-10
I can see how to take it the way you do.
It seems a lazy reading of a difficult
and obviously poorly translated passage.
--
Michael Press
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>Please to be proving a god created the universe as the burden of proof
>is on you. After all, you just said so it in your statement above.
>
>
>dam
It can't be proven that the universe was created by any other source,
ergo, it must have been God.
Science is still looking for a creator and has not proven anything. So
you are stuck with what I think.
Hugh