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

Groups > alt.atheism > #2170019 > unrolled thread

Re: Atheism is Witchcraft

Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 00:32 +0000
    Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-17 22:27 -0700
      Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-18 06:35 +0000
      Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-18 07:49 -0500
        Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-18 06:35 -0700
          Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 03:46 +0200
            Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 00:53 -0400
              Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 08:15 +0200
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 15:43 -0400
                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-20 01:02 +0000
                  Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-20 08:21 +0200
                    Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-20 20:04 +0000
                      Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 04:56 +0200
                        Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-22 01:16 +0000
                          Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 05:03 +0200
                            Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-24 02:42 +0000
                              Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-23 23:17 -0600
                            Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 17:25 +1000
                              Re: Atheism is Witchcraft John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> - 2016-09-24 15:03 -0400
                                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 00:32 +0000
                              Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-24 22:06 +0200
                                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 00:36 +0000
                                  Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 05:18 -0400
                                    Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 13:56 +0200
                                      Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 16:02 +0000
                                        Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-25 11:04 -0500
                                        Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ted&Alice <sam.m.tedesco@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:23 +0000
                                        Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 18:54 +0200
                                          Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-26 09:59 +1000
                                            Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 07:35 +0200
                                              Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:53 +0000
                                                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 06:27 +0200
                                                  Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-27 06:10 +0000
                                      Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 12:19 -0400
                                      Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-25 21:42 +0000
                                        Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-26 01:14 +0000
                                          Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-26 15:53 +0000
                                Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 00:39 -0400
                                  Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 14:07 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#2170019 — Re: Atheism is Witchcraft

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 17:25:34 -0400, benj wrote:

> On 9/16/2016 9:56 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>> On 9/16/2016 5:51 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:06:40 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/16/2016 12:23 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Atheists believe in lies. It's an essential part of evolootion
>>>>>>>> and "natural selection". Animals use fake behavior all the time
>>>>>>>> to fool predators. And thus, lies are equally valid for man as
>>>>>>>> you well know and practice all the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kook babble; case in point "evolootion".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Atheism has nothing to do with "evolootion" (sic), natural
>>>>>>> selection,
>>>>>>> animals, predators or lies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You heard it here first, folks. PreacherMan Chimp says that
>>>>>> athesism has nothing to do with evolootion! (He's probably a
>>>>>> practicing atheist too) Gosh, what does he believe? Does he believe
>>>>>> Un-God created the universe?
>>>>>> This is how confused and senile he is. He needs to take Imperial
>>>>>> Thinking lessons from Herb.
>>>>>
>>>>> Get an education and grow  up.
>>>>
>>>> It seems it is more like he is regressing into childhood.
>>>>
>>> Look folks, it's Chimp in attack mode just after he accused me of
>>> going that way. Why is it that kooks always accuse everyone else of
>>> doing what they always do?
>>
>> I am not the one confusing athesism with four or five entirely
>> different things.
>>
>> Atheism says nothing about evolution, natural selection, animals,
>> predators, creation of the universe or lies other than it wasn't a god
>> responsible as the one and only tenet of athesism is that there are no
>> supernatural beings.
>>
>> That's it and all there is to it; no supernatural beings.
>>
> Then what created the universe? Watch chimp chase his own tail.

First prove that it was created.
Like your supposed god, it could have been here forever.

-- 
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made 
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2170120

Smiler wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 17:25:34 -0400, benj wrote:
> 
> > On 9/16/2016 9:56 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> >>> On 9/16/2016 5:51 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>> In sci.physics Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:06:40 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 9/16/2016 12:23 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Atheists believe in lies. It's an essential part of evolootion
> >>>>>>>> and "natural selection". Animals use fake behavior all the time
> >>>>>>>> to fool predators. And thus, lies are equally valid for man as
> >>>>>>>> you well know and practice all the time.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Kook babble; case in point "evolootion".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Atheism has nothing to do with "evolootion" (sic), natural
> >>>>>>> selection,
> >>>>>>> animals, predators or lies.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> You heard it here first, folks. PreacherMan Chimp says that
> >>>>>> athesism has nothing to do with evolootion! (He's probably a
> >>>>>> practicing atheist too) Gosh, what does he believe? Does he believe
> >>>>>> Un-God created the universe?
> >>>>>> This is how confused and senile he is. He needs to take Imperial
> >>>>>> Thinking lessons from Herb.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Get an education and grow  up.
> >>>>
> >>>> It seems it is more like he is regressing into childhood.
> >>>>
> >>> Look folks, it's Chimp in attack mode just after he accused me of
> >>> going that way. Why is it that kooks always accuse everyone else of
> >>> doing what they always do?
> >>
> >> I am not the one confusing athesism with four or five entirely
> >> different things.
> >>
> >> Atheism says nothing about evolution, natural selection, animals,
> >> predators, creation of the universe or lies other than it wasn't a god
> >> responsible as the one and only tenet of athesism is that there are no
> >> supernatural beings.
> >>
> >> That's it and all there is to it; no supernatural beings.
> >>
> > Then what created the universe? Watch chimp chase his own tail.
> 
> First prove that it was created.
> Like your supposed god, it could have been here forever.


if it was here forever our sun would have burned up by now.

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

#2170136

The Starmaker wrote:
> Smiler wrote:
> > benj wrote:

----snip----

> > > Then what created the universe? Watch chimp chase his own tail.
> >
> > First prove that it was created.
> > Like your supposed god, it could have been here forever.
>
> if it was here forever our sun would have burned up by now.

Nope. The creation and destruction of objects *in* the universe
is an ongoing (natural) process. We can see it happening.

If you think about what you said: "our sun would have burned
up by now", you'll see that you're giving us an example of
that destruction. Examples of the creation of objects are
the nebulae we can see: interstellar hydrogen is coalescing
under the force of gravity into ever smaller and denser
formations, which eventually become stars.

Ned

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

#2170200

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 22:27:59 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Smiler wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 17:25:34 -0400, benj wrote:
>> 
>> > On 9/16/2016 9:56 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> >>> On 9/16/2016 5:51 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >>>> In sci.physics Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>> >>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:06:40 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 9/16/2016 12:23 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> <snip>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Atheists believe in lies. It's an essential part of evolootion
>> >>>>>>>> and "natural selection". Animals use fake behavior all the time
>> >>>>>>>> to fool predators. And thus, lies are equally valid for man as
>> >>>>>>>> you well know and practice all the time.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Kook babble; case in point "evolootion".
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Atheism has nothing to do with "evolootion" (sic), natural
>> >>>>>>> selection,
>> >>>>>>> animals, predators or lies.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>> You heard it here first, folks. PreacherMan Chimp says that
>> >>>>>> athesism has nothing to do with evolootion! (He's probably a
>> >>>>>> practicing atheist too) Gosh, what does he believe? Does he believe
>> >>>>>> Un-God created the universe?
>> >>>>>> This is how confused and senile he is. He needs to take Imperial
>> >>>>>> Thinking lessons from Herb.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Get an education and grow  up.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It seems it is more like he is regressing into childhood.
>> >>>>
>> >>> Look folks, it's Chimp in attack mode just after he accused me of
>> >>> going that way. Why is it that kooks always accuse everyone else of
>> >>> doing what they always do?
>> >>
>> >> I am not the one confusing athesism with four or five entirely
>> >> different things.
>> >>
>> >> Atheism says nothing about evolution, natural selection, animals,
>> >> predators, creation of the universe or lies other than it wasn't a god
>> >> responsible as the one and only tenet of athesism is that there are no
>> >> supernatural beings.
>> >>
>> >> That's it and all there is to it; no supernatural beings.
>> >>
>> > Then what created the universe? Watch chimp chase his own tail.
>> 
>> First prove that it was created.
>> Like your supposed god, it could have been here forever.
>
>
>if it was here forever our sun would have burned up by now.

Idiot.

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

#2170228

In article <8a3ttbtp2v2pil9mgdum6rqm36lqgqh1dp@4ax.com>,
 Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 22:27:59 -0700, The Starmaker
> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> >Smiler wrote:
> >> 
> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 17:25:34 -0400, benj wrote:
> >> 
> >> > On 9/16/2016 9:56 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> >> >>> On 9/16/2016 5:51 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >>>> In sci.physics Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:06:40 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On 9/16/2016 12:23 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> <snip>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Atheists believe in lies. It's an essential part of evolootion
> >> >>>>>>>> and "natural selection". Animals use fake behavior all the time
> >> >>>>>>>> to fool predators. And thus, lies are equally valid for man as
> >> >>>>>>>> you well know and practice all the time.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Kook babble; case in point "evolootion".
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Atheism has nothing to do with "evolootion" (sic), natural
> >> >>>>>>> selection,
> >> >>>>>>> animals, predators or lies.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> You heard it here first, folks. PreacherMan Chimp says that
> >> >>>>>> athesism has nothing to do with evolootion! (He's probably a
> >> >>>>>> practicing atheist too) Gosh, what does he believe? Does he believe
> >> >>>>>> Un-God created the universe?
> >> >>>>>> This is how confused and senile he is. He needs to take Imperial
> >> >>>>>> Thinking lessons from Herb.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Get an education and grow  up.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> It seems it is more like he is regressing into childhood.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> Look folks, it's Chimp in attack mode just after he accused me of
> >> >>> going that way. Why is it that kooks always accuse everyone else of
> >> >>> doing what they always do?
> >> >>
> >> >> I am not the one confusing athesism with four or five entirely
> >> >> different things.
> >> >>
> >> >> Atheism says nothing about evolution, natural selection, animals,
> >> >> predators, creation of the universe or lies other than it wasn't a god
> >> >> responsible as the one and only tenet of athesism is that there are no
> >> >> supernatural beings.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's it and all there is to it; no supernatural beings.
> >> >>
> >> > Then what created the universe? Watch chimp chase his own tail.
> >> 
> >> First prove that it was created.
> >> Like your supposed god, it could have been here forever.
> >
> >
> >if it was here forever our sun would have burned up by now.

Who said the solar system was as old as the universe?

Even you should be embarrassed by this one.


> Idiot.

-- 

JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream 
up a God superior to themselves. Most 
Gods have the manners and morals of a 
spoiled child.

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

#2170550

Am 18.09.2016 15:35, schrieb Jeanne Douglas:

>>>>>> Atheism says nothing about evolution, natural selection, animals,
>>>>>> predators, creation of the universe or lies other than it wasn't a god
>>>>>> responsible as the one and only tenet of athesism is that there are no
>>>>>> supernatural beings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's it and all there is to it; no supernatural beings.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Then what created the universe? Watch chimp chase his own tail.
>>>>
>>>> First prove that it was created.
>>>> Like your supposed god, it could have been here forever.
>>>
>>>
>>> if it was here forever our sun would have burned up by now.
>
> Who said the solar system was as old as the universe?
>
> Even you should be embarrassed by this one.
>

The Universe is assumed to be roughly 13.6 billion years old and the 
suns age is about 5 billion years (if I recall that correct).

But even 13.6 billion years is only the age of OUR universe and this is 
what we can see from our position here on Earth.

I assume, that 'the universe' is only a subset from something larger.

E.g. we could assume a timeline, which points into the opposite 
direction, where our future is there the past.

This would also create a universe, but we could not see it. Also someone 
from there could not see us.

Another possibility is a 'universe around the corner'. This would be a 
universe, which belongs to an axis of time, that had an angle towards 
our axis of time.

This would also be invisible.

We could now assume, that the axis of time would move like a gigantic 
hand of a gigantic clock.

And once this hand passes the event horizon, there pops an new universe 
out of nowhere, in a big bang.

And now we could also assume, these universes exist at the same time and 
kind of fold back into itself.

 From the whole picture we experience only our own part, where time runs 
into one single direction and we see only one universe (ours).

And we are in the centre of it.

But if you travel to the 'edge', you are also in the centre, but of yet 
a different universe.

TH

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

#2170612

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 03:46:01 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in
alt.atheism with message-id <e48uauFrdhhU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:

>Am 18.09.2016 15:35, schrieb Jeanne Douglas:
>
>>>>>>> Atheism says nothing about evolution, natural selection, animals,
>>>>>>> predators, creation of the universe or lies other than it wasn't a god
>>>>>>> responsible as the one and only tenet of athesism is that there are no
>>>>>>> supernatural beings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's it and all there is to it; no supernatural beings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then what created the universe? Watch chimp chase his own tail.
>>>>>
>>>>> First prove that it was created.
>>>>> Like your supposed god, it could have been here forever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> if it was here forever our sun would have burned up by now.
>>
>> Who said the solar system was as old as the universe?
>>
>> Even you should be embarrassed by this one.
>>
>
>The Universe is assumed to be roughly 13.6 billion years old and the 
>suns age is about 5 billion years (if I recall that correct).
>
>But even 13.6 billion years is only the age of OUR universe and this is 
>what we can see from our position here on Earth.
>
>I assume, that 'the universe' is only a subset from something larger.
>
>E.g. we could assume a timeline, which points into the opposite 
>direction, where our future is there the past.
>
>This would also create a universe, but we could not see it. Also someone 
>from there could not see us.
>
>Another possibility is a 'universe around the corner'. This would be a 
>universe, which belongs to an axis of time, that had an angle towards 
>our axis of time.
>
>This would also be invisible.
>
>We could now assume, that the axis of time would move like a gigantic 
>hand of a gigantic clock.
>
>And once this hand passes the event horizon, there pops an new universe 
>out of nowhere, in a big bang.
>
>And now we could also assume, these universes exist at the same time and 
>kind of fold back into itself.
>
> From the whole picture we experience only our own part, where time runs 
>into one single direction and we see only one universe (ours).
>
>And we are in the centre of it.
>
>But if you travel to the 'edge', you are also in the centre, but of yet 
>a different universe.
>
>TH
>
>
I counted fife 'assumes' in there, which is a lot even for a work of
fiction.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.

Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially 
those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor OBastard.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

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

#2170625

Am 19.09.2016 06:53, schrieb Attila <:


>>> Who said the solar system was as old as the universe?
>>>
>>> Even you should be embarrassed by this one.
>>>
>>
>> The Universe is assumed to be roughly 13.6 billion years old and the
>> suns age is about 5 billion years (if I recall that correct).
>>
>> But even 13.6 billion years is only the age of OUR universe and this is
>> what we can see from our position here on Earth.
>>
>> I assume, that 'the universe' is only a subset from something larger.
>>
>> E.g. we could assume a timeline, which points into the opposite
>> direction, where our future is there the past.
>>
>> This would also create a universe, but we could not see it. Also someone
>>from there could not see us.
>>
>> Another possibility is a 'universe around the corner'. This would be a
>> universe, which belongs to an axis of time, that had an angle towards
>> our axis of time.
>>
>> This would also be invisible.
>>
>> We could now assume, that the axis of time would move like a gigantic
>> hand of a gigantic clock.
>>
>> And once this hand passes the event horizon, there pops an new universe
>> out of nowhere, in a big bang.
>>
>> And now we could also assume, these universes exist at the same time and
>> kind of fold back into itself.
>>
>>  From the whole picture we experience only our own part, where time runs
>> into one single direction and we see only one universe (ours).
>>
>> And we are in the centre of it.
>>
>> But if you travel to the 'edge', you are also in the centre, but of yet
>> a different universe.
>>
>> TH
>>
>>
> I counted fife 'assumes' in there, which is a lot even for a work of
> fiction.

Yes, but assumptions are a central part of what is called 'scientific 
method'.

  Goes roughly like this:

You make up your mind and try to find something, that fits to 
observations. Now everybody is invited to defeat this assumptions and 
the hypothesis that survives is promoted to 'theory'.


Since this is actually a scientific group about relativity 
(sci.physics.relativity), you should not be surprised, if someone refers 
to General Relativity (as I did).

But if you like, you can try to disprove, what I have written.


I case you like to learn more about the universe functions, than I can 
provide my 'book' about a physical concept, which I have developed. That 
idea is called 'structured spacetime':

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

It's not really a book, but a google.doc presentation. It is written in 
English and contains about 150 pages.

I have to apologize for my English, since it is slightly less then 
perfect, but actually I'm German and English is a second language for me.

Also the form of the presentation could be a little nicer. But the use 
of google.docs for this purpose is quite difficult.

Anyhow: these 'structures' are assumed to be, what we call 'matter', 
'radiation' and 'fields'.

The world is assumed to be one large thing (->spacetime) which has 
internal structure (->you, me and all the rest).

What we call 'universe' is actually the visible subset. That is, what 
relativists call 'past light cone'. This is 'relative', which means, 
that to any observer belongs a different 'past light cone' ('universe'), 
since every observer is watching from a different position.

This position denotes something called 'Frame of reference' and if you 
fix this to the position, where the observer is, the remaining degree of 
freedom is called 'time'.

And since you can go to different places, you can have different timelines.


You see, relativity is actually quite easy and if you like to know more 
about this subject, you can have a look at my book.

But I should tell you, that (quite) a few relativists have different 
ideas and other interpretations of GR.



TH

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

#2170814

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 08:15:53 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> in
alt.atheism with message-id <e49e4uF57hU1@mid.individual.net> wrote:

>Am 19.09.2016 06:53, schrieb Attila <:
>
>
>>>> Who said the solar system was as old as the universe?
>>>>
>>>> Even you should be embarrassed by this one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Universe is assumed to be roughly 13.6 billion years old and the
>>> suns age is about 5 billion years (if I recall that correct).
>>>
>>> But even 13.6 billion years is only the age of OUR universe and this is
>>> what we can see from our position here on Earth.
>>>
>>> I assume, that 'the universe' is only a subset from something larger.
>>>
>>> E.g. we could assume a timeline, which points into the opposite
>>> direction, where our future is there the past.
>>>
>>> This would also create a universe, but we could not see it. Also someone
>>>from there could not see us.
>>>
>>> Another possibility is a 'universe around the corner'. This would be a
>>> universe, which belongs to an axis of time, that had an angle towards
>>> our axis of time.
>>>
>>> This would also be invisible.
>>>
>>> We could now assume, that the axis of time would move like a gigantic
>>> hand of a gigantic clock.
>>>
>>> And once this hand passes the event horizon, there pops an new universe
>>> out of nowhere, in a big bang.
>>>
>>> And now we could also assume, these universes exist at the same time and
>>> kind of fold back into itself.
>>>
>>>  From the whole picture we experience only our own part, where time runs
>>> into one single direction and we see only one universe (ours).
>>>
>>> And we are in the centre of it.
>>>
>>> But if you travel to the 'edge', you are also in the centre, but of yet
>>> a different universe.
>>>
>>> TH
>>>
>>>
>> I counted fife 'assumes' in there, which is a lot even for a work of
>> fiction.
>
>Yes, but assumptions are a central part of what is called 'scientific 
>method'.

Not really.  An hypothesis may be presented for testing but not an
assumption.

>
>  Goes roughly like this:
>
>You make up your mind and try to find something, that fits to 
>observations. Now everybody is invited to defeat this assumptions and 
>the hypothesis that survives is promoted to 'theory'.

No, the observed facts are interpreted and presented as an hypothesis.
As more facts are identified the hypothesis is supported or adjusted
to include the new facts.  Eventually there may be a large enough body
of evidence to justify formulating a theory but that does not always
happen.

>
>
>Since this is actually a scientific group about relativity 
>(sci.physics.relativity), you should not be surprised, if someone refers 
>to General Relativity (as I did).
>
>But if you like, you can try to disprove, what I have written.
>
>
>I case you like to learn more about the universe functions, than I can 
>provide my 'book' about a physical concept, which I have developed. That 
>idea is called 'structured spacetime':
>
>https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>
>It's not really a book, but a google.doc presentation. It is written in 
>English and contains about 150 pages.
>
>I have to apologize for my English, since it is slightly less then 
>perfect, but actually I'm German and English is a second language for me.
>
>Also the form of the presentation could be a little nicer. But the use 
>of google.docs for this purpose is quite difficult.
>
>Anyhow: these 'structures' are assumed to be, what we call 'matter', 
>'radiation' and 'fields'.
>
>The world is assumed to be one large thing (->spacetime) which has 
>internal structure (->you, me and all the rest).
>
>What we call 'universe' is actually the visible subset. That is, what 
>relativists call 'past light cone'. This is 'relative', which means, 
>that to any observer belongs a different 'past light cone' ('universe'), 
>since every observer is watching from a different position.
>
>This position denotes something called 'Frame of reference' and if you 
>fix this to the position, where the observer is, the remaining degree of 
>freedom is called 'time'.
>
>And since you can go to different places, you can have different timelines.
>
>
>You see, relativity is actually quite easy and if you like to know more 
>about this subject, you can have a look at my book.
>
>But I should tell you, that (quite) a few relativists have different 
>ideas and other interpretations of GR.
>
>
>
>TH

I am not about to bother with any of that.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.

Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying, especially 
those proposed by His Imperial Majesty Emperor OBastard.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government 
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

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

#2170931

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 19.09.2016 06:53, schrieb Attila <:

> 
>>>> Who said the solar system was as old as the universe?
>>>> 
>>>> Even you should be embarrassed by this one.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> The Universe is assumed to be roughly 13.6 billion years old and the
>>> suns age is about 5 billion years (if I recall that correct).
>>> 
>>> But even 13.6 billion years is only the age of OUR universe and this is
>>> what we can see from our position here on Earth.
>>> 
>>> I assume, that 'the universe' is only a subset from something larger.
>>> 
>>> E.g. we could assume a timeline, which points into the opposite
>>> direction, where our future is there the past.
>>> 
>>> This would also create a universe, but we could not see it. Also someone
>>> from there could not see us.
>>> 
>>> Another possibility is a 'universe around the corner'. This would be a
>>> universe, which belongs to an axis of time, that had an angle towards
>>> our axis of time.
>>> 
>>> This would also be invisible.
>>> 
>>> We could now assume, that the axis of time would move like a gigantic
>>> hand of a gigantic clock.
>>> 
>>> And once this hand passes the event horizon, there pops an new universe
>>> out of nowhere, in a big bang.
>>> 
>>> And now we could also assume, these universes exist at the same time and
>>> kind of fold back into itself.
>>> 
>>> From the whole picture we experience only our own part, where time runs
>>> into one single direction and we see only one universe (ours).
>>> 
>>> And we are in the centre of it.
>>> 
>>> But if you travel to the 'edge', you are also in the centre, but of yet
>>> a different universe.
>>> 
>>> TH
>>> 
>>> 
>> I counted fife 'assumes' in there, which is a lot even for a work of
>> fiction.
> 
> Yes, but assumptions are a central part of what is called 'scientific 
> method'.
> 
>  Goes roughly like this:
> 
> You make up your mind and try to find something, that fits to 
> observations. Now everybody is invited to defeat this assumptions and 
> the hypothesis that survives is promoted to 'theory'.

Actually you've hard the process explained to you many times with enough
citations and references some in your own native language. You were wrong
then and then wrong now.

The observation takes place 1st then speculation above how what you
observed happened, then from that speculation a hypothesis can be formed.
Then after testing, you may have to revise your hypothesis and retest.
Eventually you might come up with a theory.

Observation comes 1st. 

IIRC Your so called expertise was in engineering. Not physics? Certainly
not higher mathematics.


> 
> Since this is actually a scientific group about relativity 
> (sci.physics.relativity), you should not be surprised, if someone refers 
> to General Relativity (as I did).
> 
> But if you like, you can try to disprove, what I have written.
> 

Already done... now go away. You spent far too much money on art work and
not math.

> I case you like to learn more about the universe functions, than I can 
> provide my 'book' about a physical concept, which I have developed. That 
> idea is called 'structured spacetime':
> 
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

Don't bother, the presentation is so bad, a high school physics student can
debunk it.


Thomas Cleese was talking about you in this video.. go watch it.



-- 
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms. 
 John Cleese on Stupidity  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU

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

#2171045

Am 20.09.2016 03:02, schrieb Bob Officer:
> Thomas Heger<ttt_heg@web.de>  wrote:
>> Am 19.09.2016 06:53, schrieb Attila<:
>
>>
>>>>> Who said the solar system was as old as the universe?
>>>>>
>>>>> Even you should be embarrassed by this one.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Universe is assumed to be roughly 13.6 billion years old and the
>>>> suns age is about 5 billion years (if I recall that correct).
>>>>
>>>> But even 13.6 billion years is only the age of OUR universe and this is
>>>> what we can see from our position here on Earth.
>>>>
>>>> I assume, that 'the universe' is only a subset from something larger.
>>>>
>>>> E.g. we could assume a timeline, which points into the opposite
>>>> direction, where our future is there the past.
>>>>
>>>> This would also create a universe, but we could not see it. Also someone
>>>> from there could not see us.
>>>>
>>>> Another possibility is a 'universe around the corner'. This would be a
>>>> universe, which belongs to an axis of time, that had an angle towards
>>>> our axis of time.
>>>>
>>>> This would also be invisible.
>>>>
>>>> We could now assume, that the axis of time would move like a gigantic
>>>> hand of a gigantic clock.
>>>>
>>>> And once this hand passes the event horizon, there pops an new universe
>>>> out of nowhere, in a big bang.
>>>>
>>>> And now we could also assume, these universes exist at the same time and
>>>> kind of fold back into itself.
>>>>
>>>>  From the whole picture we experience only our own part, where time runs
>>>> into one single direction and we see only one universe (ours).
>>>>
>>>> And we are in the centre of it.
>>>>
>>>> But if you travel to the 'edge', you are also in the centre, but of yet
>>>> a different universe.
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I counted fife 'assumes' in there, which is a lot even for a work of
>>> fiction.
>>
>> Yes, but assumptions are a central part of what is called 'scientific
>> method'.
>>
>>   Goes roughly like this:
>>
>> You make up your mind and try to find something, that fits to
>> observations. Now everybody is invited to defeat this assumptions and
>> the hypothesis that survives is promoted to 'theory'.
>
> Actually you've hard the process explained to you many times with enough
> citations and references some in your own native language. You were wrong
> then and then wrong now.
>
> The observation takes place 1st then speculation above how what you
> observed happened, then from that speculation a hypothesis can be formed.
> Then after testing, you may have to revise your hypothesis and retest.
> Eventually you might come up with a theory.
>
> Observation comes 1st.

This depends a little on what kind of field you try to cover.

Theoretical physics on a fundamental level is about things, that cannot 
be observed directly.

You cannot observe things, that are far too small for any known 
instrument. So we have to speculate in this realm and can only use 
imagination and the findings on scales, where things are somehow observable.

If you now try to bring these entities on different scales into one 
single and logical framework, you actually need to guess.

Most of these guesses lead to nothing, so you have to repeat the 
process, until you find something fitting.

My own method was to search for similarities between Relativity and 
Quantum mechanics, while I started at the GR side.

So I tried to find ways, to build particles out of spacetime.

My approach is called 'structured spacetime' and based on a certain type 
of quaternions.

This method seems fitting and is now my assumption (guess, hypothesis).

This I have written down, made quotes and nice illustrations and made it 
publicly available.

So far my work is done and I can wait for replies.



> IIRC Your so called expertise was in engineering. Not physics? Certainly
> not higher mathematics.

Actually I was quite good in mathematics and once won a (small) price.

>>
>> Since this is actually a scientific group about relativity
>> (sci.physics.relativity), you should not be surprised, if someone refers
>> to General Relativity (as I did).
>>
>> But if you like, you can try to disprove, what I have written.
>>
>
> Already done... now go away. You spent far too much money on art work and
> not math.

Something I have little is actually money. So the 'book' is mainly a 'no 
budget project'.

Math of the required type is difficult. But fortunately other authors 
have written about complex four-vectors and Pauli algebra.


>
>> I case you like to learn more about the universe functions, than I can
>> provide my 'book' about a physical concept, which I have developed. That
>> idea is called 'structured spacetime':
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>
> Don't bother, the presentation is so bad, a high school physics student can
> debunk it.
>

Then feel free to do that.


TH

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

#2171298

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 20.09.2016 03:02, schrieb Bob Officer:
>> Thomas Heger<ttt_heg@web.de>  wrote:
>>> Am 19.09.2016 06:53, schrieb Attila<:
>> 

Note: follow-ups set to proper group.
>>>>>> Who said the solar system was as old as the universe?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Even you should be embarrassed by this one.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Universe is assumed to be roughly 13.6 billion years old and the
>>>>> suns age is about 5 billion years (if I recall that correct).
>>>>> 
>>>>> But even 13.6 billion years is only the age of OUR universe and this is
>>>>> what we can see from our position here on Earth.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I assume, that 'the universe' is only a subset from something larger.
>>>>> 
>>>>> E.g. we could assume a timeline, which points into the opposite
>>>>> direction, where our future is there the past.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This would also create a universe, but we could not see it. Also someone
>>>>> from there could not see us.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Another possibility is a 'universe around the corner'. This would be a
>>>>> universe, which belongs to an axis of time, that had an angle towards
>>>>> our axis of time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This would also be invisible.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We could now assume, that the axis of time would move like a gigantic
>>>>> hand of a gigantic clock.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And once this hand passes the event horizon, there pops an new universe
>>>>> out of nowhere, in a big bang.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And now we could also assume, these universes exist at the same time and
>>>>> kind of fold back into itself.
>>>>> 
>>>>> From the whole picture we experience only our own part, where time runs
>>>>> into one single direction and we see only one universe (ours).
>>>>> 
>>>>> And we are in the centre of it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But if you travel to the 'edge', you are also in the centre, but of yet
>>>>> a different universe.
>>>>> 
>>>>> TH
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> I counted fife 'assumes' in there, which is a lot even for a work of
>>>> fiction.
>>> 
>>> Yes, but assumptions are a central part of what is called 'scientific
>>> method'.
>>> 
>>> Goes roughly like this:
>>> 
>>> You make up your mind and try to find something, that fits to
>>> observations. Now everybody is invited to defeat this assumptions and
>>> the hypothesis that survives is promoted to 'theory'.
>> 
>> Actually you've hard the process explained to you many times with enough
>> citations and references some in your own native language. You were wrong
>> then and then wrong now.
>> 
>> The observation takes place 1st then speculation above how what you
>> observed happened, then from that speculation a hypothesis can be formed.
>> Then after testing, you may have to revise your hypothesis and retest.
>> Eventually you might come up with a theory.
>> 
>> Observation comes 1st.
> 
> This depends a little on what kind of field you try to cover.

Wrong. Oh ignorant one.

> Theoretical physics on a fundamental level is about things, that cannot 
> be observed directly.

And indirect observation is still an observation.

> You cannot observe things, that are far too small for any known 
> instrument. So we have to speculate in this realm and can only use 
> imagination and the findings on scales, where things are somehow observable.

nope.

> If you now try to bring these entities on different scales into one 
> single and logical framework, you actually need to guess.

Nope.

> Most of these guesses lead to nothing, so you have to repeat the 
> process, until you find something fitting.

Still wrong

> My own method was to search for similarities between Relativity and 
> Quantum mechanics, while I started at the GR side.

Your method is called pseudo science, Thomas. And that has fully explained
to you elsewhere.

> So I tried to find ways, to build particles out of spacetime.

Nonsense, Thomas, you write fiction. Nothing more than fiction and you've
convinced yourself this fiction is somehow science.

> My approach is called 'structured spacetime' and based on a certain type 
> of quaternions.

Nonsense you made up. It is called fiction Thomas.

> This method seems fitting and is now my assumption (guess, hypothesis).

Ridiculous and baseless speculation, Thomas.
 
> This I have written down, made quotes and nice illustrations and made it 
> publicly available.

That work doesn't mean there is one iota of fact, any more that a series of
books were written about a boy flying on a broom and several movies were
made make the story true. fiction is imaginary and like your book not based
in reality.

> So far my work is done and I can wait for replies.

You had. One months ago and I detailed the actually errors on the 1st dozen
pages. It is garbage.
You wasted your time and effort in the useless exercise of mental self
gratification.

> 
>> IIRC Your so called expertise was in engineering. Not physics? Certainly
>> not higher mathematics.
> 
> Actually I was quite good in mathematics and once won a (small) price.

I was paid to use mathematics professionally, real life applications. It is
called engineering. You tripe is a failed exercise of mental self
gratification.

>>> Since this is actually a scientific group about relativity
>>> (sci.physics.relativity), you should not be surprised, if someone refers
>>> to General Relativity (as I did).
>>> 
>>> But if you like, you can try to disprove, what I have written.
>>> 
>> 
>> Already done... now go away. You spent far too much money on art work and
>> not math.
> 
> Something I have little is actually money. So the 'book' is mainly a 'no 
> budget project'.

Did you dump you wastrel hanger-on. Your the only person I know of that
actually failed at owning and operating a drinking establishment because
your lover was giving his other boyfriend free drinks and taking money from
the till.
> 
> Math of the required type is difficult. But fortunately other authors 
> have written about complex four-vectors and Pauli algebra.

And failed completely. You do understand why four vector math was
developed, and why Pauli went to effort to write that matrix.

You do understand your work would be scoff t by Pauli and his contemporary
as nothing by idiocy.


>>> I case you like to learn more about the universe functions, than I can
>>> provide my 'book' about a physical concept, which I have developed. That
>>> idea is called 'structured spacetime':
>>> 
>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>> 
>> Don't bother, the presentation is so bad, a high school physics student can
>> debunk it.
>> 
> 
> Then feel free to do that.

Already done Thomas don't you remember. You left that group, running away,
just like you will t
Leave these groups.



-- 
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms. 
 John Cleese on Stupidity  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU

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

#2171483

Am 20.09.2016 22:04, schrieb Bob Officer:

>>>> I case you like to learn more about the universe functions, than I can
>>>> provide my 'book' about a physical concept, which I have developed. That
>>>> idea is called 'structured spacetime':
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>>
>>> Don't bother, the presentation is so bad, a high school physics student can
>>> debunk it.
>>>
>>
>> Then feel free to do that.
>
> Already done Thomas don't you remember. You left that group, running away,



Yes, I DO in fact remember your 'name', but have quite unpleasant 
memories about it.

You're among the people, who have flooded a group about alternative 
medicine, what you mistakenly think is yours.

I have taken part in a few discussions in this group, but found myself 
confronted with the wardens of this group, who planned to control what 
is published there.


But alternative medicine is not really my subject. So 'your' group is no 
big loss for me.

I came there like you came here: by crossposting.

So I posted a certain idea to this group, which I had about autism. It 
says, that Autism is caused by a bacterium in the digestion system, 
which is a close relative to clostridium thetani.

I still think it's a good idea, but it released kind of 'shitstorm'.

So, no, thanks..

There were other 'wardens', who apparently try to scare people away. And 
some of your colleges stalks people in alt.conspiracy now. Other groups 
are also infected with this 'disease'.

I always wondered, what motivates people like you. I'm actually 
insecure, if you are actually people.

Other possibilities are, that there exist software in the wast 
IT-systems of the NSA, which produces natural language. And programmers 
use the UseNet as kind of training ground.

Such software could possibly also speak in the natural voice of 
arbitrary people. And combined with the artificial intelligence, that 
produce spam in the UseNet, the software can eventually create 
conversations, which people could not distinguish from conversations 
with real humans (Turing test by smartphone).

Another possibility, that I try to evaluate goes like this:
there are people, that belong to certain sects, which promote 'inverted 
moral'. Once a initiate proves he's capable of convincing a number of 
people about ridiculous crap, he gets promoted to the next level. And 
certain people utilise the UseNet for this purpose.

Or it is actually common practise among certain people, to behave like 
'intellectual wardens', who defend the status quo against any kind of 
progress.




TH

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

#2171914

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 20.09.2016 22:04, schrieb Bob Officer:
> 
>>>>> I case you like to learn more about the universe functions, than I can
>>>>> provide my 'book' about a physical concept, which I have developed. That
>>>>> idea is called 'structured spacetime':
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>>> 
>>>> Don't bother, the presentation is so bad, a high school physics student can
>>>> debunk it.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Then feel free to do that.
>> 
>> Already done Thomas don't you remember. You left that group, running away,
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I DO in fact remember your 'name', but have quite unpleasant 
> memories about it.

It should, your idiocy was fully exposed there, just as it is here.

> You're among the people, who have flooded a group about alternative 
> medicine, what you mistakenly think is yours.

Because I point out that this so called alternative medicine is a basic
scam.

> I have taken part in a few discussions in this group, but found myself 
> confronted with the wardens of this group, who planned to control what 
> is published there.

In an unmoderated group, no one controls what is published. 
Do you have another lie of yours to tell?

> But alternative medicine is not really my subject. So 'your' group is no 
> big loss for me.

And physics is no loss if you left it also.

> I came there like you came here: by crossposting.

Are you sure?

> 
> So I posted a certain idea to this group, which I had about autism. It 
> says, that Autism is caused by a bacterium in the digestion system, 
> which is a close relative to clostridium thetani.

Well that seems to be a new stupid idea for you.

> I still think it's a good idea, but it released kind of 'shitstorm'.
> 
> So, no, thanks..

It was nonsense then and still is, Thomas.

> There were other 'wardens', who apparently try to scare people away. And 
> some of your colleges stalks people in alt.conspiracy now. Other groups 
> are also infected with this 'disease'.

Critical thinking is not a disease, Thomas.

> I always wondered, what motivates people like you. I'm actually 
> insecure, if you are actually people.

Your an idiot not insecure, an insecure person would have never posted to
USENET.

> Other possibilities are, that there exist software in the wast 
> IT-systems of the NSA, which produces natural language. And programmers 
> use the UseNet as kind of training ground.

Oh this is funny...

> Such software could possibly also speak in the natural voice of 
> arbitrary people. And combined with the artificial intelligence, that 
> produce spam in the UseNet, the software can eventually create 
> conversations, which people could not distinguish from conversations 
> with real humans (Turing test by smartphone).

Do you take idiot pills, Thomas? Or are you naturally this stupid?

> Another possibility, that I try to evaluate goes like this:
> there are people, that belong to certain sects, which promote 'inverted 
> moral'. Once a initiate proves he's capable of convincing a number of 
> people about ridiculous crap, he gets promoted to the next level. And 
> certain people utilise the UseNet for this purpose.
> 
> Or it is actually common practise among certain people, to behave like 
> 'intellectual wardens', who defend the status quo against any kind of 
> progress.

Always the victim, Thomas?



-- 
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms. 
 John Cleese on Stupidity  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU

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

#2172274

Am 22.09.2016 03:16, schrieb Bob Officer:

>>>>>> I case you like to learn more about the universe functions, than I can
>>>>>> provide my 'book' about a physical concept, which I have developed. That
>>>>>> idea is called 'structured spacetime':
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't bother, the presentation is so bad, a high school physics student can
>>>>> debunk it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then feel free to do that.
>>>
>>> Already done Thomas don't you remember. You left that group, running away,
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, I DO in fact remember your 'name', but have quite unpleasant
>> memories about it.
>
> It should, your idiocy was fully exposed there, just as it is here.
>
>> You're among the people, who have flooded a group about alternative
>> medicine, what you mistakenly think is yours.
>
> Because I point out that this so called alternative medicine is a basic
> scam.


Drug-based medicine is actually the 'alternative medicine'.

Prior to the 20th century medicine was in almost any case, what now 
falls into the realm commonly called 'medicine'.

But there existed medicine before the 20th century.


E.g. traditional Chinese medicine was an ancient form of medicine and 
was accepted and highly developed.

The modern form of curing a disease with a pill or two, is actually 
quite young.

So you could regard this system and the idea of synthetic drugs as 
'alternative'. It's the alternative to collecting herbs and to grind 
Tiger bones or so.

Other forms of medicine fall gradually out of fashion, like physical 
treatment. E.g. acupuncture or water treatment were once regarded as 
medicine.


The problem is, that people are not that happy with the system and look 
for alternatives to pills.

This is, what makes them look at traditional methods, what pills were 
actually the alternative for.



TH

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

#2172606

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 22.09.2016 03:16, schrieb Bob Officer:
> 
>>>>>>> I case you like to learn more about the universe functions, than I can
>>>>>>> provide my 'book' about a physical concept, which I have developed. That
>>>>>>> idea is called 'structured spacetime':
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Don't bother, the presentation is so bad, a high school physics student can
>>>>>> debunk it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Then feel free to do that.
>>>> 
>>>> Already done Thomas don't you remember. You left that group, running away,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yes, I DO in fact remember your 'name', but have quite unpleasant
>>> memories about it.
>> 
>> It should, your idiocy was fully exposed there, just as it is here.
>> 
>>> You're among the people, who have flooded a group about alternative
>>> medicine, what you mistakenly think is yours.
>> 
>> Because I point out that this so called alternative medicine is a basic
>> scam.
> 
> 
> Drug-based medicine is actually the 'alternative medicine'.

Today we have medicine which works and alternative medicine which doesn't.


> Prior to the 20th century medicine was in almost any case, what now 
> falls into the realm commonly called 'medicine'.
> 
> But there existed medicine before the 20th century.

Modern medicine dates to about mid 1820 with the rejection of Galanism,
Paracelsusism and Homeopathy.

> E.g. traditional Chinese medicine was an ancient form of medicine and 
> was accepted and highly developed.

But often works so poorly a placebo does better. Careful analysis of so
called traditional Chinese medicine is loaded with various heavy metals
which actually do more harm than good.


> The modern form of curing a disease with a pill or two, is actually 
> quite young.
> 
> So you could regard this system and the idea of synthetic drugs as 
> 'alternative'. It's the alternative to collecting herbs and to grind 
> Tiger bones or so.

Only in your warped mind.

> Other forms of medicine fall gradually out of fashion, like physical 
> treatment. E.g. acupuncture or water treatment were once regarded as 
> medicine.

No it was always considered alternative.


> The problem is, that people are not that happy with the system and look 
> for alternatives to pills.
> 
> This is, what makes them look at traditional methods, what pills were 
> actually the alternative for.

The pills were Delores because the other just didn't work as claimed.





-- 
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms. 
 John Cleese on Stupidity  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvVPdyYeaQU

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

#2172674 — Re: Theism is Witchcraft

Atheism is absence of witchraft!

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

#2172705

On 23/09/2016 13:03, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.09.2016 03:16, schrieb Bob Officer:
>
>>>>>>> I case you like to learn more about the universe functions, than
>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>> provide my 'book' about a physical concept, which I have
>>>>>>> developed. That
>>>>>>> idea is called 'structured spacetime':
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't bother, the presentation is so bad, a high school physics
>>>>>> student can
>>>>>> debunk it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then feel free to do that.
>>>>
>>>> Already done Thomas don't you remember. You left that group, running
>>>> away,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I DO in fact remember your 'name', but have quite unpleasant
>>> memories about it.
>>
>> It should, your idiocy was fully exposed there, just as it is here.
>>
>>> You're among the people, who have flooded a group about alternative
>>> medicine, what you mistakenly think is yours.
>>
>> Because I point out that this so called alternative medicine is a basic
>> scam.
>
>
> Drug-based medicine is actually the 'alternative medicine'.
>
> Prior to the 20th century medicine was in almost any case, what now
> falls into the realm commonly called 'medicine'.
>
> But there existed medicine before the 20th century.

Yes ... superstitious folk remedies whose chances of success were little 
better than random.


>
>
> E.g. traditional Chinese medicine was an ancient form of medicine and
> was accepted and highly developed.
>
> The modern form of curing a disease with a pill or two, is actually
> quite young.

And it has conquered the planet because it *works*.  The alternative 
name for Western medicine is "evidence-based medicine" -- because its 
treatments and procedures and drugs are tested, again and again, and 
again.

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

#2172929

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 17:25:57 +1000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 23/09/2016 13:03, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 22.09.2016 03:16, schrieb Bob Officer:
>>
>>>>>>>> I case you like to learn more about the universe functions, than
>>>>>>>> I can
>>>>>>>> provide my 'book' about a physical concept, which I have
>>>>>>>> developed. That
>>>>>>>> idea is called 'structured spacetime':
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't bother, the presentation is so bad, a high school physics
>>>>>>> student can
>>>>>>> debunk it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then feel free to do that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Already done Thomas don't you remember. You left that group, running
>>>>> away,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I DO in fact remember your 'name', but have quite unpleasant
>>>> memories about it.
>>>
>>> It should, your idiocy was fully exposed there, just as it is here.
>>>
>>>> You're among the people, who have flooded a group about alternative
>>>> medicine, what you mistakenly think is yours.
>>>
>>> Because I point out that this so called alternative medicine is a basic
>>> scam.
>>
>>
>> Drug-based medicine is actually the 'alternative medicine'.
>>
>> Prior to the 20th century medicine was in almost any case, what now
>> falls into the realm commonly called 'medicine'.
>>
>> But there existed medicine before the 20th century.
>
>Yes ... superstitious folk remedies whose chances of success were little 
>better than random.

In most cases, yes, but not always. Some modern medicines are derived
from folk remedies. Even in ancient times people knew that certain
plants had healing properties, although they didn't know why.

>
>
>>
>>
>> E.g. traditional Chinese medicine was an ancient form of medicine and
>> was accepted and highly developed.
>>
>> The modern form of curing a disease with a pill or two, is actually
>> quite young.
>
>And it has conquered the planet because it *works*.  The alternative 
>name for Western medicine is "evidence-based medicine" -- because its 
>treatments and procedures and drugs are tested, again and again, and 
>again.
>

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

#2173010

On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 15:03:53 -0400, John Baker wrote:

> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 17:25:57 +1000, "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> 
>>On 23/09/2016 13:03, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 22.09.2016 03:16, schrieb Bob Officer:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> I case you like to learn more about the universe functions, than
>>>>>>>>> I can provide my 'book' about a physical concept, which I have
>>>>>>>>> developed. That idea is called 'structured spacetime':
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't bother, the presentation is so bad, a high school physics
>>>>>>>> student can debunk it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then feel free to do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Already done Thomas don't you remember. You left that group,
>>>>>> running away,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I DO in fact remember your 'name', but have quite unpleasant
>>>>> memories about it.
>>>>
>>>> It should, your idiocy was fully exposed there, just as it is here.
>>>>
>>>>> You're among the people, who have flooded a group about alternative
>>>>> medicine, what you mistakenly think is yours.
>>>>
>>>> Because I point out that this so called alternative medicine is a
>>>> basic scam.
>>>
>>> Drug-based medicine is actually the 'alternative medicine'.
>>>
>>> Prior to the 20th century medicine was in almost any case, what now
>>> falls into the realm commonly called 'medicine'.
>>>
>>> But there existed medicine before the 20th century.
>>
>>Yes ... superstitious folk remedies whose chances of success were little
>>better than random.
> 
> In most cases, yes, but not always. Some modern medicines are derived
> from folk remedies. Even in ancient times people knew that certain
> plants had healing properties, although they didn't know why.

Eg. Aspirin

-- 
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made 
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism

csiph-web