Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #596584 > 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 | 18 on this page of 138 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Atheism is Witchcraft The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-09-11 12:43 -0700
Atheism is Witchcraft john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 14:02 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-09-11 16:16 -0600
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 john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 16:49 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-09-12 00:06 +0000
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 17:26 -0700
Re: Atheism is Witchcraft "Hot-Text" <hot-text@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-16 18:57 -0500
Re: Theism is Witchcraft Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-09-16 22:06 -0600
"Wisely Non-Theist" "Billy_Ray_Ferrell_USA-VP_2016" <billyrferrell@minpin.mshome.net> - 2016-09-17 00:32 -0500
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 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-01 10:42 -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 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 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 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 00:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1orutbtdfg4uejrrljk9c75889ebgt3q2b@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #597489 |
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 | #597508 |
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 | #597511 |
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 | #597511 |
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 | #597643 |
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 | #597659 |
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 | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-20 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57E1978A.2F54@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #597659 |
Thomas Heger 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<: > > > >> > >>>>> 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'. You should be spending at least 50 percent of your time daily writing out grants. if you want a grant for a million dollars, hire a grant writer for ten thousand dollars. https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=funding+opportunity+announcement+foa i'm sure you can con your way to a million dollar grant.. tell them you can cure cancer with a computer...reprogram the cells with your code written in basic. print: cancer cured EndSub
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-18 00:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <qu41bd-6dd.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #597338 |
In sci.physics benj <benj@nobody.net> 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. What created the universe is irrelevant to athesism other than an atheist will say it was definitely not a supernatural being. There is no tenet of athesism that says what did create the universe nor any other tenet other than there are no supernatural beings. If it comforts you in your declining years to believe there is a merciful god that created the universe, so be it. Lots of people have died to ensure you have the right to that belief. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 20:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57dc9216$0$4504$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #597221 |
On 9/16/2016 5:11 PM, Christopher A. Lee 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. > I've done both while you obviously have a long ways to go.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 17:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <m2qotbplplqnakfkk7jo5oo84i93b91pb6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #597220 |
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:06:40 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> in alt.atheism with message-id <57dc5eee$0$31213$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> 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. > You really don't get it do you? Belief is irrelevant. Reality is supported by fact and no belief is necessary. Also, evolution does not and never has addressed the question of the origin of life. It deals only with CHANGES to life over time. -- 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 | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 21:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <536uad-5b3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #597220 |
In sci.physics 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! Not hardly; anyone with a dictionary can discover athesism has nothing to do with ""evolootion" (sic), whatever that is. > (He's probably a practicing atheist too) What is your definition of a practicing atheist? Is it someone who bows their head, closes their eyes, and says "You don't exist." over and over again? > Gosh, what does he believe? Does he believe Un-God created the universe? Why would you care what my religious beliefs might be? Do you want to convert me to whatever religion you practice? > This is how confused and senile he is. He needs to take Imperial > Thinking lessons from Herb. What king, or queen, would this "Imperial Thinking" serve? Of could it be this genius that can't find "evolution" or "athesism" in the dictionary can't find "empirical" either? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 02:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ke5ntblc23c27n8hfr2hm248j4jov3k6va@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #597113 |
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 21:57:54 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> in alt.atheism with message-id <57db51af$0$31315$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> wrote: >On 9/15/2016 6:15 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:45:47 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> >>> On 9/13/2016 10:12 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:01:06 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9/13/2016 9:16 PM, Smiler wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 19:59:14 -0400, benj wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/13/2016 7:10 PM, HGW wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/09/16 05:43, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>> Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A religious person is a thoroughly demoralized individual who, either >>>>>>>> by misfortune or plain stupidity has had such a miserable existence >>>>>>>> that it will go to any length to reassure its deluded mind that it will >>>>>>>> one day be given a second chance at life. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> True. Especially deeply religious atheisst >>>>>> >>>>>> As rare as hirsute bald men. >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip even more lies> >>>>>> >>>>> Obviously we are in the presence of an atheist of great faith! >>>> >>>> Obviously we are in the presence of a deliberately and arrogantly >>>> nasty, lying theist. >>>> >>> Actually, since this is the INTERNET, you haven't a clue what you are in >>> the presence of, but that doesn't stop your fantasy life. >> >> I'm "in the presence" of somebody who lies about atheists and atheism, >> to atheists in the atheist newsgroup. >> >> Stop pretending. >> >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. Another theist who requires others to believe in something because he does. -- 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 | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 03:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0fbntb5idrfp8madqpdqgp3j7pu0k2ua9h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #597133 |
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 02:49:47 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> wrote: >On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 21:57:54 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> in >alt.atheism with message-id ><57db51af$0$31315$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> wrote: > >>On 9/15/2016 6:15 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:45:47 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/13/2016 10:12 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:01:06 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/13/2016 9:16 PM, Smiler wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 19:59:14 -0400, benj wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/13/2016 7:10 PM, HGW wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/09/16 05:43, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A religious person is a thoroughly demoralized individual who, either >>>>>>>>> by misfortune or plain stupidity has had such a miserable existence >>>>>>>>> that it will go to any length to reassure its deluded mind that it will >>>>>>>>> one day be given a second chance at life. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> True. Especially deeply religious atheisst >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As rare as hirsute bald men. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip even more lies> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Obviously we are in the presence of an atheist of great faith! >>>>> >>>>> Obviously we are in the presence of a deliberately and arrogantly >>>>> nasty, lying theist. >>>>> >>>> Actually, since this is the INTERNET, you haven't a clue what you are in >>>> the presence of, but that doesn't stop your fantasy life. >>> >>> I'm "in the presence" of somebody who lies about atheists and atheism, >>> to atheists in the atheist newsgroup. >>> >>> Stop pretending. >>> >>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. > >Another theist who requires others to believe in something because he >does. And who lies about them to their faces when they don't. Why do so many of them lie to atheists about both ourselves and science when it is simply part of objective reality and accepted as such by non-fundamentalist Christians? It is nothing to do with atheism. Religion makes people stupid, mentally ill, dishonest and nasty. And when they don't believe their lies but do it as a psychopathic game, the equivalent of scrawling swastikas on the inside walls of a Jewish community centre, they are just as mentally ill - as well as giving aid and comfort to those who are bent on destroying the scientific education that kept the country at the forefront of a competitive world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 05:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <08gntbdpghpc4t0ndu4csc85u9fqsi5qjm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #597136 |
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 03:47:22 -0500, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> in alt.atheism with message-id <0fbntb5idrfp8madqpdqgp3j7pu0k2ua9h@4ax.com> wrote: >On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 02:49:47 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> >wrote: > >>On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 21:57:54 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> in >>alt.atheism with message-id >><57db51af$0$31315$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> wrote: >> >>>On 9/15/2016 6:15 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:45:47 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9/13/2016 10:12 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:01:06 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/13/2016 9:16 PM, Smiler wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 19:59:14 -0400, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/13/2016 7:10 PM, HGW wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/16 05:43, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A religious person is a thoroughly demoralized individual who, either >>>>>>>>>> by misfortune or plain stupidity has had such a miserable existence >>>>>>>>>> that it will go to any length to reassure its deluded mind that it will >>>>>>>>>> one day be given a second chance at life. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> True. Especially deeply religious atheisst >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As rare as hirsute bald men. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip even more lies> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Obviously we are in the presence of an atheist of great faith! >>>>>> >>>>>> Obviously we are in the presence of a deliberately and arrogantly >>>>>> nasty, lying theist. >>>>>> >>>>> Actually, since this is the INTERNET, you haven't a clue what you are in >>>>> the presence of, but that doesn't stop your fantasy life. >>>> >>>> I'm "in the presence" of somebody who lies about atheists and atheism, >>>> to atheists in the atheist newsgroup. >>>> >>>> Stop pretending. >>>> >>>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. >> >>Another theist who requires others to believe in something because he >>does. > >And who lies about them to their faces when they don't. > >Why do so many of them lie to atheists about both ourselves and >science when it is simply part of objective reality and accepted as >such by non-fundamentalist Christians? They cannot understand or accept anything that does not support their belief system. A system that is not based upon any verified facts at all. If it doesn't support them that means it automatically attacks them, and such attacks they find unimaginable and not to be tolerated. Their world has room for only two groups - their group and all of their enemies. > >It is nothing to do with atheism. > >Religion makes people stupid, mentally ill, dishonest and nasty. > >And when they don't believe their lies but do it as a psychopathic >game, the equivalent of scrawling swastikas on the inside walls of a >Jewish community centre, they are just as mentally ill - as well as >giving aid and comfort to those who are bent on destroying the >scientific education that kept the country at the forefront of a >competitive world. -- 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 | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 17:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57dc6035$0$63779$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #597136 |
On 9/16/2016 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: > On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 02:49:47 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> > wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 21:57:54 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> in >> alt.atheism with message-id >> <57db51af$0$31315$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9/15/2016 6:15 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:45:47 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9/13/2016 10:12 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:01:06 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/13/2016 9:16 PM, Smiler wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 19:59:14 -0400, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/13/2016 7:10 PM, HGW wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/16 05:43, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A religious person is a thoroughly demoralized individual who, either >>>>>>>>>> by misfortune or plain stupidity has had such a miserable existence >>>>>>>>>> that it will go to any length to reassure its deluded mind that it will >>>>>>>>>> one day be given a second chance at life. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> True. Especially deeply religious atheisst >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As rare as hirsute bald men. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip even more lies> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Obviously we are in the presence of an atheist of great faith! >>>>>> >>>>>> Obviously we are in the presence of a deliberately and arrogantly >>>>>> nasty, lying theist. >>>>>> >>>>> Actually, since this is the INTERNET, you haven't a clue what you are in >>>>> the presence of, but that doesn't stop your fantasy life. >>>> >>>> I'm "in the presence" of somebody who lies about atheists and atheism, >>>> to atheists in the atheist newsgroup. >>>> >>>> Stop pretending. >>>> >>> 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. >> >> Another theist who requires others to believe in something because he >> does. > > And who lies about them to their faces when they don't. > > Why do so many of them lie to atheists about both ourselves and > science when it is simply part of objective reality and accepted as > such by non-fundamentalist Christians? > > It is nothing to do with atheism. > > Religion makes people stupid, mentally ill, dishonest and nasty. > > And when they don't believe their lies but do it as a psychopathic > game, the equivalent of scrawling swastikas on the inside walls of a > Jewish community centre, they are just as mentally ill - as well as > giving aid and comfort to those who are bent on destroying the > scientific education that kept the country at the forefront of a > competitive world. > Wow Chris, that sounds stupid, mentally ill, dishonest and nasty! You really need to back off from your atheist faith and start embracing science. Investigating reality will be so much more satisfying than your current activity of scrawling atheist swastikas inside newsgroups in an attempt to destroy all who doubt your religion. (Like Xtians...Note the spelling with X to be sure to cross out those insane rubes from the face of the earth!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 16:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <veootbp7862ktafundk2ujg4q97uask212@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #597222 |
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:12:06 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >On 9/16/2016 4:47 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 02:49:47 -0400, Attila <<prochoice@here.now> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 21:57:54 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> in >>> alt.atheism with message-id >>> <57db51af$0$31315$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/15/2016 6:15 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 17:45:47 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/13/2016 10:12 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:01:06 -0400, benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/13/2016 9:16 PM, Smiler wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 19:59:14 -0400, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/13/2016 7:10 PM, HGW wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/09/16 05:43, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A religious person is a thoroughly demoralized individual who, either >>>>>>>>>>> by misfortune or plain stupidity has had such a miserable existence >>>>>>>>>>> that it will go to any length to reassure its deluded mind that it will >>>>>>>>>>> one day be given a second chance at life. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> True. Especially deeply religious atheisst >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As rare as hirsute bald men. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <snip even more lies> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Obviously we are in the presence of an atheist of great faith! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Obviously we are in the presence of a deliberately and arrogantly >>>>>>> nasty, lying theist. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Actually, since this is the INTERNET, you haven't a clue what you are in >>>>>> the presence of, but that doesn't stop your fantasy life. >>>>> >>>>> I'm "in the presence" of somebody who lies about atheists and atheism, >>>>> to atheists in the atheist newsgroup. >>>>> >>>>> Stop pretending. >>>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Another theist who requires others to believe in something because he >>> does. >> >> And who lies about them to their faces when they don't. >> >> Why do so many of them lie to atheists about both ourselves and >> science when it is simply part of objective reality and accepted as >> such by non-fundamentalist Christians? >> >> It is nothing to do with atheism. >> >> Religion makes people stupid, mentally ill, dishonest and nasty. >> >> And when they don't believe their lies but do it as a psychopathic >> game, the equivalent of scrawling swastikas on the inside walls of a >> Jewish community centre, they are just as mentally ill - as well as >> giving aid and comfort to those who are bent on destroying the >> scientific education that kept the country at the forefront of a >> competitive world. >> >Wow Chris, that sounds stupid, mentally ill, dishonest and nasty! > >You really need to back off from your atheist faith and start embracing What "Atheist faith", deliberately nasty, pathological liar? >science. You don't even know what science is and how it works. > Investigating reality will be so much more satisfying than your >current activity of scrawling atheist swastikas inside newsgroups in an Where do I do that, pathological liar? >attempt to destroy all who doubt your religion. (Like Xtians...Note the What fucking "my religion", pathological liar? >spelling with X to be sure to cross out those insane rubes from the face >of the earth!) I'm not the lunatic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 19:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e45b57Fq9lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #597228 |
Am 16.09.2016 23:22, schrieb Christopher A. Lee: >> Wow Chris, that sounds stupid, mentally ill, dishonest and nasty! >> >> You really need to back off from your atheist faith and start embracing > > What "Atheist faith", deliberately nasty, pathological liar? > >> science. > > You don't even know what science is and how it works. You certainly have noticed, that we have a very strange crossposting connection between two different groups of the UseNet. That are: - alt.atheism - sci.physics.relativity The second of these groups is about physics, especially the subject of relativity. Now 'benj' is among the regulars of this groups and among the more educated ones. This is at least my impression, since I also write here occasionally. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Attila <<prochoice@here.now> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 03:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mb0itb539713cbuo8jk56h0o6q9h7g4eag@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #596584 |
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:43:45 -0700, The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> in alt.atheism with message-id <57D5B3F1.462D@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft. > > >You gotta look at the facts. > >You gotta look at the truth. > > >The majority of the people >follow some sort of God, or religion... So what? That doesn't validate any of them. > > >Science is witchcraft with their strange >symbols and rules. Nonsense. The 'strange symbols' are nothing more than a way to indicate something, just like the letters in the alphabet. The 'rules' are simply procedures that have been proven valid over time. If one is found to not be valid it is adjusted to fit the new facts. There is nothing strange about them to anyone who bothers to learn what they mean. Were you born with the ability to read or was it necessary to learn new things, such as an alphabet and the definitions of words? > >The majority of scientist are atheist, so they are into witchcraft. One does not follow the other. In fact, since witchcraft is a religion just like any other the terms are mutually exclusive. > >If you're not following some sort of God, or religion... > >then you're a witch. A witch is following a religion. > > >Those are the facts. That is the truth. Not really. > > >Bottom line > is... >Atheism is Witchcraft. Nope. Witchcraft is just another superstition like iIslam and christianity. > > > >Next month is Holloween...go put on your witch costume. > > > > >https://www.noao.edu/noaoprop/help/symbols/img18.gif > >http://us.123rf.com/450wm/bowie15/bowie151504/bowie15150400088/39901903-mad-scientist.jpg?ver=6 -- 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] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web