Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #662360 > unrolled thread

Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-03 22:03 -0700
    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-04 05:24 +0000
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-04 07:55 +0200
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-04 22:38 +0000
    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-04 10:46 -0700
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:29 -0700
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:37 -0700
          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 19:02 -0500
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:12 -0700
              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:39 -0700
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 20:50 -0700
              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 23:39 -0500
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 23:57 -0500
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-04 14:15 -0700
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-04 15:19 -0700
          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-10 22:58 -0700
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-13 12:17 -0700
              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-14 01:13 -0700
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-19 23:50 -0700
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-05 11:17 -0700
          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-09 13:00 +0000
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-09 13:10 +0000
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Dwaine Hajdú <edajay@njwnwindj.hu> - 2025-04-09 17:29 +0000
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-10 09:20 +0200
              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) - 2025-04-10 11:33 +0000
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Arius Babaskin Rui <bnk@aab.ru> - 2025-04-10 12:46 +0000
                  Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-11 07:19 +0200
                    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-11 19:52 +0200
                      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Douglas Laterza <ou@oodssaa.it> - 2025-04-11 18:04 +0000
                        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-12 10:48 +0200
                          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Bobbie Bakhvalov <ab@vibh.ru> - 2025-04-12 10:39 +0000
                            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-13 09:11 +0200
                              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 01:07 -0700
                                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-14 05:58 +0200
                                  Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 21:54 -0700
                                  Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> - 2025-04-14 09:31 +0200
                                    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-15 22:21 +0200
                              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Edel Baburoff <obbeub@aerb.ru> - 2025-04-13 10:04 +0000
                          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Corbin Yuan Xiong <nb@rya.cn> - 2025-04-12 10:52 +0000
                            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 11:03 -0500
                          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 08:38 -0700
                            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 09:13 -0700
                          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-12 22:37 +0200
                            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-13 09:24 +0200
              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 15:15 -0500
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-10 22:32 +0200
                  Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 14:06 -0700
                    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? x <x@x.org> - 2025-04-10 15:14 -0700
                      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-04-11 07:30 +0200
                        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 01:12 +0000
                  Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 19:32 -0500
                    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-11 15:44 +0200
                      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 08:17 -0700
                        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 08:53 -0700
                      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:56 -0500
    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 14:34 -0500
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:39 -0700
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 14:45 -0500
          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 13:02 -0700
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-04-04 12:57 -0700
    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2025-04-09 15:21 +0100
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 09:44 -0700
        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "shades@cov.net.inv" <seeu@nt.net> - 2025-04-11 20:16 +0100
          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 07:35 -0700
            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 11:59 -0700
              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 01:08 +0000
                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 20:39 -0500
                  Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 21:40 -0500
                    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 03:04 +0000
                      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 22:49 -0500
                        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 23:08 -0500
                          Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 23:27 -0500
                            Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 04:53 +0000
                              Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-14 00:48 -0500
                                Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 06:29 +0000
                        Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 04:24 +0000
                  Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-14 02:52 +0000
                    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 23:45 -0500
                      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-20 12:05 +0000
      Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-11 06:27 +0200
    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-10 21:22 +0200
    Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? quadibloc <quadibloc@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 09:58 +0000

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#662568

What does 'exist' mean? Why suppose that it was ever possible for
nothing to exist?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662569

On 04/09/2025 07:21 AM, Richmond wrote:
> What does 'exist' mean? Why suppose that it was ever possible for
> nothing to exist?
>

Well it can follow from consideration or contemplation/deliberation
itself: on the universal, vis-a-vis the void, that there are examples
since antiquity like 'nature abhors a vacuum', about creation and
destruction vis-a-vis conservation, that considering "nothing" is
the same as considering "everything".

It's sort of like when a given thing, is, everything that it is not.


Then, this gets into things like why there's a principle of inversion
instead of a principle of (non-)contradiction, that's sort of been
a usual idea since antiquity, the principle of non-contradiction,
yet instead, a principle of inversion can see that arrive and
for reason and rationality and according to nature and reality.

So, really it's a question to answer for yourself, where though
the usual "fundamental question of metaphysics" is "why is there
something rather than nothing", then there's quite a bit of the
canon and dogma and doctrine about it, to make inter-subjective
accounts, vis-a-vis, usual personal individual ponderings.


Anyways there's an idea that the universe exists simply because
mathematics exists and a continuum exists and it tents up three
space dimensions naturally and time the other way out of that
one continuum, then the contents arrive as after chirality is
sort of the usual idea.

Or, you know, "the only constant is change".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662657

Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/09/2025 07:21 AM, Richmond wrote:
>> What does 'exist' mean? Why suppose that it was ever possible for
>> nothing to exist?
>>
> 
> Well it can follow from consideration or contemplation/deliberation
> itself: on the universal, vis-a-vis the void, that there are examples
> since antiquity like 'nature abhors a vacuum', about creation and
> destruction vis-a-vis conservation, that considering "nothing" is
> the same as considering "everything".
> 
> It's sort of like when a given thing, is, everything that it is not.
> 
> 
> Then, this gets into things like why there's a principle of inversion
> instead of a principle of (non-)contradiction, that's sort of been
> a usual idea since antiquity, the principle of non-contradiction,
> yet instead, a principle of inversion can see that arrive and
> for reason and rationality and according to nature and reality.
> 
> So, really it's a question to answer for yourself, where though
> the usual "fundamental question of metaphysics" is "why is there
> something rather than nothing", then there's quite a bit of the
> canon and dogma and doctrine about it, to make inter-subjective
> accounts, vis-a-vis, usual personal individual ponderings.
> 
> 
> Anyways there's an idea that the universe exists simply because

-----------------------------------

It exists because God created it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662669

On 04/11/2025 12:16 PM, shades@cov.net.inv wrote:
> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On 04/09/2025 07:21 AM, Richmond wrote:
>>> What does 'exist' mean? Why suppose that it was ever possible for
>>> nothing to exist?
>>>
>>
>> Well it can follow from consideration or contemplation/deliberation
>> itself: on the universal, vis-a-vis the void, that there are examples
>> since antiquity like 'nature abhors a vacuum', about creation and
>> destruction vis-a-vis conservation, that considering "nothing" is
>> the same as considering "everything".
>>
>> It's sort of like when a given thing, is, everything that it is not.
>>
>>
>> Then, this gets into things like why there's a principle of inversion
>> instead of a principle of (non-)contradiction, that's sort of been
>> a usual idea since antiquity, the principle of non-contradiction,
>> yet instead, a principle of inversion can see that arrive and
>> for reason and rationality and according to nature and reality.
>>
>> So, really it's a question to answer for yourself, where though
>> the usual "fundamental question of metaphysics" is "why is there
>> something rather than nothing", then there's quite a bit of the
>> canon and dogma and doctrine about it, to make inter-subjective
>> accounts, vis-a-vis, usual personal individual ponderings.
>>
>>
>> Anyways there's an idea that the universe exists simply because
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> It exists because God created it.

That's a usual notion, that the "Omni" and "Super" are more
than merely super-scientific, both paradoxical and true,
evident in all things yet an un-knowable mystery, from
pondering higher powers and theirs ad infinitum or one
of them and as for monism and monotheism.

Then there's also that it always existed and creates itself,
also a monism and monotheism, where it's so that theories of
origins like Big Bang and Steady State are neither falsifiable,
according to the sky survey the age of universe increases a
few billion years each few years, where the truth of what's
arrived at makes for a continuum mechanics of some perfect logic.

So, the perfect and sublime, as what may be from G-d's mind,
has that here there's a logical theory that puts paradox and
truth away into the super-natural, as Duns Scotus puts it,
that it's super and it's natural, then as super-scientific,
thus beyond the mere realm of the phenomenological, and even
beyond the noumenological, the omnipotent and omniscient and
omnipresent the omnific, has that G-d as it may be is above
mere mortals' demands, supplications, or petitions, though
it may be holy to model theory on the holy, the holistic monism.


Then that's a matter of a sort of voluntary submission, religion,
where religion is that to which one binds, it's as well so that
for reason one can arrive at principles of perfection and the
sublime, then the silver thread of teleology may be a merest
"universal truth", and with concepts like freedom of thought,
then that when there's invoked G-d, that's always through the
lens of the invoker thusly different things to different people.

Or, hubris demands that the truth of reason makes for a Principle
of Sufficient and Thorough Reason, that insofar as it's perfect
and sublime, it must be perfect and sublime.


So, the Omni and Super is true, say, yet insofar as Man and
reason go, super-scientifically (naturally).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662674

On 04/12/2025 07:35 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/11/2025 12:16 PM, shades@cov.net.inv wrote:
>> Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 04/09/2025 07:21 AM, Richmond wrote:
>>>> What does 'exist' mean? Why suppose that it was ever possible for
>>>> nothing to exist?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well it can follow from consideration or contemplation/deliberation
>>> itself: on the universal, vis-a-vis the void, that there are examples
>>> since antiquity like 'nature abhors a vacuum', about creation and
>>> destruction vis-a-vis conservation, that considering "nothing" is
>>> the same as considering "everything".
>>>
>>> It's sort of like when a given thing, is, everything that it is not.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then, this gets into things like why there's a principle of inversion
>>> instead of a principle of (non-)contradiction, that's sort of been
>>> a usual idea since antiquity, the principle of non-contradiction,
>>> yet instead, a principle of inversion can see that arrive and
>>> for reason and rationality and according to nature and reality.
>>>
>>> So, really it's a question to answer for yourself, where though
>>> the usual "fundamental question of metaphysics" is "why is there
>>> something rather than nothing", then there's quite a bit of the
>>> canon and dogma and doctrine about it, to make inter-subjective
>>> accounts, vis-a-vis, usual personal individual ponderings.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyways there's an idea that the universe exists simply because
>>
>> -----------------------------------
>>
>> It exists because God created it.
>
> That's a usual notion, that the "Omni" and "Super" are more
> than merely super-scientific, both paradoxical and true,
> evident in all things yet an un-knowable mystery, from
> pondering higher powers and theirs ad infinitum or one
> of them and as for monism and monotheism.
>
> Then there's also that it always existed and creates itself,
> also a monism and monotheism, where it's so that theories of
> origins like Big Bang and Steady State are neither falsifiable,
> according to the sky survey the age of universe increases a
> few billion years each few years, where the truth of what's
> arrived at makes for a continuum mechanics of some perfect logic.
>
> So, the perfect and sublime, as what may be from G-d's mind,
> has that here there's a logical theory that puts paradox and
> truth away into the super-natural, as Duns Scotus puts it,
> that it's super and it's natural, then as super-scientific,
> thus beyond the mere realm of the phenomenological, and even
> beyond the noumenological, the omnipotent and omniscient and
> omnipresent the omnific, has that G-d as it may be is above
> mere mortals' demands, supplications, or petitions, though
> it may be holy to model theory on the holy, the holistic monism.
>
>
> Then that's a matter of a sort of voluntary submission, religion,
> where religion is that to which one binds, it's as well so that
> for reason one can arrive at principles of perfection and the
> sublime, then the silver thread of teleology may be a merest
> "universal truth", and with concepts like freedom of thought,
> then that when there's invoked G-d, that's always through the
> lens of the invoker thusly different things to different people.
>
> Or, hubris demands that the truth of reason makes for a Principle
> of Sufficient and Thorough Reason, that insofar as it's perfect
> and sublime, it must be perfect and sublime.
>
>
> So, the Omni and Super is true, say, yet insofar as Man and
> reason go, super-scientifically (naturally).
>
>


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lck4UrsfpVU&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F4_E-POURNmVLwp-dyzjYr-&index=14


"Descartes' Deceiver" is a usual idea of DesCartes that as humans
aren't perfect there could be any sort of lies between humanity
and truth, that DesCartes won't be fooled and that Aristotle
won't be fooled, then there's as well a usual idea of that
a true higher power could have resulted a sort of metempsychosis,
to or from any given point, then that for either of those it
results sort of immaterial except that science is a fair reasoning,
statistics will lie if you let them, a transcendental personal
objectivism may be with respect to monistic holism, that DesCartes won't
lie to himself.


Then, about Being and Nothing, it was to Hegel again where all
the universals were to have their complementary reflection in
the nihilism or Sein and Nichtes, Da-Sein and Da-Nichtes, then
that it sort of results from space concerns that a spiral space-filling
curve, or for example DesCartes' vortices, result a continuum is
a mentally evident construct, reified by all things connected
according to the physical senses or Sens, about the "noumenological
senses" of an object sense, a number sense, a word sense, and a
sense of the continuum and time, then that time rather neatly arrives
then with regards to mathematical infinity and real continuity,
that strong mathematical platonism and strong logicist positivism
and a strong mathematical universe hypothesis with a clock hypothesis,
make for something like Galileo's "eppur si muove", Aristotle's un-moved
mover, where as well Aristotle's circular movement is eternal.


So, there's an idea that the universal _and_ void both exist, "because",
....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662703

Basically the West has never recovered from the thrashing given to
Alexander by Pourush in 326BC.

Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662705

On 4/13/25 8:08 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
> Basically the West has never recovered from the thrashing given to
> Alexander by Pourush in 326BC.
> 
> Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 
> -- 



Never heard of him. Encyclopaedia Britannica says Alexander "thrashed" 
him. Then after Alexander's death in Iran (by poison) one of his 
generals killed your Pourush.

Is your history as good as your physics?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662708

On 4/13/25 8:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 4/13/25 8:08 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>> Basically the West has never recovered from the thrashing given to
>> Alexander by Pourush in 326BC.
>>
>> Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>>
>> -- 
> 
> 
> 
> Never heard of him. Encyclopaedia Britannica says Alexander "thrashed" 
> him. Then after Alexander's death in Iran (by poison) one of his 
> generals killed your Pourush.
> 
> Is your history as good as your physics?


And others write his name as Porus, which by all probability is the 
Persian name "Piruz" (meaning The Winner).

Don't forget that the part of India you are talking about was Iran, not 
India. Being inside today's India doesn't mean it was India back then.

So the guy was Iranian. He was an Iranian "Satrap" (Governer). So get 
your "India" stuff out of all this. Better yet contract kala-azar and 
just die :) I want my space in my fridge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662710

On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 2:40:25 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 4/13/25 8:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 4/13/25 8:08 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>> Basically the West has never recovered from the thrashing given to
>>> Alexander by Pourush in 326BC.
>>>
>>> Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
>>>
>>> Bertietaylor
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> Never heard of him. Encyclopaedia Britannica says Alexander "thrashed"
>> him. Then after Alexander's death in Iran (by poison) one of his
>> generals killed your Pourush.
>>
>> Is your history as good as your physics?

No. But it is better than yours.
>
>
> And others write his name as Porus, which by all probability is the
> Persian name "Piruz" (meaning The Winner).

Persia or rather Padosia (neighbour) got its best inspirations from the
Vedas, the very first line dedicated to Agni, or pure truth manifesting
as fire
>
> Don't forget that the part of India you are talking about was Iran, not
> India. Being inside today's India doesn't mean it was India back then.

What was Persia was conquered by Alexander. Casus belli to invade India
was the elephants supplied to Dhariya-yush misrepresented as Darius by
the corrupting anti-Vedic historians.
>
> So the guy was Iranian. He was an Iranian "Satrap" (Governer). So get
> your "India" stuff out of all this.


Tch tch, what tantrums! How immature and so hopelessly.

Better yet contract kala-azar and
> just die :) I want my space in my fridge.

My great uncle found the cure for that disease, saved many millions of
lives.
A great inspiration for me, Roachie.

Your hate makes you pitiful. All the more because there is neither need
nor reason for that!

Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662712

On 4/13/25 10:04 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 2:40:25 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
> 
> 
> Better yet contract kala-azar and
>> just die :) I want my space in my fridge.
> 
> My great uncle found the cure for that disease, saved many millions of
> lives.
> A great inspiration for me, Roachie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Pure bullshit. The name of the discoverers of the parasite is still part 
of its scientific name (Leishmania donovani). I read a book in the 1990s 
about the discovery also; a detailed account of the unbelievable 
struggle that led to its discovery, and yes, millions were saved after 
that.

One was British, the other Irish. Years apart.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662714

On 4/13/25 10:49 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 4/13/25 10:04 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 2:40:25 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>>
>> Better yet contract kala-azar and
>>> just die :) I want my space in my fridge.
>>
>> My great uncle found the cure for that disease, saved many millions of
>> lives.
>> A great inspiration for me, Roachie.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Pure bullshit. The name of the discoverers of the parasite is still part 
> of its scientific name (Leishmania donovani). I read a book in the 1990s 
> about the discovery also; a detailed account of the unbelievable 
> struggle that led to its discovery, and yes, millions were saved after 
> that.
> 
> One was British, the other Irish. Years apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 


The hardest part, according to that book, was to find the life cycle of 
the parasite. The mechanism of transmission. It was like starting from 
having absolutely no clue, and by funky tries, trying to zero in on it. 
It took a long long time and many many mistakes and misconceptions and 
misinterpretation of data to at last land on what was the real culprit. 
That little fly, a form of sand fly. The parasite would clog up its 
needle-like mouth, and then when eating someone else's blood would 
transmit some of the parasites into the new patient. And this repeated 
on all other humans that the fly fed on. They generally all died not 
that long after. Hundreds of thousands of them at a time.

Perhaps your "great uncle" cleaned the floor of the center that one of 
these researchers was working it, who knows :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662716

On 4/13/25 11:08 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> On 4/13/25 10:49 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 4/13/25 10:04 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 2:40:25 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Better yet contract kala-azar and
>>>> just die :) I want my space in my fridge.
>>>
>>> My great uncle found the cure for that disease, saved many millions of
>>> lives.
>>> A great inspiration for me, Roachie.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Pure bullshit. The name of the discoverers of the parasite is still 
>> part of its scientific name (Leishmania donovani). I read a book in 
>> the 1990s about the discovery also; a detailed account of the 
>> unbelievable struggle that led to its discovery, and yes, millions 
>> were saved after that.
>>
>> One was British, the other Irish. Years apart.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> The hardest part, according to that book, was to find the life cycle of 
> the parasite. The mechanism of transmission. It was like starting from 
> having absolutely no clue, and by funky tries, trying to zero in on it. 
> It took a long long time and many many mistakes and misconceptions and 
> misinterpretation of data to at last land on what was the real culprit. 
> That little fly, a form of sand fly. The parasite would clog up its 
> needle-like mouth, and then when eating someone else's blood would 
> transmit some of the parasites into the new patient. And this repeated 
> on all other humans that the fly fed on. They generally all died not 
> that long after. Hundreds of thousands of them at a time.
> 
> Perhaps your "great uncle" cleaned the floor of the center that one of 
> these researchers was working it, who knows :)
> 
> 


Oh Ok I see. You were talking about a cure, not the discoveries 
involved. Yes some Indian found a way to cure the patients. But what 
stopped kala-azar from killing people in large masses was the discovery 
of how it works and therefore preventing the growth and spread of that fly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662719

On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 4:27:33 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 4/13/25 11:08 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 4/13/25 10:49 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>> On 4/13/25 10:04 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 2:40:25 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Better yet contract kala-azar and
>>>>> just die :) I want my space in my fridge.
>>>>
>>>> My great uncle found the cure for that disease, saved many millions of
>>>> lives.
>>>> A great inspiration for me, Roachie.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Pure bullshit. The name of the discoverers of the parasite is still
>>> part of its scientific name (Leishmania donovani). I read a book in
>>> the 1990s about the discovery also; a detailed account of the
>>> unbelievable struggle that led to its discovery, and yes, millions
>>> were saved after that.
>>>
>>> One was British, the other Irish. Years apart.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> The hardest part, according to that book, was to find the life cycle of
>> the parasite. The mechanism of transmission. It was like starting from
>> having absolutely no clue, and by funky tries, trying to zero in on it.
>> It took a long long time and many many mistakes and misconceptions and
>> misinterpretation of data to at last land on what was the real culprit.
>> That little fly, a form of sand fly. The parasite would clog up its
>> needle-like mouth, and then when eating someone else's blood would
>> transmit some of the parasites into the new patient. And this repeated
>> on all other humans that the fly fed on. They generally all died not
>> that long after. Hundreds of thousands of them at a time.
>>
>> Perhaps your "great uncle" cleaned the floor of the center that one of
>> these researchers was working it, who knows :)
>>
>>
>
>
> Oh Ok I see. You were talking about a cure, not the discoveries
> involved. Yes some Indian found a way to cure the patients. But what
> stopped kala-azar from killing people in large masses was the discovery
> of how it works and therefore preventing the growth and spread of that
> fly.

What saved millions of lives was the medicine the patients got.

That flies and mosquitoes caused trouble was very well known. What was
not around was the cure. Dr Brahmachari researched and found the cure.
Just as the cure for malaria was found. With British help he made a
factory to produce the medicine and sell it cheaply so that the disease
got eradicated. A great and most worthy example, for Arindam.

The desire to suppress genuine Vedic talent by the descendants of the
thrashed and humiliated Alexander is overwhelming. Seems to have
increased these days, what with Amazon stealing Arindam's IP, and his
global persecution.

Things were far better during the Raj. Dr Brahmachari was knighted for
his wonderful work ridding the world of this disease.

Pathetic, too.
Shit!

Woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662721

On 4/13/25 11:53 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 4:27:33 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
> 
>> On 4/13/25 11:08 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>> On 4/13/25 10:49 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/25 10:04 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 2:40:25 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Better yet contract kala-azar and
>>>>>> just die :) I want my space in my fridge.
>>>>>
>>>>> My great uncle found the cure for that disease, saved many millions of
>>>>> lives.
>>>>> A great inspiration for me, Roachie.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pure bullshit. The name of the discoverers of the parasite is still
>>>> part of its scientific name (Leishmania donovani). I read a book in
>>>> the 1990s about the discovery also; a detailed account of the
>>>> unbelievable struggle that led to its discovery, and yes, millions
>>>> were saved after that.
>>>>
>>>> One was British, the other Irish. Years apart.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The hardest part, according to that book, was to find the life cycle of
>>> the parasite. The mechanism of transmission. It was like starting from
>>> having absolutely no clue, and by funky tries, trying to zero in on it.
>>> It took a long long time and many many mistakes and misconceptions and
>>> misinterpretation of data to at last land on what was the real culprit.
>>> That little fly, a form of sand fly. The parasite would clog up its
>>> needle-like mouth, and then when eating someone else's blood would
>>> transmit some of the parasites into the new patient. And this repeated
>>> on all other humans that the fly fed on. They generally all died not
>>> that long after. Hundreds of thousands of them at a time.
>>>
>>> Perhaps your "great uncle" cleaned the floor of the center that one of
>>> these researchers was working it, who knows :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Oh Ok I see. You were talking about a cure, not the discoveries
>> involved. Yes some Indian found a way to cure the patients. But what
>> stopped kala-azar from killing people in large masses was the discovery
>> of how it works and therefore preventing the growth and spread of that
>> fly.
> 
> What saved millions of lives was the medicine the patients got.
> 
> That flies and mosquitoes caused trouble was very well known. What was
> not around was the cure. Dr Brahmachari researched and found the cure.
> Just as the cure for malaria was found. With British help he made a
> factory to produce the medicine and sell it cheaply so that the disease
> got eradicated. A great and most worthy example, for Arindam.
> 
> The desire to suppress genuine Vedic talent by the descendants of the
> thrashed and humiliated Alexander is overwhelming. Seems to have
> increased these days, what with Amazon stealing Arindam's IP, and his
> global persecution.
> 
> Things were far better during the Raj. Dr Brahmachari was knighted for
> his wonderful work ridding the world of this disease.
> 
> Pathetic, too.
> Shit!
> 
> Woof woof
> 
> Bertietaylor
> 
> -- 


Bullshit. Almost 100% of people who died of it could not afford the 
medication, and the medication was not 100% effective either. The real 
deal was preventing the spread of the flies. Just like malaria.

Half-ass "cure" for malaria is at hand too, yet millions of babies 
today, each year, die of it because they don't control the standing 
waters around them effectively enough.

Kala-azar didn't disappear but went way down the list of highly 
devastating epidemic diseases because of similar actions in preventing 
the creation and spread of that particular fly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662722

On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 5:48:11 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 4/13/25 11:53 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 4:27:33 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/13/25 11:08 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>> On 4/13/25 10:49 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>> On 4/13/25 10:04 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 2:40:25 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Better yet contract kala-azar and
>>>>>>> just die :) I want my space in my fridge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My great uncle found the cure for that disease, saved many millions of
>>>>>> lives.
>>>>>> A great inspiration for me, Roachie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pure bullshit. The name of the discoverers of the parasite is still
>>>>> part of its scientific name (Leishmania donovani). I read a book in
>>>>> the 1990s about the discovery also; a detailed account of the
>>>>> unbelievable struggle that led to its discovery, and yes, millions
>>>>> were saved after that.
>>>>>
>>>>> One was British, the other Irish. Years apart.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The hardest part, according to that book, was to find the life cycle of
>>>> the parasite. The mechanism of transmission. It was like starting from
>>>> having absolutely no clue, and by funky tries, trying to zero in on it.
>>>> It took a long long time and many many mistakes and misconceptions and
>>>> misinterpretation of data to at last land on what was the real culprit.
>>>> That little fly, a form of sand fly. The parasite would clog up its
>>>> needle-like mouth, and then when eating someone else's blood would
>>>> transmit some of the parasites into the new patient. And this repeated
>>>> on all other humans that the fly fed on. They generally all died not
>>>> that long after. Hundreds of thousands of them at a time.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps your "great uncle" cleaned the floor of the center that one of
>>>> these researchers was working it, who knows :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh Ok I see. You were talking about a cure, not the discoveries
>>> involved. Yes some Indian found a way to cure the patients. But what
>>> stopped kala-azar from killing people in large masses was the discovery
>>> of how it works and therefore preventing the growth and spread of that
>>> fly.
>>
>> What saved millions of lives was the medicine the patients got.
>>
>> That flies and mosquitoes caused trouble was very well known. What was
>> not around was the cure. Dr Brahmachari researched and found the cure.
>> Just as the cure for malaria was found. With British help he made a
>> factory to produce the medicine and sell it cheaply so that the disease
>> got eradicated. A great and most worthy example, for Arindam.
>>
>> The desire to suppress genuine Vedic talent by the descendants of the
>> thrashed and humiliated Alexander is overwhelming. Seems to have
>> increased these days, what with Amazon stealing Arindam's IP, and his
>> global persecution.
>>
>> Things were far better during the Raj. Dr Brahmachari was knighted for
>> his wonderful work ridding the world of this disease.
>>
>> Pathetic, too.
>> Shit!
>>
>> Woof woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>>
>> --
>
>
> Bullshit. Almost 100% of people who died of it could not afford the
> medication, and the medication was not 100% effective either. The real
> deal was preventing the spread of the flies. Just like malaria.

No, roach. The rampaging disease was wiped out as such so there are only
rare cases. Arindam never knew a single one when he was in India. Yes
the British rail system created a lot of stagnant water, creating
diseases like malaria. But they also introduced quinine, which helped.
>
> Half-ass "cure" for malaria is at hand too, yet millions of babies
> today, each year, die of it because they don't control the standing
> waters around them effectively enough.

Ancient history, Roachie. Quinine helps a lot.
Present Indian govts go all out to help the poor if they are low caste,
the lower the better. Free food, free education, free health, pensions,
no taxes save some gst, reservations for jobs... all they have to do is
to vote for their castefellow. High castes emigrate and send remittances
which help to fund the show. Nice all round, what.
So things have improved all around. No elephantiasis, no smallpox, no
polio, etc. around. So people look good. Cholera, typhoid, malaria under
control. That explains India's 1400000000 population, healthy and mostly
happy unless they have petulant theological drives. Well fed, too.
Enjoying great music with smartphones, chatting to their hearts'
content. Not working too much. Great! Then politicians, cricketers, film
stars, etc. are there to entertain. What more to ask from the world,
Roachie? Nearest apes can get to the pampered canine state, what, woof
woof.
>
> Kala-azar didn't disappear but went way down the list of highly
> devastating epidemic diseases because of similar actions in preventing
> the creation and spread of that particular fly.

Those who got it were saved. It had a 95% mortality rate. No more thanks
to Dr Brahmachari. Yes DDT was used liberally to kill mosquitoes. That
helped.

Woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662715

On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 3:49:26 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 4/13/25 10:04 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 2:40:25 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:
>>
>>
>> Better yet contract kala-azar and
>>> just die :) I want my space in my fridge.
>>
>> My great uncle found the cure for that disease, saved many millions of
>> lives.
>> A great inspiration for me, Roachie.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Pure bullshit. The name of the discoverers of the parasite is still part
> of its scientific name (Leishmania donovani). I read a book in the 1990s
> about the discovery also; a detailed account of the unbelievable
> struggle that led to its discovery, and yes, millions were saved after
> that.
>
> One was British, the other Irish. Years apart.

Lying as usual, Roachie, fake Iranian, fake physicist, fake everything -
but genuine as a joke.
The cure for kala-azar was by Dr. U.N. Brahmachari, Arindam's great
uncle. A hero in Kolkata and a household name among Indians.
Really, Roachie, you are more stupid than mendacious.
Only a very stupid liar lies when its lies can be exposed easily.

Woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662709

On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 1:39:50 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 4/13/25 8:08 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>> Basically the West has never recovered from the thrashing given to
>> Alexander by Pourush in 326BC.
>>
>> Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof
>>
>> Bertietaylor
>>
>> --
>
>
>
> Never heard of him. Encyclopaedia Britannica says Alexander "thrashed"
> him.

He was thrashed very soundly, Roachie. Had to give up his locally
acquired territories to Pourush. Had to divide his army. Send one half
back. Then made to take the hard way back. Barely survived.

Amusing that while you hate the cro magnons you accept their authority.
Do the CMs accept your theories about modern humans? Is it to be found
in any western encyclopaedia?

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor




Then after Alexander's death in Iran (by poison) one of his
> generals killed your Pourush.
>
> Is your history as good as your physics?

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662717

On 4/13/25 9:52 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
> Amusing that while you hate the cro magnons you accept their authority.
> Do the CMs accept your theories about modern humans? Is it to be found
> in any western encyclopaedia?


No I used EB cause I thought a Western source is good enough for an 
Indian :) Hahhahahh :)

Cro-magnons accept the reality about being cro-magnons? Never. If they 
could accept it, they wouldn't be cro-magnons. But they're never 
objective enough to accept it.

Cro-magnons are collectivistic creatures. They listen to their leaders 
instead of thinking for themselves. Very uniformly so too. A thing of 
the past as far as today's humans are concerned.

The only free paper that describes and proves this fact and is available 
on the internet is written by a large team of Italians, i.e., by people 
from the portion of Europe that aren't cro-magnons.

Even the best scientists of cro-magnons aren't capable of accepting 
this. It's not in their genes to do it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662927

On Mon, 14 Apr 2025 4:45:08 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:

> On 4/13/25 9:52 PM, Bertitaylor wrote:
>> Amusing that while you hate the cro magnons you accept their authority.
>> Do the CMs accept your theories about modern humans? Is it to be found
>> in any western encyclopaedia?
>
>
> No I used EB cause I thought a Western source is good enough for an
> Indian :) Hahhahahh :)

You presume too much, Roachie. Anyway your western ass kissing is duly
noted.
>
> Cro-magnons accept the reality about being cro-magnons? Never. If they
> could accept it, they wouldn't be cro-magnons. But they're never
> objective enough to accept it.

They jolly well believe in their racial superiority, Roachie. Not that
much overtly these days, thanks to the overly ebullient Herr Hitler. Non
CMs got their chance from their weakened position and grabbed it with
all their paws.

It is on purely racial grounds that they filter out chaps like Arindam
whose superiority threatens their most basic assumptions.
>
> Cro-magnons are collectivistic creatures. They listen to their leaders
> instead of thinking for themselves. Very uniformly so too. A thing of
> the past as far as today's humans are concerned.

Totally wrong. It is the Abrahamic_allsorts who are collectivist and
sectarian too, howling and misbehaving as per the directions of their
nutty leaders. Now, these sorts belong to all races. Their unity gives
them strength.

Only Hindus and Buddhists and the non Abrahamic Eastern peoples are
individualistic.
>
> The only free paper that describes and proves this fact and is available
> on the internet is written by a large team of Italians, i.e., by people
> from the portion of Europe that aren't cro-magnons.

Lies and nonsenses like yours and Einstein's can never be proved but
they can be repeated hopefully.
>
> Even the best scientists of cro-magnons aren't capable of accepting
> this. It's not in their genes to do it.

They are tribalist racists, descendants of unethical bandit types, never
ever educated properly. Just look at the Penisnino entity.

Woof-woof woof woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#662629

Am Mittwoch000009, 09.04.2025 um 16:21 schrieb Richmond:
> What does 'exist' mean? Why suppose that it was ever possible for
> nothing to exist?


This is a very good riddle!

Well, actually I assumed, that 'big-bang' was actually the 'white side' 
of a 'black hole'.

So, that 'big-bang singularity ' was something, that is called 'white hole'.

This is possible, because I would regard black holes as vortices, which 
behave timelike and like the center of what is called 'light cone'.

This is black from 'the other side', because light is black, if seen 
from behind.

Seen from the other side, light is white and its origin therefore a 
'white hole'.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web