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

Groups > sci.physics > #559092 > unrolled thread

Hubble breaks cosmic distance record

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 20:20 -0600
    Hubble breaks cosmic distance record jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-04 02:00 -0800
    Hubble breaks cosmic distance record HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 03:32 -0800
      Hubble breaks cosmic distance record jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-04 06:06 -0800
      Hubble breaks cosmic distance record HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 06:27 -0800
        Hubble breaks cosmic distance record john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 07:21 -0800
          Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 09:31 -0600
            Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 07:35 -0800
              Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 07:50 -0800
                Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 07:58 -0800
                  Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 08:20 -0800
                  Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 08:45 -0800
                    Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 13:42 -0500
                  Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 10:58 -0600
                    Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 09:06 -0800
                      Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 09:12 -0800
                        Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 09:49 -0800
                          Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 09:59 -0800
                            Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 10:32 -0800
                              Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 14:46 -0500
                            Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 13:32 -0500
                        Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 13:27 -0500
                      Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 11:22 -0600
                        Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 09:44 -0800
                          Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 13:29 -0500
                        Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 09:49 -0800
                          Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 09:51 -0800
                            Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 13:29 -0500
                          Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 12:00 -0600
                            Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 10:06 -0800
                              Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 12:15 -0600
                              Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 11:04 -0800
                                Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 14:24 -0500
                              Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 13:47 -0600
                            Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 14:36 -0500
                          Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-04 18:16 +0000
                Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 13:48 -0500
                  Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 11:32 -0800
                    Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 01:09 -0500
                      Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 22:28 -0800
                      Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 22:31 -0800
                        Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 02:23 -0500
                          Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 03:54 -0800
                            Re: Christianity's "God" is Ben Jacoby's pot. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 01:34 -0500
              Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 11:50 -0600
                Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 10:20 -0800
              Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-03-04 13:27 -0800
                Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 13:55 -0800
                  Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 16:02 -0600
                    Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 14:17 -0800
                      Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:19 -0600
                    Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-03-04 14:44 -0800
                    Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 01:31 -0500
            Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-04 11:59 -0800
              Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-03-04 12:25 -0800
          Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 09:41 -0600
            Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-05 12:07 +0100
          Hubble breaks cosmic distance record HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 07:45 -0800
      Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-04 10:50 -0800
        Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 14:42 -0500
    Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 14:38 -0800
      Re: Hubble breaks cosmic distance record Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:01 -0600

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

#559260

On 03/04/2016 12:59 PM, HVAC wrote:
> Maple Loops
> Is it fun to be always wrong HVAC?
> -------------
>
> Anyone who knows me also knows never to make a wager with me.
>
> Why?
>
> Because, at the risk of sounding vain, I am always right. I am not a gambler and would only bet when I am 100% positive that I am correct.
>
> The same logic applies to all of my thinking. Before I form an opinion or a belief, I first research the topic so I know all its various permutations and possible counter arguments.
>
> People who know me realize that it's simply better to agree with me
>
They are trying just to shut your lying pie hole for a minute, HVAC, to 
try to get some peace. I've never seen you say ANYTHING that is true 
starting with what you tell everyone I "believe".  Like all atheists, 
you have no morals and only win by cheating and in your evolootionist 
view cheating is OK because it's just "natural selection".

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

#559255

On 03/04/2016 12:12 PM, HVAC wrote:
>
> 12:06 PMjohn
> Typical Odd:
> john: last living words are revealing
> ---------------
>
> I think just the opposite is true.
> Dying people are at their very worst. They are typically drugged up, bed ridden, and generally not in the best frame of mind to think properly.
>
> Certainly you agree John?



In fact, some people are always in that perpetual state like HVAC.

Certainly you agree John?

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

#559229

On 3/4/2016 11:06 AM, john wrote:
> Typical Odd:
> john: last living words are revealing
> odd: can't say that because they ALL aren't!!
>

John says, "Last living words are revealing," but he only means CERTAIN 
last living words are revealing while others can be ignored. Now, as to 
WHICH ONES he deems are revealing, and WHY he thinks those are the 
revealing ones, John can't really say.

Other than, perhaps, "Because they say what I believe."

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#559234

John says, "Last living words are revealing," but he only means CERTAIN 
last living words are revealing while others can be ignored. Now, as to 
WHICH ONES he deems are revealing, and WHY he thinks those are the 
revealing ones, John can't really say. 

Other than, perhaps, "Because they say what I believe." 
--------------

John displays the schizophrenic behavior pattern typical of drug users. His thoughts seem unfocused. And like all kooks, he suffers from feelings of persecution and paranoia. 

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

#559256

On 03/04/2016 12:44 PM, HVAC wrote:
>
>
> John says, "Last living words are revealing," but he only means CERTAIN
> last living words are revealing while others can be ignored. Now, as to
> WHICH ONES he deems are revealing, and WHY he thinks those are the
> revealing ones, John can't really say.
>
> Other than, perhaps, "Because they say what I believe."
> --------------
>
> John displays the schizophrenic behavior pattern typical of drug users. His thoughts seem unfocused. And like all kooks, he suffers from feelings of persecution and paranoia.
>
Says the master of irrational logic and superpowers.

Is that "takes one to know one", HVAC?

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

#559235

Why don't we compare 10 atheists' last words
with 10 theists' last words?
No cherry-picking- first 10 of each that list
according to an agreed formula?

Let's do it, Odd!!
You're a scientist 

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

#559238

12:49 PMjohn
Why don't we compare 10 atheists' last words 
with 10 theists' last words? 
No cherry-picking- first 10 of each that list 
according to an agreed formula? 
------------

How many people have recordings set up of their deathbed?

I want no one near me when I die. Death is embarrassing

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

#559257

On 03/04/2016 12:51 PM, HVAC wrote:
>
> 12:49 PMjohn
> Why don't we compare 10 atheists' last words
> with 10 theists' last words?
> No cherry-picking- first 10 of each that list
> according to an agreed formula?
> ------------
>
> How many people have recordings set up of their deathbed?
>
> I want no one near me when I die. Death is embarrassing
>
Atheists never die, they just shut their stupid yaps for good.

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

#559243

On 3/4/2016 11:49 AM, john wrote:
> Why don't we compare 10 atheists' last words
> with 10 theists' last words?
> No cherry-picking- first 10 of each that list
> according to an agreed formula?
>
> Let's do it, Odd!!
> You're a scientist
>

Depends on who's compiling the list. If it's a list of atheists' last 
words compiled by a theist, don't you think that would be buying into 
some selection bias?

Here's what a scientist would do:
Collect the last words from a random sample of the population, with no 
information in the sample selection about whether they are theist or 
atheist.
Categorize the last words of the sample.
THEN pull the information about whether they are theist or atheist, and 
now see if there is a difference in the statements.

But aside from the cluelessness you have about scientific studies, what 
makes you think that last words have any more inherent truth value than 
non-last words?
Would someone uttering their last words have any particular reason to 
lie less?
Would someone uttering their last words have any particular reason to 
reveal previously hidden information?
If someone says something in their last words that is aspirational or 
reflects their hopes or even their firm beliefs, is there any reason to 
think that any of those thoughts represent truth?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#559246

Odd
Gotcha
I'm clueless and there's no way to do this
scientifically.
And HVAC? If you're right 100% of the time,
I certainly can't argue with you.

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

#559248

On 3/4/2016 12:06 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Gotcha
> I'm clueless and there's no way to do this
> scientifically.

Don't be silly. Can't you read? I TOLD you how to do it scientifically.
What I told you is that you are clueless about HOW to do it 
scientifically, as evidenced by your proposal, which was completely 
unscientific.

> And HVAC? If you're right 100% of the time,
> I certainly can't argue with you.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#559278

John says
And HVAC? If you're right 100% of the time, 
I certainly can't argue with you. 
-----------

Good John! 
Your journey towards the light has begun

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

#559285

On 03/04/2016 02:04 PM, HVAC wrote:
> John says
> And HVAC? If you're right 100% of the time,
> I certainly can't argue with you.
> -----------
>
> Good John!
> Your journey towards the light has begun
>
Has anyone here ever seen a more perfect example of the "little man ego 
syndrome"?  I haven't.

Will someone please kick some sand in HVAC's face?

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

#559301

On 3/4/2016 12:06 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Gotcha
> I'm clueless and there's no way to do this
> scientifically.
> And HVAC? If you're right 100% of the time,
> I certainly can't argue with you.
>

What I can tell you, John, should be obvious to you.

If you look at a site that is prepared by an atheist, then you are going 
to get information that is selected by that bias.

If you look at a site that is prepared by a theist, then you are going 
to get information that is selected by that bias.

Now, as someone who is a reader, rather than a producer, obviously if 
you choose to only read one set of sources and not read the other set of 
sources, then of course you're to be subjected to a biased set of 
information. But that choice is YOURS, and so the end result of what you 
see is an outcome of your choice.

A SENSIBLE person takes some time to try to get an objective view, which 
means reading a little on both sides. This both provides a glimpse into 
where the truth probably lies somewhere in between, and it also gives 
you a view of how much bias there is.

Frankly, John, I don't think you read broadly. I think you read only in 
the directions that you're aligned with, which is largely new-age, 
anti-science, spiritual, and marginalia. You certainly haven't tried 
reading stuff that is established or mainstream science -- it just 
doesn't interest you.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#559292

On 03/04/2016 01:00 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/4/2016 11:49 AM, john wrote:
>> Why don't we compare 10 atheists' last words
>> with 10 theists' last words?
>> No cherry-picking- first 10 of each that list
>> according to an agreed formula?
>>
>> Let's do it, Odd!!
>> You're a scientist
>>
>
> Depends on who's compiling the list. If it's a list of atheists' last
> words compiled by a theist, don't you think that would be buying into
> some selection bias?
>
> Here's what a scientist would do:
> Collect the last words from a random sample of the population, with no
> information in the sample selection about whether they are theist or
> atheist.
> Categorize the last words of the sample.
> THEN pull the information about whether they are theist or atheist, and
> now see if there is a difference in the statements.
>
> But aside from the cluelessness you have about scientific studies, what
> makes you think that last words have any more inherent truth value than
> non-last words?
> Would someone uttering their last words have any particular reason to
> lie less?
> Would someone uttering their last words have any particular reason to
> reveal previously hidden information?
> If someone says something in their last words that is aspirational or
> reflects their hopes or even their firm beliefs, is there any reason to
> think that any of those thoughts represent truth?

An important thing to remember is that just because you or HVAC are dead 
that does not mean that your "ghost" is any smarter than you were when 
alive. Hence being impressed with something just because it's 
"channeled" is no more productive than being impressed with words just 
because they are the last ones. Does ANYONE here have ANY doubt that the 
last words HVAC utters will be a lie?

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

#559249

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Why don't we compare 10 atheists' last words
>with 10 theists' last words?
>No cherry-picking- first 10 of each that list
>according to an agreed formula?

Which of Voltaire's last words do you use?  Some say he was defiant in
his atheism to the end, some say he recanted and accepted the Last Rites
of the Catholic Church, and some say that, when asked by a priest to
renounce Satan, he made a joke about it being a bad time to make new
enemies.

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

#559271

On 03/04/2016 10:50 AM, HVAC wrote:
> john
> Big Bang is fantasy
> -------------
>
> Only a belief in god can blind someone to such an elegant, consistent and important truth as the reality of the big bang.
>
> Even among religious freaks, the big bang is accepted save for the truly insane.... Similar to those who believe in a 6000 year old earth. (In others words, BJ)
>
Big Bang is bullshit. Harlow knows this but his job is to cover it up 
and stop any rational discussion of the issue. HVAC thinks you can warp 
a plane with just two dimensions. That's how ignorant he is. Just one 
more lying gummint spokesman.

OF course to HVAC it's ALL religion and "belief" because he has neither 
the education nor the intelligence to actually discuss science.

Has anyone ever seen him discuss science here (per charter)? No. He's as 
consistently off-charter as Wormley. Such is the nature of politics.

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

#559291

BJ quacked
Big Bang is bullshit. Harlow knows this but his job is to cover it up 
and stop any rational discussion of the issue. 
--------------

BJ had a card that says he's a scientist. Lol



HVAC thinks you can warp 
a plane with just two dimensions. That's how ignorant he is. Just one 
more lying gummint spokesman. 
---------------

Earlier in this thread I commented that all religious freaks have a persecution complex and are paranoid. BJ evidences this here

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

#559506

On 03/04/2016 02:32 PM, HVAC wrote the screed:
> BJ quacked
> Big Bang is bullshit. Harlow knows this but his job is to cover it up
> and stop any rational discussion of the issue.
> --------------
>
> BJ had a card that says he's a scientist. Lol
>
HVAC has a business card that is blank. (just like his knowledge of science)
>
> HVAC thinks you can warp
> a plane with just two dimensions. That's how ignorant he is. Just one
> more lying gummint spokesman.
> ---------------
>
> Earlier in this thread I commented that all religious freaks have a persecution complex and are paranoid. BJ evidences this here

I'm paranoid because you are stupid? That is totally irrational. This is 
like Bert answering posts different from the ones he's quoted. You are 
getting more and more like Bert every day. No wonder you two are 
butt-buddies.

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

#559510

Odd
If you didn't understand, you're stupid

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web