Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #392061 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-11 12:43 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-09-14 03:58 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 416 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-11 12:43 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Normal Human <NH@....> - 2016-09-12 08:01 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-11 15:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-11 16:28 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-09-12 00:06 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 07:31 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-12 12:57 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 05:59 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-12 08:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 07:04 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-12 14:26 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 19:18 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-12 12:37 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-12 22:43 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:14 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-12 22:18 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 06:45 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-12 23:56 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 08:16 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 00:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 22:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 20:53 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-14 20:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 01:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 08:23 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 03:33 -0400
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-15 11:29 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 20:44 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-16 06:34 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 20:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-15 19:05 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-16 10:25 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 22:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 19:25 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 06:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 22:57 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 08:16 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-17 07:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-17 11:54 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-18 09:55 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 04:26 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 16:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 11:29 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 09:59 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 03:25 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-18 20:56 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 00:48 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 16:11 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 15:28 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 11:37 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 23:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 12:12 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 03:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 19:14 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 10:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 09:28 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-22 00:12 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 03:50 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 18:17 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 02:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-22 02:35 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 10:13 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 12:37 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-23 14:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 10:35 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 05:55 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 05:13 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 19:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-25 17:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 06:44 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-25 22:40 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-26 17:56 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-26 23:09 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-27 19:02 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 20:23 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-28 10:18 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-28 03:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-28 11:41 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-28 20:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-28 04:48 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-28 18:10 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-29 10:07 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-29 08:04 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-27 06:43 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-27 19:06 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-27 05:08 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-27 20:28 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-28 01:17 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 23:55 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-28 15:04 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-29 00:03 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 00:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 00:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-29 15:48 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 23:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-28 11:50 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-27 22:30 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-28 14:58 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:07 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Dreamer In Colore <dreamerincolore@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-27 10:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-19 16:08 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 08:53 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 15:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 17:27 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 10:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-20 09:40 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 03:58 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 12:05 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 04:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-19 20:31 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 23:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 00:15 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-20 11:51 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 23:14 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-20 23:38 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 22:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-21 11:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 04:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 21:42 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-21 16:22 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 10:11 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 08:34 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-21 23:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 17:37 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 22:23 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 12:38 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 06:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 02:28 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-22 22:11 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-09-22 22:25 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 04:36 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 16:18 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 02:38 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 18:20 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 09:30 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 18:17 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-23 02:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 10:47 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-23 18:43 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-24 04:29 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-24 17:29 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-23 23:20 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-23 16:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-23 15:05 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-24 02:22 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-24 16:26 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-25 05:32 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-25 15:50 +0000
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 01:05 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 15:30 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-22 18:14 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-21 17:36 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 17:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-22 01:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 04:02 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 17:41 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 10:18 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 11:26 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-23 04:51 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 22:53 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-23 16:35 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-24 02:22 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-22 22:52 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 09:53 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-23 03:04 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 21:08 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-24 12:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-24 16:28 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-09-25 11:59 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-25 13:58 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-09-23 12:52 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 21:49 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-25 23:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 10:46 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 04:15 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 14:17 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 23:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-27 10:32 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-27 04:57 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 09:30 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-20 20:12 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft John Ritson <j.ritson@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-09-21 21:47 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:18 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:19 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-17 16:28 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 18:52 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-18 09:57 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 00:20 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 06:20 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 23:36 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 15:26 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 20:06 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-19 20:19 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 23:22 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-19 23:56 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ted&Alice <sam.m.tedesco@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 00:18 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 12:32 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-21 05:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-21 14:15 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-09-22 10:13 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 04:03 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-09-22 11:51 -0500
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-22 11:04 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-22 14:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 04:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 16:04 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 15:31 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 11:31 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Hot-Text" <hot-text@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-01 20:26 -0500
To A Atheism The Science Of Language Is Rrelativity "Hot-Text" <hot-text@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-19 15:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:13 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 07:01 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-12 22:29 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 08:21 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 00:05 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-19 18:59 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 00:23 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-19 17:48 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-20 08:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 12:56 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-13 07:49 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-13 18:03 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 21:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 06:27 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 02:45 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 11:14 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 06:44 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 12:31 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 07:57 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 15:02 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 03:02 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-15 15:38 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 03:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-15 15:29 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 02:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-15 14:57 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-09-15 19:37 +0100
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-14 01:34 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-14 11:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-14 19:45 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-14 14:43 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 07:01 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 22:58 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 23:13 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 03:49 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 08:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-25 06:40 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Hot-Text" <hot-text@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-16 18:57 -0500
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:15 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:33 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 19:37 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:05 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 00:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 00:34 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 09:07 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 09:21 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-13 09:42 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-14 10:21 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-14 14:37 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-14 12:06 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 09:10 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-13 17:21 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 19:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-14 03:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-13 20:33 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 22:09 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-13 20:55 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-14 20:47 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-14 01:16 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 22:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-13 21:12 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 09:32 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-14 17:38 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 23:32 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-14 23:15 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-15 03:33 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 23:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 08:52 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-15 18:01 +1000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 02:50 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-15 22:48 +0200
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-09-15 15:02 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-15 19:23 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-16 02:58 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-16 08:16 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-16 01:15 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-15 23:41 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-18 13:26 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-18 21:01 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 00:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-19 17:31 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-19 23:16 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-19 21:38 -0700
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-19 23:37 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-19 23:58 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 10:36 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 09:59 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 15:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 22:28 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 10:34 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 18:38 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-20 15:14 -0400
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-20 13:46 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-20 20:46 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-15 22:52 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 17:45 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-15 17:15 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 21:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 04:23 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 16:11 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 21:51 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 21:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-17 01:56 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 08:30 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-17 07:10 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 04:14 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 16:25 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 16:44 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-17 19:42 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 06:50 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-09-17 23:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-18 20:14 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-18 15:06 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-30 06:33 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-29 23:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-30 02:59 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-01 10:10 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-30 02:54 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-30 02:06 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-30 11:17 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-30 14:07 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-30 23:11 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-01 08:52 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-10-01 05:00 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-02 07:39 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-10-02 02:24 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 11:53 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-10-02 09:01 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-02 18:02 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-02 11:02 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-09 05:52 +0200
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-10-09 00:09 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Hello Thomas <tsp2opt@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 07:24 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-08 07:15 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-10-08 12:36 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-08 22:56 +0200
Re: Atheism is NOT Witchcraft Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-10-08 15:33 -0600
Re: Atheism is NOT Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-10-09 05:42 +0200
Re: Atheism is NOT Witchcraft A Nony Mouse <abc@cef.ghi> - 2016-10-09 00:14 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-17 12:27 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-17 17:26 +0000
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-17 11:48 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-17 12:54 -0500
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-17 12:47 -0600
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 20:50 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-17 17:31 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-18 00:41 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-09-18 15:36 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-17 12:00 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-17 17:25 -0400
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 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
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-20 13:09 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-18 00:50 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 20:44 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-16 17:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 21:51 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-16 02:49 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 03:47 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-16 05:57 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:12 -0400
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-09-16 16:22 -0500
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-17 19:00 +0200
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Attila <<prochoice@here.now> - 2016-09-14 03:58 -0400
Page 19 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 Next page →
| From | Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 12:47 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Theism is Witchcraft |
| Message-ID | <aaa-59E3AC.12472717092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #392721 |
In article <qtvqtbp9cqhagtv8umbbnlab0j3aq21g5f@4ax.com>, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> wrote: > Far too many theists try to attack atheists by lying about things that > are nothing to do with atheism. True!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 20:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e45hk6F2cl1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #392719 |
Am 17.09.2016 19:26, schrieb jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com: >> Darwin was an evil British idiot. >> >> He is among the ancestors of Naziism and a line can be drawn from him >> personally to various 'bad guys'. >> >> But Darwin was extremely wrong in various aspects of his theory. For >> instance he assumed competition as main principle of nature. >> >> Only this is not true, since he completely ignored cooperation between a >> variety of species. >> >> He also miscalculated the age of the Earth by a factor of 10,000 and >> that is extremely large. >> >> But more questionable than scientific errors were his political goals, >> since in the line of succession we find 'Eugenics'. >> >> There it gets criminal, since the Eugenics movement was responsible for >> real crimes, which they pretended to be justified by the 'purification >> of the races'. > > And all that has just what to do with athesism? Well, nothing, since I have not written about atheism. This thread is now meandering between several groups and I reply to those parts, that show up in sci.physics.relativity. I actually leave this alt.atheism group, since I usually do not alter the header in most cases. This is because changed follow-ups would disrupt a discussion with people, who are regulars to other groups. So I'm not an expert in atheism. But if you like to know something about relativity, than feel free to ask. I'm also a regular in alt.conspiracy and some of my ideas stem from there. So if you want to know something about a conspiracy, then eventually I have an answer. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 17:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57ddb62c$0$62163$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #392719 |
On 9/17/2016 1:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >> Am 17.09.2016 03:56, schrieb jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com: >> >>>> 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. >> >> Darwin was an evil British idiot. >> >> He is among the ancestors of Naziism and a line can be drawn from him >> personally to various 'bad guys'. >> >> But Darwin was extremely wrong in various aspects of his theory. For >> instance he assumed competition as main principle of nature. >> >> Only this is not true, since he completely ignored cooperation between a >> variety of species. >> >> He also miscalculated the age of the Earth by a factor of 10,000 and >> that is extremely large. >> >> But more questionable than scientific errors were his political goals, >> since in the line of succession we find 'Eugenics'. >> >> There it gets criminal, since the Eugenics movement was responsible for >> real crimes, which they pretended to be justified by the 'purification >> of the races'. >> >> >> TH > > And all that has just what to do with athesism? > > Atheists don't believe in supernatural beings. They believe in creation by evolootion. And since animals don't believe in morality, neither do atheists. To atheists killing people who get in your way means no more than it does to an animal who does likewise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 00:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mf41bd-6dd.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #392753 |
In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 9/17/2016 1:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>> Am 17.09.2016 03:56, schrieb jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com: >>> >>>>> 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. >>> >>> Darwin was an evil British idiot. >>> >>> He is among the ancestors of Naziism and a line can be drawn from him >>> personally to various 'bad guys'. >>> >>> But Darwin was extremely wrong in various aspects of his theory. For >>> instance he assumed competition as main principle of nature. >>> >>> Only this is not true, since he completely ignored cooperation between a >>> variety of species. >>> >>> He also miscalculated the age of the Earth by a factor of 10,000 and >>> that is extremely large. >>> >>> But more questionable than scientific errors were his political goals, >>> since in the line of succession we find 'Eugenics'. >>> >>> There it gets criminal, since the Eugenics movement was responsible for >>> real crimes, which they pretended to be justified by the 'purification >>> of the races'. >>> >>> >>> TH >> >> And all that has just what to do with athesism? >> >> > Atheists don't believe in supernatural beings. Correct so far. > They believe in creation by evolootion. 1. There is no such word as "evolootion". 2. If you mean "evolution", evolution theory has nothing to do with creation. > And since animals don't believe in morality, neither do atheists. Aburd and false logic; animals are incapable of believing in anything. > To atheists killing people who get in your way means no more > than it does to an animal who does likewise. Atheism says nothing about morality. Why do the devout allways feel it necessary to make up wild, silly shit about atheists? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 15:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrmca9$12gk$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392778 |
On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 00:41:58 +0000, jimp wrote: > In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 9/17/2016 1:26 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>> Am 17.09.2016 03:56, schrieb jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com: >>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Darwin was an evil British idiot. >>>> >>>> He is among the ancestors of Naziism and a line can be drawn from him >>>> personally to various 'bad guys'. >>>> >>>> But Darwin was extremely wrong in various aspects of his theory. For >>>> instance he assumed competition as main principle of nature. >>>> >>>> Only this is not true, since he completely ignored cooperation >>>> between a variety of species. >>>> >>>> He also miscalculated the age of the Earth by a factor of 10,000 and >>>> that is extremely large. >>>> >>>> But more questionable than scientific errors were his political >>>> goals, since in the line of succession we find 'Eugenics'. >>>> >>>> There it gets criminal, since the Eugenics movement was responsible >>>> for real crimes, which they pretended to be justified by the >>>> 'purification of the races'. >>>> >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>> And all that has just what to do with athesism? >>> >>> >> Atheists don't believe in supernatural beings. > > Correct so far. > >> They believe in creation by evolootion. > > 1. There is no such word as "evolootion". > 2. If you mean "evolution", evolution theory has nothing to do with > creation. > >> And since animals don't believe in morality, neither do atheists. > > Aburd and false logic; animals are incapable of believing in anything. > >> To atheists killing people who get in your way means no more >> than it does to an animal who does likewise. > > Atheism says nothing about morality. > > Why do the devout allways feel it necessary to make up wild, silly shit > about atheists? Without their strawmen, they'd have nothing to argue against. -- 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]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 12:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57DD92BF.88B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #392675 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 17.09.2016 03:56, schrieb jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com: > > >> 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. > > Darwin was an evil British idiot. > > He is among the ancestors of Naziism and a line can be drawn from him > personally to various 'bad guys'. > > But Darwin was extremely wrong in various aspects of his theory. For > instance he assumed competition as main principle of nature. > > Only this is not true, since he completely ignored cooperation between a > variety of species. > > He also miscalculated the age of the Earth by a factor of 10,000 and > that is extremely large. > > But more questionable than scientific errors were his political goals, > since in the line of succession we find 'Eugenics'. > > There it gets criminal, since the Eugenics movement was responsible for > real crimes, which they pretended to be justified by the 'purification > of the races'. > > TH Darwin used to be a devoted Christian...until his daughter died, then he got mad at God and wrote his book.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 17:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57ddb4dc$0$62163$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #392664 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 00:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrknbd$p8l$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #392750 |
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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 22:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57DE25DF.2FBB@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #392776 |
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]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 06:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnntsde3.iqu.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #392796 |
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]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 07:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8a3ttbtp2v2pil9mgdum6rqm36lqgqh1dp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #392796 |
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]
| From | Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 06:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hlwdjsd2-7041EC.06350618092016@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #392815 |
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]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 03:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e48uauFrdhhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #392826 |
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]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 00:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1orutbtdfg4uejrrljk9c75889ebgt3q2b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #392879 |
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]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 08:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e49e4uF57hU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #392904 |
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]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 15:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <bkf0ubpb6ft50pt7kepff9ecf9aphmr2lj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #392912 |
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]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 01:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9nmnbq.32u.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #392912 |
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]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 08:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4c2r1FjosjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393028 |
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]
| From | Bob Officer <no_email@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 20:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9noqa2.6s1.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #393056 |
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]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-21 04:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e4eb6mF64lmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #393134 |
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]
Page 19 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web