This is very interesting. I’ve always followed the rule (which may or
may not be ground in science) to drink water every day equal to half
my body weight in ounces. But, to your point, I’ve run many 10-13
milers with no water. I got lost in LA last summer with no $ and no
water but made it back to the hotel after 15 miles and I was thirsty
when I finished but there was no issue.
If anyone has any hard core medical data, it will be you.
Harry
On Mar 26, 6:51 am, Tuck wrote:
> According to Gatorade.
>
> According to the guys at the Science of Sport, there’s no scientific
> evidence to support it.
>
> My experience has been drink when you’re thirsty and youl be fine.
>
> I once went 12 hours without water on a camping trip. Not fun. But
> once we found water we were fine.
>
> On 3/26/10, Slatorious wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tuck, I always thought that you are already in the beginning stages of
> > dehydration once your body actually makes you feel thirsty. Fact or
> > fiction?
>
> > On Mar 25, 1:21 am, Tuck wrote:
> >> For the water problem, don’t drink water if you’re not thirsty! If you’re
> >> thirsty, drink until you’re not thirsty. Humans have a nice mechanism
> >> honed
> >> by evolution to deal with water intake, it’s called thirst.
>
> >> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 1:08 AM, APFreund wrote:
> >> > My only argument against flip flops is that they tear up the side of
> >> > my feet.
> >> > I’ll be getting a job (Corn Breeding) over the summer, and I’ll make
> >> > $1000+ over the summer. Only benefit of living in Iowa, easy to get a
> >> > summer job.
> >> > I’ll be talking up my mom tomorrow on getting some vffs, got a 7:02 on
> >> > my mile today and totally burnt out my feet, i’m going to take it a
> >> > little easier tomorrow and just walk a mile or two.
>
> >> > Also, if I drink water up to 30min before I run I cramp up horribly,
> >> > is there anyway to prevent this other than having to wait 30+ before a
> >> > run If I drink water or liquids in general?
>
> >> > –
> >> > ”Minimalist Runner – Barefoot, Huaraches, FiveFingers…” hosted by
> >> > Barefoot Ted
>
> >> > Membership Options:http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe
>
> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to huaraches+
> >> > unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words
> >> > “REMOVE
> >> > ME” as the subject.
>
> >> –
> >> _________________________________
> >> Tucker
>
> > –
> > “Minimalist Runner – Barefoot, Huaraches, FiveFingers…” hosted by
> > Barefoot Ted
>
> > Membership Options:http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe
>
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > huaraches+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words
> > “REMOVE ME” as the subject.
>
> –
> _________________________________
> Tucker
I second that Benny. They do look good and don’t have a TPU cage. His
might be the one for me!
On Mar 26, 2:25 am, Benny Halevy wrote:
> These Altera’s look awesome!
> Thanks for the pointer!
>
> Benny
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Ultra Experience
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Harry and all,
>
> > Seriously this is the “Summer of Minimalist Running!” I’m surprised
> > nobody is talking about that new Altera shoe coming out this summer.
> > Supposedly it’s price range with be around $85 and it looks just like
> > a KSO but with the option of an insole. Perfect!! The KSO is still
> > my favorite but my pinky toe is still freaking sore after more then 4
> > miles in them. I’m not sold on the individual toes. Just nothing
> > else out there.
>
> >http://ae.alterarunning.com/adam.php
>
> > I love my Terra Plana’s…I own one of their dress shoes call “The
> > Oak” and it’s amazing. But I can’t afford paying $160 per pair. It’s
> > ridiculous. I have high hopes for these Altera shoes.
>
> > Brian
>
> > On Mar 25, 9:38 pm, HHH wrote:
> > > LOL. I can’t wait to hear the feedback from folks that buy the new
> > > Sockwas or VFF Bikila.
>
> > > Remember the classic Seinfield episode when George said, “This is the
> > > Summer of George.”
>
> > > Well, “This is the Summer of the Minimalist Running.”
>
> > > Harry
>
> > > On Mar 25, 9:31 pm, Tuck wrote:
>
> > > > No, Harry’s not dead, he’s full of piss and vinegar.
>
> > > > He’s in heaven metaphorically, because he gets to help design the next
> > > > generation of his new favorite shoe.
>
> > > > On 3/25/10, Gary K wrote:
>
> > > > > He died?
>
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Tuck wrote:
>
> > > > >> Harry is in heaven…
>
> > > > >> On 3/25/10, HHH wrote:
> > > > >> > Agreed. They will not touch the price until competition forces
> > them
> > > > >> > to do so. I’m very pro-business so if you have a cutting edge
> > product
> > > > >> > or service, go ahead and charge whatever you believe you can get
> > folks
> > > > >> > to pay and take advantage of the window until it closes. This has
> > > > >> > worked pretty friggin’ well for Apple.
>
> > > > >> > I did mention about the wideness of the shoe. They will look into
> > it
> > > > >> > but it appears they don’t have many complaints on that front.
> > > > >> > Obviously, they will address the big issues in the next release
> > being
> > > > >> > the blister issue (toes and heel).
>
> > > > >> > To give you a sense of how customer focused they are, here is the
> > > > >> > response I got this morning:
>
> > > > >> > “Hi Harry,
>
> > > > >> > Honestly, I am very passionate about Vivo and we have been working
> > on
> > > > >> > the Evo design / development for over 2 years.
>
> > > > >> > As the designer I am very keen to make sure that this product is
> > truly
> > > > >> > great and performs excellently as an ‘ultimate barefoot runner’.
>
> > > > >> > You are the exact person the Evo is design for and I can only
> > thank
> > > > >> > you for your honest and detailed feedback.
> > > > >> > We will not stop until this shoe is as close to perfect as
> > possible!
>
> > > > >> > Thanks for the quote from Jim Fixx – I have never hear that one.
>
> > > > >> > “Going barefoot is the gentlest way of walking and can symbolise a
> > way
> > > > >> > of living – being authentic, vulnerable, sensitive to our
> > > > >> > surroundings… the lightest impact, removing the barrier between
> > us
> > > > >> > and nature.” Adele Coombs”
>
> > > > >> > The Jim Fixx quote I provided related to the weight of the shoe
> > where
> > > > >> > Jim Fixx said, a few ounces, one way or the other won’t make much
> > > > >> > different, especially to non-elite runners, just find the best
> > shoe.”
>
> > > > >> > Harry
>
> > > > >> > On Mar 25, 3:04 pm, Tuck wrote:
> > > > >> >> They sold out the first shipment in a couple of days. They
> > should have
> > > > >> >> priced them higher.
>
> > > > >> >> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Andy Southerland
> > > > >> >> andy.southerl…@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >> >> > The pricing of that shoe had to be an interesting conversation.
> > At
> > > > >> >> > $160, the shoe is clearly for people who know what they’re
> > getting
> > > > >> >> > into – like our Harry.
>
> > > > >> >> > They might have pushed an awful lot more product to both
> > minimalist
> > > > >> >> > runners who won’t pay an excess for form when they can get
> > function
> > > > >> >> > for cheaper, as well as to people on the fence who would
> > consider
> > > > >> >> > purchasing it if it were in the more typical range for a “good”
> > > > >> >> > running shoe… let’s say ~$125. But in doing so they
> > introduce some
> > > > >> >> > huge logistical/distribution headaches for such a small company
> > and
> > > > >> >> > have to be confident that they’ll be moving at least 40%-50%
> > more
> > > > >> >> > product.
>
> > > > >> >> > Looks like they were pretty confident that a market of Harries
> > would
> > > > >> >> > lead to a better bottom line. And on top of that, they ended
> > up with
> > > > >> >> > demand way in excess of what they were supplying anyway. If I
> > were
> > > > >> >> > TP, I wouldn’t be dropping the price anytime soon.
>
> > > > >> >> > On Mar 25, 3:18 pm, Big Al from ME wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > Harry:
>
> > > > >> >> > > I’ll certainly talk about the elephant in the room. Here
> > would be
> > > > >> >> > > my
> > > > >> >> > > suggestion: don’t charge so freaking much!
>
> > > > >> >> > > Al
>
> > > > >> >> > > On Mar 24, 12:58 pm, HHH wrote:
>
> > > > >> >> > > > The company that designed the Evo, AMC Design House,
> > contacted me
> > > > >> >> > > > yesterday to ask if they could use one of my quotes for an
> > > > >> upcoming
> > > > >> >> > > > interview with a magazine called Sneaker Freaker on Vivo
> > > > >> >> > > > Barefoot/
> > > > >> >> > > > Terra Plana (an influential industry specific trainer
> > magazine).
> > > > >> She
> > > > >> >> > > > also asked for feedback on my experiences with the Evo so
> > far.
>
> > > > >> >> > > > I let the Design Director know about the issue with
> > blisters
> > > > >> >> > > > (toes
> > > > >> >> > > > and
> > > > >> >> > > > heel area) and the weight of the shoe. Of course, I added
> > much
> > > > >> more
> > > > >> >> > > > color and detail than that but she is reviewing the
> > feedback and
> > > > >> >> > > > will
> > > > >> >> > > > get back to me. They are in the process of developing the
> > next
> > > > >> >> > > > generation Evo, probably 9-12 months from availability.
>
> > > > >> >> > > > If other folks have issues/concerns that want me to share
> > with
> > > > >> >> > > > the
> > > > >> >> > > > designer, please let me know.
>
> > > > >> >> > > > Harry- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > >> >> > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > > >> >> > –
> > > > >> >> > ”Minimalist Runner – Barefoot, Huaraches, FiveFingers…”
> > hosted by
> > > > >> >> > Barefoot Ted
>
> > > > >> >> > Membership Options:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe
>
> > > > >> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to huaraches+
> > > > >> >> > unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the
> > words
> > > > >> >> > “REMOVE
> > > > >> >> > ME” as the subject.
>
> > > > >> >> –
> > > > >> >> _________________________________
> > > > >> >> Tucker
>
> > > > >> > –
> > > > >> > “Minimalist Runner – Barefoot, Huaraches, FiveFingers…” hosted
> > by
> > > > >> > Barefoot Ted
>
> > > > >> > Membership Options:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe
>
> > > > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > >> > huaraches+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with
> > the
> > > > >> words
> > > > >> > “REMOVE ME” as the subject.
>
> > > > >> –
> > > > >> _________________________________
> > > > >> Tucker
>
> > > > >> –
> > > > >> “Minimalist Runner – Barefoot, Huaraches, FiveFingers…” hosted by
> > > > >> Barefoot Ted
>
> > > > >> Membership Options:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe
>
> > > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to huaraches+
> > > > >> unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words
> > “REMOVE
> > > > >> ME” as the subject.
>
> > > > > –
> > > > > “Minimalist Runner – Barefoot, Huaraches, FiveFingers…” hosted by
> > > > > Barefoot Ted
>
> > > > > Membership Options:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe
>
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > > huaraches+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with
> > the words
> > > > > “REMOVE ME” as the subject.
>
> > > > –
> > > > _________________________________
> > > > Tucker- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > –
> > “Minimalist Runner – Barefoot, Huaraches, FiveFingers…” hosted by
> > Barefoot Ted
>
> > Membership Options:http://groups.google.com/group/huaraches/subscribe
>
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to huaraches+
> > unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words “REMOVE
> > ME” as the subject.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:43 am
From: “Robakks”
“Zerkon”
news:pan.2010.03.29.14.27.00@erkonx.net…
> The phrase ‘A is A’ apparently sums up Aristotle’s Law of Identity or
> “Everything that exists has a specific nature”. Everything is self
> defining therefore any assigned attributes (eg: “A is Round”) violates
> the specificity or identity of A.
>
> “A is A” therefore is a dumbed down version of the more accurate “A is”
> or the still more accurate definition of A as being “A”, finally reaching
> the most accurate unspoken A as existing without need for any definition.
> However since neither “A is” or “A” nor a silent A conveys clear meaning,
> “A is A” is commonly used among Objectivists and those who want to
> impress others with their deep wit. Deep in what exactly remains
> uncertain.
>
> Tragically, sadly and most horribly this becomes self-defeating if it is
> used to affirm a pure objective reality because an abstract precondition
> must immediately be met.
>
> ‘A’ is forced, whipped and enslaved into represent some thing it is not.
> Or, first let ‘A’ represent any idea of any object. After this A is A.
>
> ‘A’, the written or typed physical entity, can not define itself and
> remain “A is A” true. A, the first ‘A’ typed, can not be also ‘A’ since
> it is the second ‘A’ typed. It is only a by a leap in logic, disguised as
> coherent reason of course, the two ‘A’s become as one. Only a small step
> away from a trinity “A is A is A” which opens to the infinity “Rose is a
> rose is a rose is a rose.”
>
> I, for one, prefer “Everything that exists has a specific nature” and be
> done with it. Until, of course, the topic of existence itself arises,
> arises, arises, arises.
Be and to exist.
The horse to be in the real world.
The image of a horse exists in the psyche.
Identity = compliance
what IS and what exists.
Edward Robak* from Nowa Huta
~>°<~ http://translate.google.com/ #
lover of wisdom and not only:)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do atheist deny that atheism is a relegion.
>
> > I will ask them to produce it
>
> So, even though you tacitly acknowledge that it is irrational for you to
> ask for it, you will continue to ask for it. That too is irrational.
>
> >, in an attempt to get them to either put-up or shut-up. They
> > seem to ‘think’ that their beliefs are evidence.
>
> They don’t have evidence. They have something that lies beyond proof.
> Furthermore it is not in the form that your atheistic and over-simplified
> views call the mere believing of a belief. The issue goes deep into the
> nature of truth. And again, I doubt you have the wherewithal to even
> begin to understand the nature of truth.
>
> I look forward to being shown to be wrong about you. But since you
> arbitrarily paint all theists as “irrational, illogical theists” without
> trying to expand your own understanding you are not only acting from your
> own set of silly, illogical beliefs, which is what you accuse theists of
> doing, you are also proving my assertion that you don’t have what it
> takes to understand anyway.
This corroborates my experience of talking to militant atheists.
>
> I don’t see your wilful decision to remain ignorant about the nature of
> reality and truth as being my problem. I see your problem with reality
> and truth as being my opportunity to give you the pillorying and ridicule
> that your unthinking mind so richly deserves.
>
> It is you who is in control of choosing to be enlightened or ridiculed.
> I’ve made the offer to try and show you the problem. The ball is in your
> court.
>
> –
> I have defined no god. And when I do need to define some god for the
> purposes of discussing its nature with atheists I always define the
> supposed some god in the very same concrete and arbitrary terms, without
> variation:
>
> God = Metaphysical X
>
> Watching you idiot atheists witlessly pinning your own lunatic
> assumptions and irrational perceptions onto it then attempting to argue
> against your very own deranged Frankenstein-like creation with utterly
> b0rked illogic is a never-ending source of great hilarity.
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:49 am
From: Maggsy
Nothing wrong with the Discovery Channel. Why do you have a problem
with it?
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:54 am
From: Maggsy
On Mar 11, 2:59 am, “Smiler” wrote:
> Maggsy wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 1:32 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> >> [snips]
>
> >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 06:01:34 -0800, Maggsy wrote:
> >>>> Atheism isn’t a religion. There is no worship of a god or
> >>>> supernatural force.
>
> >>> Your definition of religion is not correct.
>
> >>> something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter
> >>> of ethics or conscience
>
> >> Ah, yes. A devoted adherence to _not_ believing in gods. Indeed, I’m
> >> almost as devoted to that as my hobby of _not_ collecting stamps.
>
> >> Good grief but you people are stupid.
>
> > If you guy’s were not devoted to it you wouldn’t spend so much time
> > trying argue against theists.You put this much time and effort into
> > not collecting stamps do you?
>
> If you demented theists would leave us alone, you’d not hear from us.
Feel free not to respond. No one is forcing you to respond.Unless you
don’t believe in free will. Do you believe in free will?
> As you seem to like disrupting a.a. with your delusions,
I am not disrupting any thing.a.a is a newsgroups for people that want
to discuss atheism and theism. Why do you have a problem with that?
we’ll keep pointing
> out how stupid they are.
You haven’t pointed any thing out. You just keep making bold , crude
assertions that don’t have any evidence to back them up.
>
> –
> Smiler
> The godless one
> a.a.# 2279
> All gods are bespoke. They’re all made to
> perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:01 am
From: Maggsy
On Mar 11, 2:12 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:33:01 -0800, Maggsy wrote:
> >> Ah, yes. A devoted adherence to _not_ believing in gods. Indeed, I’m
> >> almost as devoted to that as my hobby of _not_ collecting stamps.
>
> >> Good grief but you people are stupid.
>
> > If you guy’s were not devoted to it you wouldn’t spend so much time
> > trying argue against theists.You put this much time and effort into not
> > collecting stamps do you?
>
> Do you see a lot of stamp collectors trying to force everyone not just
> into collecting stamps, but collecting stamps *their* way, changing laws
> to adhere to their beliefs about collecting stamps
All groups do this. Not just Christians.
, inflicting their
> weird stamp collecting behaviours and ideas onto other peoples’ kids,
Most if not all people do this. It’s called bringing your kids up as
you see fit. This is protected by law.
> against those other peoples’ wishes, and often at those other peoples’
> expense?
>
What are you trying to say?
Like I said before this is why the stamp collectors analogy was a bad
example.
> No. Thus there is no need to fight to keep the stamp collectors at bay;
> they’re content to just collect and leave others out of it.
>
Of course. Collecting stamps is just a hobbie. What you believe or
don’t believe is much more important.
> See if you’re smart enough to figure out how that applies to you.
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:03 am
From: Maggsy
On Mar 11, 2:13 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:25:43 -0800, Maggsy wrote:
> >> What does evolution have to do with atheism, is all I want to know.
>
> > Nothing. Although some seem to think it proves God doesnt exist.
>
> Well, it’s true that a lot of god-addled nitwits claim that evolution
> somehow suggests gods don’t exist,
And many more atheists. You forgot them.
but then, they believe in invisible
> magic sky pixies, so you can’t really trust anything they say, as they
> are fundamentally (pardon the pun) not sane.
So you say. So according to you they should be sectioned then? Are you
a qualified psychiatrist?
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:05 am
From: Maggsy
On Mar 14, 5:50 am, “Pink Freud” wrote:
> “Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking head” wrote in message
>
> news:5b73b562-0a82-4a32-a7af-76c965fb3e5e@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com…
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 12:21 am, Richo wrote:
> >> On Feb 27, 12:10 pm, Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking
>
> >> head wrote:
> >> > > > They deny that it is a religion, because that’s part of the
> >> > > > practiced
> >> > > > religion.
>
> >> > > Atheism isn’t a religion. There is no worship of a god or
> >> > > supernatural force.
>
> >> > There are actually several religions that fit this. [So Atheism is a
> >> > religion]
>
> >> Here is more of the same “thinking”:
> > No, it’s not the same…It’s just you being a moron.
>
> Fucking idiot.
>
> >
> > Atheism has churches,
>
> Lie #1.
>
> > has religious books,
>
> Lie #2.
>
> > has members working to
> > convert everyone in earshot,
>
> Lie #3.
>
> > has members suing left and right so they
> > can go to Atheist church groups in schools and prisons
>
> Lie #4.
>
> >…It has
> > everything a religion has
>
> Lie #5.
>
> > because it is a religion.
>
> Lie #6.
>
> > [And you can't
> > prove different]
>
> Lie #7.
>
> Impressive. Tell me, fuckhead, is that a personal best?
Your “lovely”.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:05 am
From: Maggsy
On Mar 14, 5:44 pm, Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking
head wrote:
> > Fucking idiot.
>
> Nice self examination…And it only took everyone(including me)
> pointing out that fact from day one.
>
>
> Since you have to resort to lying and insults, it’s clear I’ve proven
> my case.
valid.
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:11 am
From: Maggsy
On Mar 15, 11:12 am, Errol wrote:
> On Mar 15, 5:21 am, The Chief Instigator wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:44:47 -0700 (PDT), Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking head wrote:
>
> > >> Fucking idiot.
> > > Nice self examination…And it only took everyone(including me)
> > > pointing out that fact from day one.
>
> > >
> > > Since you have to resort to lying and insults, it’s clear I’ve proven
> > > my case.
>
> > It’s just an annoying coincidence that you’re clueless to the reality that
> > if there are any atheist churches, they’re figments of your imagination.
> > (Not one has surfaced in this metro area of 4.9 million.)
>
> > –
> > Patrick L. “The Chief Instigator” Humphrey (patr…@io.com) Houston, Texas
> > www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI’s 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
> > LAST GAME: Rockford 3, Houston 2 (SO, March 14)
> > NEXT GAME: Saturday, March 20 vs. Milwaukee, 7:35
>
> From Google
>
> using keywords: atheist churches houston texas
>
> Atheist Church
> The Houston Church of Freethought was founded by former members of the
> North Texas Church of Freethought and provides a monthly service for
> nonbelievers. …www.acfnewsource.org/religion/atheist_church.html- Cached – Similar
>
> North Texas Church of Freethought – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Dr. Newdow has also founded a secular church, the First Atheist Church
> of True Science (FACTS). The NTCOF participated in the inaugural Texas
> Freethought …
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Texas_Church_of_Freethought – Cached -
> Similar
>
> Pity about the facts huh! They tend to get in the way of a good denial.
Bingo.They are not interested in facts.Their mantra seems to be. I’ve
made my mind up .Now don’t confuse me with the facts.Talk about
burying your head in the sand.Militant atheists are great at it. Come
on guy’s take the blind fold off.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:12 am
From: Maggsy
On Mar 15, 11:26 am, “Pink Freud” wrote:
> “Errol” wrote in message
>
> news:483eaf24-5399-400d-9d33-345fc62b4831@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com…
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 5:21 am, The Chief Instigator wrote:
> >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:44:47 -0700 (PDT), Anonymous Infidel – the
> >> anti-political talking head wrote:
>
> >> >> Fucking idiot.
> >> > Nice self examination…And it only took everyone(including me)
> >> > pointing out that fact from day one.
>
> >> >
> >> > Since you have to resort to lying and insults, it’s clear I’ve proven
> >> > my case.
>
> >> It’s just an annoying coincidence that you’re clueless to the reality
> >> that
> >> if there are any atheist churches, they’re figments of your imagination.
> >> (Not one has surfaced in this metro area of 4.9 million.)
>
> >> –
> >> Patrick L. “The Chief Instigator” Humphrey (patr…@io.com) Houston,
> >> Texas
> >> www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php(TCI’s 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
> >> LAST GAME: Rockford 3, Houston 2 (SO, March 14)
> >> NEXT GAME: Saturday, March 20 vs. Milwaukee, 7:35
>
> > From Google
>
> > using keywords: atheist churches houston texas
>
> > Atheist Church
> > The Houston Church of Freethought was founded by former members of the
> > North Texas Church of Freethought and provides a monthly service for
> > nonbelievers. …
> >www.acfnewsource.org/religion/atheist_church.html- Cached – Similar
>
> > North Texas Church of Freethought – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> > Dr. Newdow has also founded a secular church, the First Atheist Church
> > of True Science (FACTS). The NTCOF participated in the inaugural Texas
> > Freethought …
> > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Texas_Church_of_Freethought – Cached -
> > Similar
>
> > Pity about the facts huh! They tend to get in the way of a good denial.
>
> I dunno. Got any relevant facts to offer?
Yes he just posted them. You ignored them as usual.
>
> “Sticking feathers up your butt does NOT make you a chicken.”
> Tyler Durden, Fight Club- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:16 am
From: Maggsy
On Mar 17, 7:27 pm, Jimbo wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2:24 pm, Maggsy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 11:53 pm, “Smiler” wrote:
>
> > > Maggsy wrote:
> > > > On Feb 21, 6:11 pm, Kilmir wrote:
> > > >> On 21 feb, 15:01, Maggsy wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Feb 21, 8:13 am, Chaos out of Order wrote:
>
> > > >>>> On Feb 20, 11:40 pm, Sir Frederick wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:12:05 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
> > > >>>>> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> Some crap.
>
> > > >>>>>> Bret Cahill
>
> > > >>>>> They deny that it is a religion, because that’s part of the
> > > >>>>> practiced
> > > >>>>> religion.
>
> > > >>>> Atheism isn’t a religion. There is no worship of a god or
> > > >>>> supernatural force.
>
> > > >>> Your definition of religion is not correct.
>
> > > >>> something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter
> > > >>> of ethics or
> > > >>> consciencehttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
>
> > > >>> This is what atheists do with their atheistic beliefs.Some one
> > > >>> should tell Richard dawkins.
>
> > > >>> Beliefs aren’t held on by faith. Most atheists
>
> > > >>>> are such because of the lack of evidence for the existence of gods
> > > >>>> or supernatural forces.
>
> > > >>> So they say.If you ignore,deny and dismiss the evidence then of
> > > >>> course there is no evidence for them. For those who are not
> > > >>> prejudice against the evidence there is evidence.
>
> > > >> What, you claim to have evidence of god(s) ?
> > > >> Many here would love to see that.
>
> > > > I doubt it. It has been presented here many times before by many
> > > > different people and rejected with out any good rational reason.
>
> > > >> Remember, objective evidence only so others could verify. There is no
> > > >> point in “evidence” that can’t be distinguished from a delusion.
>
> > >
>
> > > Beliefs, opinions and ‘holy’ books are not evidence.
>
> > > Now try presenting some REAL objective evidence, the sort that would stand
> > > up in a court of law.
>
> > You mean like the gospels. Based on eyewitness reports.
>
> Can you independently verify the authorship of the gospels?- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
Independent of what the church?Why should I need too?You don’t trust
the Church fathers. Why?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What makes a good scientist?
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:51 am
From: Zerkon
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:33:57 +0100, John Jones wrote:
> What makes a good scientist?
Adherence to a science method
Illustrating…
> There are only two kinds of (good) scientist(s).
Those that are boring to most and those that are even more boring to even
more. A good scientist will show up at a protest with a sign that reads
“This is a tricky gray area!!!” the exclamations inserted to make them
seem part of the moment and hopefully get invited to the party after.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:22 am
From: omprem
On Mar 28, 8:52 pm, “THE BORG” wrote:
> “omprem” wrote in message
>
> news:9092bfcc-c859-4f98-a3a8-669721597f91@h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com…
> On Mar 28, 6:33 pm, John Jones
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is
> > noisy and
> > leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and
> > gibbering to
> > onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of
> > science in action.
>
> > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The
> > bone-rattler is
> > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry.
> > Onlookers are
> > impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden
> > strengths of
> > science.
>
> There is a third kind of scientist, a good kind of
> scientist, and
> that is the scientist who initially uses empirical means to
> explore
> the unknown possibilities of existence and is prepared to
> allow his
> prejudices to be dispelled, his learning modes to be refined
> and
> changed, and his consciousness expanded. These scientists
> are among
> the leading astro-physicists.
>
> Your other two types of scientist can be likened to a
> steward who is
> content to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic while it
> is
> sinking. They can make major changes in very minor areas.
> The third
> kind that I mentioned can eventually know the face of God,
> so to
> speak.
>
> ******
> Cosmology is also interesting.
> Here is a snippet on Esoteric Cosmology which is quite
> enlightening.
>
> Here in this snippet you can see that he states there is no
> God, or
> concept of God, no concept of sin or salvation, merely that
> in eternity, it is the goal of all life to work with one
> aim, and that is to alleviate boredom.
>
> *****
> Michael Sharp in The Book of Light elucidates a Kabbalistic
> cosmology where “consciousness is the root” of all things
> including (and perhaps especially) the physical universe and
> all its dimensions. According to Sharp, consciousness
> “unfolds” from the original, monadic I (the single point) to
> the current state of trillions upon trillions of monads
> which exist in multiple dimensions and in multiple
> universes. As consciousness unfolds through the twelve
> levels of The Unfolding, dimensions are added as a sort of
> epiphenomenon (i.e., they emerge because of the peculiar
> state of consciousness). First there is perspective, then
> chance, then time, space, etc. All told there are twelve
> “dimensions” of existence that correspond to the twelve
> levels in The Unfolding. Not all of these dimensions
> correlate directly to physical aspects of the physical
> multiverse but all of them are rooted in the changing
> composition (state) of consciousness.
>
> Sharp’s cosmology is particularly interesting because no
> matter how complex the universe gets, it is ultimately all
> an aspect or a state of the grand creator consciousness. It
> is also interesting because the cosmology does away, for
> better or worse, with traditional esoteric canon regarding
> “soul evolution” and replaces it with the collective
> alleviation of boredom. That is, it is not our purpose to
> advance towards God, work towards redemption, or redeem
> ourselves from sin. Like the artist who paints a canvas or
> the musician that plays a song, it is our purpose to create
> in an interesting and entertaining fashion.
Sharp is getting close.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:24 am
From: omprem
On Mar 28, 9:23 pm, John Locke wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:33:57 +0100, John Jones
>
> wrote:
> >There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> Only one kind. Employing reason and logic, adhering to scientific
> procedures and not entertaining even the slightest notion of
> supernatural control and design.
>
> —————————————————————
>
> “”All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
> or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to
> terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
> — Thomas Paine
Scientific procedures are limited, flawed and subject to skewing by
the presence and intent of the scientist.
If only Atheists knew enough about reason and logic and were able to
conquer their fears sufficiently to examine their own belief system.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Obamas must die!
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:52 am
From: tooly
On Mar 29, 10:21 am, GLOBALIST wrote:
> I always get a kick out of folks who are ‘still’ hunting down
> communists. Oh well ..they need something to keep them busy, so they
> don’t have to face reality
Hugo Chavez stated at the Copenhagen GBW conference in december that
‘Capitalism was the problem’…and he got the loudest ovation of the
conference. It clearly demonstrated how the Environmental movement
has been taken over by old world communists.
But, there are synonyms here. Liberals; progressives; social
democrats. If one reads about cultural marxist strategy [and Marx's
original manifesto], one understands that the Communist Party, per se,
is supposed to remain SMALL in scope; a core body of fully commited
acolytes but who then work ‘behind the scenes’ to bring about the
Marxist goal of world socialism [and then, eventually, communism].
Antonia Gramsci, key designer of the Cultural Marxist manifesto, said
that a NEW proletariat would need to be formulated by this ‘behind the
scenes’ agitation [if marxist goals were to ever be realized in
western civilization]. That new proletariat would be comprised of
Women, Minorities, criminals and outcasts. The idea has always been
to ‘enrage’ those with a natural interest in ‘anti-establishment’,
that they might ‘rise up’ and take over the old establishment [just as
bolsheviks enlisted the rage of peasants to rebel against Tsarist
forces in 1917 (before he then turned on the peasants their use up).
It is always hard to say exactly the depth of 'behind the scenes'
agitation real bonfide communists are at work in the various social
movements that have slowly made their 'GRAND MARCH' through our
institutions since civil rights days. Martin Luther King, for example,
had real communists in his entourage [for which, J. Edgar Hoover had
him monitored]. Everything from the SDS [which had over 200 chapters
on American University campuses] to modern progressive movements
[Obama is rife with socialist and marxist connections; Chicago poltics
is rife with it as the apparent domocile of many social activists from
the turbulent 60's, like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn]. Most all
liberal universities have major marxist influences in their social
departments. A conference on Marxist Ideals and Goals held in the
Northeast several years ago drew well over 150 college professors
before it was sold out for attendance. Even Eugene McCarthy was
somewhat exonerated [after he was villified in the press], as it was
proven there had existed real communist agitation in Hollywood.
It is always clandestine; behind the scenes; the small but devoted
force of activists who work to INFLUENCE those with liberal,
progressive, and social democratic leanings to combine, and act
against the ruling establishment [essentially what has become seen as
white/european males;...hmm...curious isn't it]. I mean, look at how
our political structures have ‘migrated’ over the years. I mean, what
is the Democrat Party now if not that NEW PROLETARIAT that Antonion
Gramsci called for [awfully close; all them agitated women and
minorities all riled up...hell bent for glory to bring down the evil
White guy].
It should be noted that first on the Cultural Marxist list to bring
down was Christianity. Hmm…any spidey senses tingling yet? I mean,
what relgion has been attacked relentlessly for more than 40 years
now; everything from Christmas being ‘eliminated’, to golden rules and
ten commandments and ‘In God we Trust’ being attacked to ‘erase’ it
from our culture. You don’t see the venom and vitriole being directed
toward any other religon [save for Muslim because of 9-11 of
course...but that is popular while the war against Christianity is
directed from the highest levels of influence and authority...our
courts and public media].
No…there is most definitely SOMETHING going on. I know I ‘m not the
only one that has sat back in amazement and disbelief for about 50
years now as one insanity after another has kept winning out…mainly
through our court system [not by majoritave legislative action]. We
know AFFIRMATIVELY who some of the culprits are by WORD:
Liberals…most assuredly. Progressives…YEA MAN, guilty. Social
Democrats…well, that is pretty much what the Democrat party IS now
[they should change their name to better identify themselves]. Are
Socialists to blame for this culture’s undermine as well? Well, what
is a progressive except a socialist working for a specific cause?
But, now…can we jump from there to label this undermine as being
Communist in scope? At this juncture, isn’t only a matter of
semantics? We learn of organizations like ACORN, Tides Foundation,
Appollo group..each a conglomerate of hundreds of organizations
themselves [like a giant spider web with thousands of capillaries and
branches and community organizing of one sort or another]. And one
starts to research the founders, the council heads, the department
overseers, the influencial members of these groups. Green
Peace…just off my head; that one influential group; they were a
bunch of draft dodgers who went to Canada in Viet Nam years…card
carrying marxists one and all. I mean, who founded ACORN
anyway…Wade Rathke…we’ve all heard of him; a 60′s anti-war agitato
and bonifide marxist socialist. There’s simply not enough room
here…but when one starts researching all these organizations…well,
yea…it is not the wild eyed conspiracy nutter argument after
all…but REAL…Communists are alive and well in America and are
working ‘behind the scenes’ to undermine this culture and way of
life. But then, these are the scourge ‘in the open’…identifiable.
Cultural Marxism came here not to enlist…but to INFLUENCE.
Universities like Columbia and UC at Berkley started graduated new
professors, who then took up residence at other schools graduating
even more ‘like in mind’ liberal, progressive, even marxist ‘anti
American’ mindsets; and slowly, they’ve expanded into our
institutions…education, media, newspapers, television; no, not many
would see themselves as ‘communists’ per se, but not realizing how
they have been ‘influenced’ to become part of a new insurrection in
the land.
And then we come to Obama, a direct result of all this GRAND MARCHING
through our institutions. His ties are plain to see; he searched out
‘marxist professors’ while in school; taught Saul Alinsky methods in
the classroom. His is rife with attachments and associations…Bill
Ayers [SDS founder], Bern. Dorhnc[SDS], Van Jones[Communist], Valerie
Jarrett, Mark Lloyd [Chavez admirer], Robert McChesney [Marxist], Andy
Stern ['Worker's Unite'], Anita Dunn [Maoist], Rev. Wright [marxist
liberation theology]…
No. You say you laugh when you hear someone railing on about ‘hunting
down communists’. Ok, have your laugh. But something has happened in
America and it has been happening for several decades now. It was not
‘natural’, but FORCED…like political correctness and all them
‘rules’ you see plastered over workplace walls anymore. The ‘rights
of men’ being stomped on by the ‘Rights of MAN’ crowd.
This financial crisis is right out the marxist play book as well, and
all Obama has done so far. And how about global warming and peak
oil…am I so paranoid as to not see how so damn convenient these
issues are to soclalism?
I read, and I learn how Communists work. Nothing is out in the open
for them. They are always ‘behind the scenes’…a small, but
effectively agitating force, whose only aim is to bring down
capitalism. It is not about serving women, minorities, or any NEW
PROLETARIAT…but only about bringing down capitalism to raise
socialism.
Sleep away to your own peril.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rising racial tensions: Who are the true villains?
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:53 am
From: Bret Cahill
> As racial tensions are rising in America, and both black racists and
> white racists are profiting from them in their desire to assert
> totalitarian control over the respective races, it is about time to
> put things into perspective for both groups.
>
> While the white racists continue to claim that the white race is the
> superior race, and the black racists claim that white people are
> oppressors against black people, history shows that neither is true.
> China had great cities and half the world’s GDP at the time that
> Europe was a feudal backwater. At about the same time, Africa had a
> city of one million people, when Europe did not have a settlement
> larger than one tenth that size. As for the claim of white people
> being oppressors of black people: The African leaders collaborated in
> the slave trade. As for the present white people, the ones that live
> in the cities are the ones that are sympathetic to black people and
> have fought for civil rights, de-segregation, social inclusion, and
> election of Barack Obama. And while there are many white people who
> are in fact racist and hateful of black people, most vote Republican
> and live in the country. So if you are black, and serious about
> standing up for your people, the Democrats in the cities are not the
> people you want to get.
>
> The ones you do want to get are people such as the Fatherhood
> Foundation, which wants to exile black people. The people you do want
> to get are people such as the Church of Christian Identity, which
> thinks that white race is angelic and that black race is satanic. The
> people you do want to get are skinheads, neo-Nazis, white
> supremacists, and their sympathizers. You will not find them in DC or
> New York or Los Angeles. You will find them in Republican hinterland,
> and if you are the real men you believe you are then they are the
> people you’ll go after, not the liberal city white people who are
> sympathetic to black people, who have voted for Obama, who have
> supported civil rights and social justice, and who for the most part
> want to see black people do well.
>
> There is no such thing as a superior race or an inferior race; but
> there is such a thing as superior and inferior conduct, and this is
> found in every race. There are inferior white people who have nothing
> to be proud of except their ethnicity and who go around raping,
> maiming, and killing people who aren’t white. There are also superior
> white people such as Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, the
> Kennedys, Steven Jobs, Nobel Prize-winning scientists, and people who
> put man in space and on the Moon. There are inferior black people who
> shoot up their neighborhoods and rape and batter black women; and
> there are superior black people, such as Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama,
> Julius Nyerere and Wangaari Maathai, who do great and heroic deeds.
> There are inferior Asian people such as the Japanese soldiers who in
> the Second World War slaughtered 20 million Chinese civilians and the
> Chinese Red Guards who executed millions of people without trial
> during China’s Cultural Revolution; and there are superior Asian
> people who run Buddhist monasteries, who create magnificent artifacts,
> who made your cars and your home appliances and your computer, and who
> had great civilizations when white people were powerless barbarians.
> The white racists and the black racists are both inferior specimen of
> their races, and there is no reason why anyone, white, black or other,
> should listen to them.
>
> Gangsters are not the true black people they claim to be; they are an
> embarrassment to black people and leeches on black people. Nor are
> white racists the true white people they claim to be, or militia types
> the true Americans that they claim to be; they are the vilest
> specimens among populations for which they claim to speak. Both races
> are poorly represented by these worst elements among them ridiculously
> portraying themselves as the genuine article and using this claim to
> bully the people of their races into supporting them when they
> shouldn’t; and it is time that better people begin to speak for both
> races and influence both of them toward superior conduct – both to
> their own people and toward the other races of their country and of
> the world.
>
> The Obama administration received votes from both black people and
> white people. The white people who voted for Obama went out on a limb,
> and it is time that black people acknowledge that. It is not easy for
> someone to break with coercion by people who want to claim you a
> traitor for voting for a black president, who say that you’ve helped
> elect a thug, who call you before the election to tell you that Obama
> is a Muslim terrorist, or who compare Obama to Hitler. The white
> Democrats are the people whom black people should honor, especially
> after Obama’s election. And if they really want to pick a fight with
> the people who’ve done them wrong, then they should be going after the
> real villains, such as political organizations that want them exiled,
> religious sects that see the white race as angelic and black race as
> Satanic, and brutes and louts who claim that they are true white
> people or true America and use this false claim to bully white people
> from reaching out to and working alongside black people in America.
>
> So if you are black, and have been swept up in the racial tensions:
> Take a breath, calm yourself, and put things into perspective. Your
> white neighbors are not the bad guys; they are your friends. There are
> white people who hate you, but they are in a different part of the
> country. Be good to your neighbor, work with your neighbor, and
> together defeat the real villains of the white race.
>
> Who are these villains? The groups that I’ve mentioned already, but
> also and more generally the Bush-Reagan Republicans. These people, and
> their whole ideology, is a Big Lie. They claim to love America, then
> they put it $10 trillions in debt. They claim to have family values,
> then they poison the planet and aggressively deny the reality of the
> damage they do, leaving the place uninhabitable for their children and
> wanting the world to end before their children have reached maturity.
> They claim to be ethical, then they use lies, fraud and corruption to
> impose on America a corrupt and disastrous regime that takes America
> into the worst crisis that it has seen in generations. They claim to
> value life, then they kill a million Iraqi civilians and send
> thousands of Americans to their deaths. They claim to be good for
> money and for the economy, as they put America in the worst economic
> shape it has been since 1930s. They claim to be responsible and
> ethically upstanding people when they do this horrible wrong -
> destroying the living environment for their children, bankrupting the
> country in order to pay for irresponsible tax cuts, using lies and
> fraud to impose on America an unelected regime, killing vast numbers
> of civilians for trumped-up reasons, putting America in a terrible
> economic condition, and wanting the world to end before the bills for
> these and related wrongs have come due.
>
> It is time that Bush Republicanism be seen for the horror of what it
> is and be never again allowed in power. The people should be educated
> on this matter to the point that they are no longer vulnerable to
> brainwashing by the villains responsible for this abomination.
>
> Meanwhile it is time to take this great historic opportunity and
> maximize its benefits. To create real workable clean energy solutions
> – to make health care available and affordable – to improve the inner
> city and the lives of its people – and, for black people, to achieve
> up to all that they can achieve politically, socially, academically
> and economically and vanquish forever the hideous myth of their racial
> inferiority. With Barack Obama in power, all this is possible. To
> waste this great opportunity on abusing city white Democrats is
> extremely shortsighted and irresponsible. Think of the needs of your
> children and what kind of a world you would like to bequeath them, and
> work on bringing about such a world.
>
> http://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatwritingshttp://bettermillenium.blogspot.com
When it was becoming clear the GOP was going to lose Congress some
Tennessee Repug ran a campaign ad about white women going wild about
black men or something and Eleanor Clift said it best:
The GOP is finally being forced to “return to its racist roots.”
As the extremists continue to purge the moderates from the GOP as they
are doing in Florida and Arizona right now it is 100% certain that the
GOP will become more racist.
They are still trying to conceal it but with tactics that are less and
less convincing.
Last week rightards gave a homeless black man some pocket change or
beer to go on camera saying he was against tax hikes on the rich and a
few months ago the tea baggers went to Kinkos and had a $60 banner
sign printed that said “Obamaville” and placed it in front of a
homeless camp.
This phase will not last very long. Eventually they’ll drop the
pretenses altogether and become openly racist.
Bret Cahill
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:08 am
From: lorad
On Mar 26, 4:09 am, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> On Mar 21, 3:23 am, lorad wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 6:46 am, Ilya Shambat wrote:
>
> > > As racial tensions are rising in America, and both black racists and
> > > white racists are profiting from them in their desire to assert
> > > totalitarian control over the respective races, it is about time to
> > > put things into perspective for both groups.
>
> > > While the white racists continue to claim that the white race is the
> > > superior race, and the black racists claim that white people are
> > > oppressors against black people, history shows that neither is true.
> > > China had great cities and half the world’s GDP at the time that
> > > Europe was a feudal backwater. At about the same time, Africa had a
> > > city of one million people, when Europe did not have a settlement
> > > larger than one tenth that size. As for the claim of white people
> > > being oppressors of black people: The African leaders collaborated in
> > > the slave trade. As for the present white people, the ones that live
> > > in the cities are the ones that are sympathetic to black people and
> > > have fought for civil rights, de-segregation, social inclusion, and
> > > election of Barack Obama. And while there are many white people who
> > > are in fact racist and hateful of black people, most vote Republican
> > > and live in the country. So if you are black, and serious about
> > > standing up for your people, the Democrats in the cities are not the
> > > people you want to get.
>
> > > The ones you do want to get are people such as …
>
> > Internationalists/New Word Orderists/Traitors who want to break down
> > national sovereignty by means of impugning ‘racism’ as a scourge to
> > any and all attempts by a nationality to exert authority over their
> > own internal affairs…
>
> > Hoping by such action to break down societal cohesion and consensus by
> > immigrating foreign factions that are detrimental to national
> > democratic processes… so that they can impose their own
> > internationalist authority instead.
>
> That’s something one might hear from a small-time despot who wants to
> dominate the people in the community in which he operates, and for
> these people to have no options except putting up with his domination.
Do you have a problem with an ethnic group which wishes to control its
own affairs?
Or do you demand that foreigners control them?
It’s a simple question.. please answer.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lead me not to temptation?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:59 am
From: Zerkon
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:16:12 +0100, TruthSlave wrote:
> I have an idea for an Hollywood movie on temptation.
>
> Set in an alternative reality where a kind of stock market deals in a
> counter currency of human lives, and reputations.
Uhh sorry for the buzz kill here but your alternative reality movie idea
has been eclipse by the only alternative but reality of here and now..
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:02 am
From: “Bigdog”
Zerkon wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:22:51 +0100, Bigdog wrote:
>
>> Zerkon wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:12:28 +0000, Bigdog wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The first being, existence is not dependent upon human
>>>>> consciousness.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know this?
>>>
>>> Logic and history.
>>
>> I can’t see how logic or history could possibly inform anybody that
>> anything exists independently of human consciousness. This sounds
>> like metaphysical realism to me, and as such, it has been debated
>> fruitlessly by philosophers for centuries (if not millennia).
>
> Traditional Science has found physical proof that a physical universe
> existed long before the human being and so, logically, human
> consciousness.
Traditional Science (being a process going on in human consciousness) has
found physical proof (physical being a category of phenomena appearing
within human consciousness) that a physical universe (a model appearing
within human consciousness) existed long before the human being (an idea
appearing in human consciousness of an object that somehow mysteriously
hosts human consciousness) showed up in that model. The question is how
would it be possible to gain a view of this system (ie get outside human
consciousness) in order to test this model? Can’t be done.
> Common Scientific understanding also suggest this will still exist
> long after humans become extinct as a species.
> This informs me, at least, as this condition existed before and will
> exist afterwards, it is not dependent on human beings
Common Scientific understanding (appearing in human consciousness) also
suggests that the phyiscal universe (a model appearing within human
consciousness) will still exist long after humans (an idea appearing in
human consciousness of objects that somehow mysteriously host human
consciousness) cease to participate in that model. This informs me that the
model is internally consistent (except for the mysterious way in which the
human being is supposed to host its consciousness), but not that there is a
precise correspondence between the model and what it is supposed to be
modeling. The question remains that of how it would be possible to gain a
view of this system (ie get outside human consciousness) in order to compare
the model with the modeled. Can’t be done.
>>>>> Secondly that there is such a thing as existence. Not how it is
>>>>> defined, what it means or what it is but simply that it is.
>>>>
>>>> Existence is? What on earth does that mean?
>>>
>>> It is self-defining. It can not be modified by any word following
>>> ‘is’.
>>>
>>> Example: “That car is…”
>>>
>>> … the next word will define that ‘car’ as having some sort of
>>> specific attribute or applied meaning.. ‘fast’ or ‘small’ or ‘hers’
>>> and so forth. Whereas ‘that car is.’ states that it exists. After
>>> this then attributes and meanings can be assigned or not.
>>
>> Putting aside the copulative use of the word ‘is’ leaves the
>> existential use – as you say, ‘that car is’ states that it exists.
>> So ‘existence is’ states that existence exists. What on earth does
>> that mean?
>
> A “in and of itself” is another way to put it. Is form a problem?
>
> A person stating “GO!” if taken as is(!) means nothing, however it
> does have meaning within a given unspoken condition.
>
> If pointing to a triangle, I ask you to prove this is a triangle you
> may give a perfect definition of why it is a triangle.
> I then argue this is circular reasoning, you can counter with ‘no’
> because your definition defines the exclusive attributes of a
> triangle, essentially saying it is a triangle because it is not a
> circle which is defined in another way, nor is it a square as a
> square has a different definition. Your argument is established as
> non circular reasoning. A triangle is understood first because of
> uniqueness among other uniqueness.
>
> This can not be done with existence since it is not unique and so not
> distinguished by anything it is not.
What on earth does it mean to say that ‘existence is not unique’? These
sorts of claim are examples of our use of language becoming pathological.
>>> “A is A”, is a classic illustration of “A is”.
>>
>> “A is A” is utter nonsense.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. It conveys a valid concept to me but too digressive
> here so I apologize for bringing in this monster.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: One way of recognising one’s spirituality.
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:06 am
From: omprem
On Mar 27, 11:50 pm, “The BORG” wrote:
> wrote in message
>
> news:363a927a-30a2-4b8e-8068-833a69da1437@s20g2000prm.googlegroups.com…
>
>
>
> > When you can see that atheism, religiosity, and the
> > different shades
> > between, are valid states of consciousness, that they are
> > ‘group rites
> > of passage’, from which individual consciousness and
> > awareness
> > emerges, then you are looking from a spiritual
> > perspective.
>
> > Often confirmed by being ‘accused’ from one side or the
> > other, as
> > belonging to their particular opposite, as happens with
> > all growth
> > into ‘individuality’.
>
> > A favorite anecdote being Sting’s dad (who was a milkman)
> > told his
> > sone, even when he was succesful…”yes, but thats not a
> > ‘propper’
> > job…Just delightful !
>
> > Groups do not take kindly to what they describe as
> > ‘radicals’, and we
> > all know the power of ‘free radicals’ have over the
> > organism.
>
> > Something that the ‘group’ tries to stop at the
> > intellectual level ,
> > and ‘cure’ at the physiological level.
>
> > And the beat goes on ….
>
> > BOfL
>
> SUFFERING is one of the best ways to cause anyone’s
> individual conscious and awareness to emerge.
> Those who never suffer, never become “deep” in the way that
> those who suffer do.
> It is strange how suffering causes you to think and ask deep
> and meaningful questions about the nature of life and
> existence.
> There are two kinds of suffering.
> Physical suffering, and mental suffering.
>
> The Christian Church and the Bible cause a lot of mental
> suffering to people, and many are those tormented by words
> written in the Bible, of a mean, petty, violent, prejudiced,
> and punishing God. And of a so called “beloved son” who was
> not beloved at all if God had him crucified.
>
> Physical suffering can often be relived by pain killers.
>
> But for mental anguish, and mental torments, there is no
> relief, no assistance.
> And when no God can be found, and no one anywhere can give
> you the reassurance you need, then no belief in Jesus can
> help, if it means embracing the violent, petty, prejudiced
> and punishing God who is his so called father.
>
> On Earth, the only escape from these religious nightmares
> and torments that emanate from the Bible is really to
> embrace Hinduism.
> There, Krisna is viewed as God or the Supreme Being.
> And there you will find no words on hell or damnation or
> purgatory or punishments, as those that exist in the nasty
> violent religion on Earth called Christianity.
> And no talk of prejudice or pettiness or violence as exist
> in the Old Testament.
>
> For those who are sensitive and frightened.
> EMBRACE KRISNA.
> The One True God, our Dear Lord and Saviour.
> Who speaks only of peace and kindness and love.
>
> Once you embrace Krisna, you can leave all the nastiness and
> violence and ugliness of the Bible behind and below, forget
> the nasty crucifixion stuff, and rise up in the spirit to
> the Supreme Being, the Greatest and highest God of all.
> The one who is ALL good and kind, the one who is PERFECT.
>
> This is the ONLY answer for the more sensitive people on
> Earth, for those who suffer the fears and insanities
> generated from the Bible.
>
> The dumbfucks and numbskulls and idiots and insensitive
> creeps can have their Jesus and their horrible Old Testament
> God.
> Once you find Krisna, there is no turning back.
>
> THE BORG
The ‘mental suffering’ suffered by Atheists who attempt to read the
Bible and understand Christianity is due to their being brought into
acute awareness of their willful and invincible ignorance. They are
torn between wanting to stay addicted to their ignorance and being
impelled forward and upward by their dim intuitive awareness of
Divinity.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:07 am
From: omprem
On Mar 28, 7:16 am, Mike Jones wrote:
> Responding to bigflet…@gmail.com:
>
>
>
> > When you can see that atheism, religiosity, and the different shades
> > between, are valid states of consciousness, that they are ‘group rites
> > of passage’, from which individual consciousness and awareness emerges,
> > then you are looking from a spiritual perspective.
>
> > Often confirmed by being ‘accused’ from one side or the other, as
> > belonging to their particular opposite, as happens with all growth into
> > ‘individuality’.
>
> > A favorite anecdote being Sting’s dad (who was a milkman) told his sone,
> > even when he was succesful…”yes, but thats not a ‘propper’ job…Just
> > delightful !
>
> > Groups do not take kindly to what they describe as ‘radicals’, and we
> > all know the power of ‘free radicals’ have over the organism.
>
> > Something that the ‘group’ tries to stop at the intellectual level , and
> > ‘cure’ at the physiological level.
>
> > And the beat goes on ….
>
> > BOfL
>
> > BOfL
>
> Except the whole concept of “spirituality” is bullshit designed to create
> an inner mindset that will be vunerable to “god shaped space” propaganda.
> Its like a teenager getting to first base on a date. Get her blouse open,
> distract with romantic lies, then slowly…
>
> Get ‘em to accept “spirituality”, then drip feed doubt and fear until…
>
> And you just re-promoted that particular toxic meme. Oops!
>
> –
> *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
> *=( For all your UK news needs.
MJ is the living embodiment of invincible ignorance.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do we feel aroused when two ideas contradict each other?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:06 am
From: Anarcissie
Les Cargill wrote:
> Anarcissie wrote:
> > M Purcell wrote:
> >> On Mar 27, 2:55 pm, *Anarcissie* wrote:
> >>> M Purcell:
> >>>> On Mar 26, 8:03 am, Anarcissie wrote:
> >>>>> M Purcell wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mar 26, 6:36 am, Anarcissie wrote:
> >>>>>>> Zerkon wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:36:26 -0700, *Anarcissie* wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> My view is that “doublethink”, as George Orwell called it in
> >>>>>>>>> 1984 — the ability to maintain two or more contradictory
> >>>>>>>>> models of the world more or less continuously — is of
> >>>>>>>>> considerable advantage to life and reproduction. Our faculty
> >>>>>>>>> for this behavior is derived from evolutionary pressures.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> de-evolutionary, I’d say.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> Double-think was made possible by Newspeak. Newspeak was an
> >>>>>>>> eradication of existing concepts. Opposition to the CorpState
> >>>>>>>> became impossible because the concept ‘opposition to state’ was
> >>>>>>>> removed so thought about this was impossible.
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Doublethink appeared in nature long, long before _1984_. A
> >>>>>>> medium-sized carnivore prowling through the brush hears something
> >>>>>>> rustling. Is it lunch or a larger-sized carnivore? The m.s.c.
> >>>>>>> must simultaneously entertain both contradictory possibilities
> >>>>>>> until something happens to fill out one pattern or the other and
> >>>>>>> then will have only a fraction of a second to act. It will not have
> >>>>>>> time to construct a new model of the world because the previous one
> >>>>>>> failed. Hence it constructs two (or more) provisional models and
> >>>>>>> keeps them both in mind, however contradictory they may be.
> >>>
> >>>>>> You seem to have a contradictory equivocation of doublethink with the
> >>>>>> fight or flee responce (resulting from ignorance of the enviornment)
> >>>>>> and cognative dissonance (an internal conflict). From what I
> >>>>>> understand, doublethink is a willful contradiction.
> >>>
> >>>>> A necessary contradiction, although in the case of Big Brother (a many
> >>>>> modern politicians) much of the difficulty is self-caused, such as
> >>>>> simultaneously creating libertarian and authoritarian rhetoric which
> >>>>> the public is expected to consume. So what is contradictory in my
> >>>>> equivocation, if that’s what it is? I said that animals (including
> >>>>> humans) are ignorant, so that they need the ability to maintain
> >>>>> contradictory views of the world. Our small predator is in exactly
> >>>>> this situation. If the s.p. took the time to work out things
> >>>>> logically, it would probably wind up missing lunch or being lunch.
> >>>
> >>>> There are different types of contradictions, doublethink is not the same
> >>>> as cognitive dissonance and neither are the same as an adrenaline rush.
> >>>
> >>> I suppose one could get an adrenaline rush
> >>> from either. But you are certainly correct that
> >>> doublethink and cognitive dissonance are not the
> >>> same. Cognitive dissonance is a sort of mental
> >>> excitement which doublethinkers experience, or are
> >>> suppose to experience, when their contradictory
> >>> ideas rub up against one another. It’s probably
> >>> a sort of intellectual taste — as I said, most
> >>> people have no trouble entertaining contradictory
> >>> ideas about the world.
> >>
> >> You seem to find it exciting. I suppose there is an excitement in
> >> discovering a contradiction which can lead to new knowledge but I
> >> don’t believe that is considered cognitive dissonance while
> >> “doublethink” is deliberate.
> >
> > To my observation, the practice of holding two or more
> > contradictory ideas of the world with no apparent
> > evidence of discomfort is the default case (and this is
> > borne out by polls on political issues, as I have
> > mentioned). This is what I’m calling “doublethink”.
> > It doesn’t need to be practiced intentionally if it’s
> > naturally the default. People just do it. In order to
> > be uncomfortable with cognitive dissonance, they have
> > to expect cognitive consonance, and I’m guessing that
> > is the result of a specific kind of training reserved
> > for intellectuals and intellectual-wannabes. George
> > Orwell, for example. The guy wrote books — how many
> > people ever write a book? Once you learn about how
> > your ideas ought not to contradict one another, you can
> > enjoy getting all excited and bent out of shape because
> > you discover that some of them do contradict each other.
> First, on Orwell, here’s two prominent Orwell scholars wrestling with
> him :
> +Facing+Unpleasant+Facts+and+All+Art+Is+Propaganda+interviewed+by+Christopher+
> Hitchens.aspx>
>
> (sorry, long-arse URL, but good stuff)
>
> Indeed, the picture that emerges with Orwell is:
> - a preference for physical risk
> - an abhorrence of inconsistency in his own behavior.
> - intolerance of hypocrisy at the visceral level
>
> he emerges as a bit vain and egocentric. Not that bad a trade,
> I think. He extends the fundamental premise of Liberalism – that
> the individual is the irreducible unit – to a much higher plane.
>
> But there’s more to it than that. The (arguably) greatest rising
> technology of the last 60 years is entertainment. Entertainment
> depends completely on the willing suspension of disbelief – on
> pure cognitive dissonance. Of course, we expect that tension
> to be resolved at the end. The point is that people are
> possibly “addicted” to increasing levels of cognitive dissonance.
That’s an interesting hypothesis, one which I think
the evidence bears out. Indeed, many kinds of
entertainment (including the arts low and high) not
only present a special world at odds with the greater
world around them, but also conflicts within themselves
between interests, emotions, perceptions and ideas. I
think this would follow from my hypothesis that
doublethink (my meaning) is advantageous to survival
of the individual; nature sees to it that its exercise
is pleasurable.
So then the question arises, who has a problem with
cognitive dissonance, and why, when doublethink is
such an excellent thing? My guess is that it is an
intellectuals’ quirk. While doublethink is
advantageous to perception and cognition, the exercise
of will and power is usually best when it is unitary.
In most of the more complex societies, the role of the
intellectual is to subordinate oneself to and serve
the rulers, that is, to serve power as a tool. The
doublethinking intellectual is unpredictable,
unreliable, a bad tool for power. Therefore, the
intellectual-wannabe is taught in school to be
consistent so that he or she will be a good tool
for the rulers. The intellectual earnestly sweats to
iron out contradictions, while the folk go on merrily
playing with them.
However, I agree that a fondness for cognitive
dissonance may become a dangerous addiction,
as witness American politics.
> > Of course I find it exciting — I am cursed with
> > reason, which sets me at odds with most of the human
> > race. Recently I’ve come to the conclusion that I must
> > be from another planet.
> >
>
> But you still have this thing, too. No escaping it. Your
> mid and hindbrain are just as much a part of
> reason as your frontal lobes.
That depends on how the Neptunians constructed me.
They may have gotten a few things wrong.
> The logic parts are nothing but handmaidens of the
> unconscious/id.
As Hume said, although with a more elegant 18th-century
vocabulary.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Extremists Now Purging Moderates From Arizona and Florida GOP
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:08 am
From: Bret Cahill
McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
nonsense.
Bret Cahill
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Three levels of meaningful logic.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:11 am
From: Zerkon
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 05:06:44 -0700, bigfletch8@gmail.com wrote:
> Physio-logical. The body following a “set of rules” at the physical
> level, which can be stimulated by the psycho-logical (psychosomatic
> being the interaction of both), both being subordinate to spiritual
> logic.
spiritual logic?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Various notable critics of capitalism
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:23 am
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 12:16 am, M Purcell wrote:
> On Mar 28, 9:59 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 7:13 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 28, 4:35 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 28, 5:53 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>
> > > > > Gotta wonder, A couple of months ago the enviornmentalists were
> > > > > protesting the grape growers water usage.
>
> > > > then its looking quite likely that those capitalists are not
> > > > operating in their own best long term interests. in my state, clear
> > > > cutting was done by robber barons before government intervened. my
> > > > state was 2/3rds covered by tree’s. there were large area’s, hundreds
> > > > of square miles of forest, were hardly a tree was left standing. then
> > > > government stepped in to limit what was left of the forests. during
> > > > the great depression, government subsidized tree plantings, and the
> > > > great northern forests came back, minus the clear cutting from the
> > > > private sector. today the forests are well managed by the state, and
> > > > the lumber and paper mills are quite stable.
>
> > > Closing the National Forests closed a lot of mills in the northwest,
> > > the Forest Service was unable to practice sustainability. I suspect
> > > you are refering to state forest. Some companies (such as Medicino
> > > Redwood Company) are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as
> > > practicing sustained yield whereas there is some contraversy with
> > > Sierra Pacific Industries owed by “Red” Emmerson. The problem with
> > > clearcuts is there are no seed trees left and it needs to be replanted
> > > and there are still a lot of clearcuts in National Forests that
> > > haven’t been replanted. Redwoods on the other hand have several ways
> > > of reproducing theirselves and often grow from stumps.
>
> > it was a common practice in the good old unregulated days of america.
> > it matters not what state. capitalists cut, slashed, and burned down
> > much of americas forests, till government stepped in. the same thing
> > is going on with the fisheries today. the fishing industry would fish
> > the seas, till every last fish is gone. we saw that happen in alaska.
>
> There are ethical capitalists as well as the unethical ones who need
> to be regulated. But the main reason there are fewer resources is that
> there are more people. Now that most of mills in the northwest are
> closed, we import lumber from Canada.
of course there are a few ethical ones. responsible wealth has a few.
but they are outnumbered by the many. there is plenty for all if the
resource is managed properly. and that has been by governments world
wide, some bad, some good, some really good. finland provides the
world with about 25% of the worlds paper products, yet has about 2% of
the worlds forests. and finlands forests are heavily regulated by
government.
left onto their own, markets almost always fail. they cannot self
regulate, self police, self right, self correct. they almost always
end in failure.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:24 am
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 2:32 am, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On Mar 29, 1:32 am, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > the cult of ayn rand advocates murder and genocide:
>
> Just shows how fucking desperate and pathetic ewe lefturdian retards
> can get, what a fucking losing knuckle-dragging wanker ewe are.
>
> MG
I have the following script: http://anthonyscoalfiredpizza.com/js/map.js
running on this page http://anthonyscoalfiredpizza.com/locations.php
which works very well on Firefox, Safari and Chrome but not on IE. If
I comment out the Gxml.parse then the map load without problems but no
markers, and no errors, are shown. As soon as I bring it back, markers
are shown on every other browser except the IE family.
I’ve tried several suggestions, adding a timeout to IE using an actual
xml file instead of a PHP, changing my security settings etc with no
luck.
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Google Maps API” group.
To post to this group, send email to google-maps-api@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-api+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:24 am
From: omprem
On Mar 28, 9:23 pm, John Locke wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:33:57 +0100, John Jones
>
> wrote:
> >There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> Only one kind. Employing reason and logic, adhering to scientific
> procedures and not entertaining even the slightest notion of
> supernatural control and design.
>
> —————————————————————
>
> “”All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
> or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to
> terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
> — Thomas Paine
Scientific procedures are limited, flawed and subject to skewing by
the presence and intent of the scientist.
If only Atheists knew enough about reason and logic and were able to
conquer their fears sufficiently to examine their own belief system.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:26 am
From: omprem
On Mar 29, 6:25 am, John Jones wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
>
> > [1] – A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in
> > a systematic activity to acquire knowledge
>
> That begs the question. It begs the question because the term
> “systematic” implies what is correct. And what is correct is what is at
> issue. Hence it begs the question of what a scientist is.
In addition, Atheists are not systematic but rather frightened beings
howling their despair to the Moon.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:30 am
From: omprem
On Mar 29, 9:30 am, “Daniel T.” wrote:
> John Jones wrote:
> > There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy and
> > leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering to
> > onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of science in action.
>
> > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler is
> > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are
> > impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden strengths of
> > science.
>
> There are lots of kinds of scientists, but to the question “What makes a
> good scientist?” my answer is “objectivity.”
But according to Atheism, all mental content and activity is just
biochemical reaction and is subjective. There cannot be objectivity.
Takes for playing. Your turn is over.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Various notable critics of capitalism
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:25 am
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 2:37 am, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On Mar 29, 1:33 am, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > Ayn Rand………
>
> Pathetic, how utterly pathetic, the subject, ewe fucking lefturdian
> moron, is not about Rand, its about ewe and ewe alone being the sole
> benefactor and the sole decider of the results of your own energy, to
> trade with who you wish on the terms and conditions that you both
> agree to, in a word “capitalism”, which clearly scares the living shit
> out of ewe lefturds so much that ewe can never stay on the subject
> when ever its raised.
>
> MG
except. refute it. and not by your blubbering, but with verifiable
facts:)
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:26 am
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 2:39 am, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On Mar 29, 1:37 am, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > ayn rand novels are not historically accurate,
>
> As if ewe have ever read one, what a fucking disgusting and desperate
> liar ewe are, how pathetic.
>
> MG
hey, i grew up, matured, walk in others shoes.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:27 am
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 2:45 am, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On Mar 29, 1:53 am, Geode wrote:
>
> > more or less the ideology of conservatives.
>
> Fuck off ewe idiot, the coward posting under the name nick….. is a
> lefturdian envy ridden wanker who doesn’t know his arse from his
> elbow.
>
> MG
except, no one really knows what you are talking about, except others
who have had their lives stolen when they were gullible enough to read
rand, and get roped into a cult:)
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:56 am
From: M Purcell
On Mar 29, 9:23 am, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Mar 29, 12:16 am, M Purcell wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 9:59 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 28, 7:13 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 28, 4:35 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 28, 5:53 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>
> > > > > > Gotta wonder, A couple of months ago the enviornmentalists were
> > > > > > protesting the grape growers water usage.
>
> > > > > then its looking quite likely that those capitalists are not
> > > > > operating in their own best long term interests. in my state, clear
> > > > > cutting was done by robber barons before government intervened. my
> > > > > state was 2/3rds covered by tree’s. there were large area’s, hundreds
> > > > > of square miles of forest, were hardly a tree was left standing. then
> > > > > government stepped in to limit what was left of the forests. during
> > > > > the great depression, government subsidized tree plantings, and the
> > > > > great northern forests came back, minus the clear cutting from the
> > > > > private sector. today the forests are well managed by the state, and
> > > > > the lumber and paper mills are quite stable.
>
> > > > Closing the National Forests closed a lot of mills in the northwest,
> > > > the Forest Service was unable to practice sustainability. I suspect
> > > > you are refering to state forest. Some companies (such as Medicino
> > > > Redwood Company) are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as
> > > > practicing sustained yield whereas there is some contraversy with
> > > > Sierra Pacific Industries owed by “Red” Emmerson. The problem with
> > > > clearcuts is there are no seed trees left and it needs to be replanted
> > > > and there are still a lot of clearcuts in National Forests that
> > > > haven’t been replanted. Redwoods on the other hand have several ways
> > > > of reproducing theirselves and often grow from stumps.
>
> > > it was a common practice in the good old unregulated days of america.
> > > it matters not what state. capitalists cut, slashed, and burned down
> > > much of americas forests, till government stepped in. the same thing
> > > is going on with the fisheries today. the fishing industry would fish
> > > the seas, till every last fish is gone. we saw that happen in alaska.
>
> > There are ethical capitalists as well as the unethical ones who need
> > to be regulated. But the main reason there are fewer resources is that
> > there are more people. Now that most of mills in the northwest are
> > closed, we import lumber from Canada.
>
> of course there are a few ethical ones. responsible wealth has a few.
> but they are outnumbered by the many. there is plenty for all if the
> resource is managed properly. and that has been by governments world
> wide, some bad, some good, some really good. finland provides the
> world with about 25% of the worlds paper products, yet has about 2% of
> the worlds forests. and finlands forests are heavily regulated by
> government.
> left onto their own, markets almost always fail. they cannot self
> regulate, self police, self right, self correct. they almost always
> end in failure.
The markets and governments are run by people, some good, some bad.
But there seems to be a little more accountability with governments.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do atheist deny that atheism is a relegion.
>> Watching you idiot atheists witlessly pinning your own lunatic
>> assumptions and irrational perceptions onto it then attempting to argue
>> against your very own deranged Frankenstein-like creation with utterly
>> b0rked illogic is a never-ending source of great hilarity.
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Extremists Now Purging Moderates From Arizona and Florida GOP
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:39 am
From: Bret Cahill
> > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > nonsense.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Keep on believin that load of crap, gonna make your ass whuppin in
> November even
> more historic.
> BTW we are gettin rid of the non-conservatives and if we have such
> clout it isn’t because
> were a minority and news flash BC, 25% of dems and over 2/3rds of
> independents either
> associate with or support the tea party principles so keep on with the
> Bama Kool Aid cuz
> your going down with the great failure.
> And don’t think were not getting rid of the BS you fools have enacted,
> you just pissed away
> your parties dominance for something that the American people will not
> let stand!
Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Very
local. Just shoot up your trailer.
Bret Cahill
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:39 am
From: cop welfare
in the teaparty world…
a moderate is somebody that uses toilet paper.
makes everything easy.
teapartiers got a secret handshake.
they call it ‘shake and sniff’.
git it?
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:50 am
From: tooly
On Mar 29, 12:08 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> nonsense.
>
> Bret Cahill
We are not extremists of course, but actually, we were the LAND and
it’s culture before progressives started taking it over.
But there are political realities coming to bear for the
traditionalist. Once again, I’ll say…the Hart-Cellar Immigration
act pretty much ‘sealed the deal’ for socialists. The 2003
demographics showed for every 1 additional caucasion in America, there
were 3 blacks and 7 hispanics coming in [or being born].
That spells doom any way one can put it [for caucasions...ergo, the
founding element of this country; ergo, from europe].
It probably puts this culture on a path toward ‘afro centrism’ of all
things? Go figure.
There might be one or two elections that conservatives can still
muster out…one being this next November [2010]. Even with all that
has taken place [Obama's socialism and grand ire being created in half
the land], traditionalists and conservatives will still only barely
muster a bare majority at the national level.
Some argue however, that the founder’s prodgeny may not go into the
night so meakly however. It still IS our country; we invented it; we
created it’s founding by laws, it’s principles…including laizez
faire economics.
No nation has ever simply been ‘taken over’ by internal socially
disparate forces such that is taking place in America now. It’s not
natural. But there has been a gargantuan ‘campaign’ going on in our
institutions, classrooms, media etc, to ‘charm the snake’ so speak; to
mesmerize the founder’s prodgeny into believing they have no RIGHT to
defend what is theirs [that it is NOT theirs; they it was somehow NOT
their forebears who invented the place].
No one really wants to put a color on it…but REALITY stars us in the
face and we look into the eyes or our own doom IF WE DON”T.
So, one might ask, what does any cornered animal do when the world
[Obama's world anyway, ha]…paints that animal into that corner with
nowhere else to go? I think hispanics and blacks are betting that the
white guy is just going to lay down and die. HA…I see all them
white teens with ‘pants on the ground’, and I can see why.
Ah well…I suppose we can always laugh [after we cry]. It was not
right what has been done to us.
We’ll see; who knows, anything can happen. Obama might actually be
ushering in something entirely opposite to what seems apparent. But
those tea party’ers…they look awfully old and haggard. I have
faith SOMETHING will happen though; something ‘reactionary’…to take
what is ours back. This simply is not natural what is happening.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:43 am
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 11:08 am, Bret Cahill wrote:
> McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> nonsense.
>
> Bret Cahill
lets hope they succeed. every cult dies once they enter the drive for
purity phase:)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How ‘A’ is and is not ‘A’
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:45 am
From: M Purcell
On Mar 29, 8:43 am, “Robakks” wrote:
>
> Be and to exist.
> The horse to be in the real world.
> The image of a horse exists in the psyche.
>
> Identity = compliance
> what IS and what exists.
Certainly if the horse stepped on your foot you would know it exists
independent of your imagination but suppose the horse went somewhere
else? How would you know it is still in the “real world”, maybe
something ate it. Egotists seem to believe all horses will always step
on people’s feet because one stepped on their foot.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I Refuse to Embrace Ignorance
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:47 am
From: “Bigdog”
Daniel T. wrote:
> “Bigdog” wrote:
>> Daniel T. wrote:
>>> “Bigdog” wrote:
>>>> “Daniel T.” wrote:
>>>>> “Bigdog” wrote:
>>>>>> Daniel T. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We conduct observations under the assumption that the universe
>>>>>>> is uniform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, we conduct observations and acknowledge uniformity when
>>>>>> we see it, and we often make good use of any uniformity we find.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, no matter how many white swans you see, you can never
>>>>> guarantee that all swans are white. We *assume* that the law of
>>>>> gravity (for example) operates the same everywhere and will not
>>>>> change in the future, we can’t *prove* it.
>>>>
>>>> No such guarantee or proof is necessary in order to make use of
>>>> observed regularities. All that is required is that the
>>>> anticipation afforded by that uniformity should be useful (right
>>>> more often that it is wrong).
>>>
>>> Now you are question begging, your only reason to believe that your
>>> anticipation is correct is the fact that is has been correct in the
>>> past. You are using inductive reasoning to prove the soundness of an
>>> inductive argument, but inductive reasoning cannot prove soundness,
>>> unless we assume uniformity.
>>
>> No question begging involved here, since no proof is required. The
>> only requirement is that of utility. The sun rises every morning,
>> but it doesn’t matter that it won’t do so forever.
>
> The question isn’t, “will the sun rise forever,” but will it rise
> tomorrow? We can’t answer that question without assuming the
> uniformity of the universe.
We don’t need to assume the uniformity of the universe – that there is
uniformity in the universe is evident from the way it manifests. If there
were no uniformity in the universe then we wouldn’t be here to asks these
questions about it. Some kinds of uniformity (like planetary motions) give
more confidence than others (like weather patterns). There is no requirement
for certainty here but only for levels of confidence.
>>>>>>> This, for me this is the real meaning of what it is to
>>>>>>> believe in the metaphysical. Is the universe knowable? Those
>>>>>>> who accept the metaphysical are saying that, at some
>>>>>>> fundamental level, it is not. Even if they are correct I
>>>>>>> refuse to accept it; even if we cannot know the world, we
>>>>>>> most assuredly cannot know beforehand what our limits of
>>>>>>> knowledge are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And so we cannot know whether or not the universe is, at some
>>>>>> fundamental level, unknowable, so your position is
>>>>>> inconsistent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. I agree completely that we cannot know (whether or
>>>>> not the universe is unknowable.) What I am saying (and said
>>>>> below,) is that the question is unanswerable so I take it on
>>>>> faith that we we can know. And I am saying that even if we did
>>>>> know (somehow) that the universe was fundamentally unknowable,
>>>>> we cannot know that we have reached the limit of our ability to
>>>>> know.
>>>>
>>>> Any such faith is a sterile and pointless piece of speculation
>>>> that contributes nothing of any practical value.
>>>
>>> Please expound on this. It seems that you saying that there is no
>>> practical value in assuming that we can learn more about the cosmos.
>>
>> Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what it is you’re “taking on faith”
>> then, because I’m certainly not saying that there is no practical
>> value in assuming that we can learn more about the cosmos. There is
>> no practical value in speculating that the universe is or is not
>> fundamentally unknowable – there is only practical value in finding out
>> more about it.
>
> There is no reason to try to find out more about the universe unless
> we first assume that we can learn more. That is the assumption I am
> making, that is what I take on faith.
Any proposition to the contrary would simply be the babblings of a madman.
>>>>>>> As a result of this reasoning, I have come to conclude that
>>>>>>> when someone asserts that God exists, he is not making an
>>>>>>> epistemological claim; he is not saying that there is some
>>>>>>> definable entity in the universe called God. Rather he is
>>>>>>> saying that he embraces ignorance; not just that human
>>>>>>> inquiry has limits, but that we have reached those limits. I
>>>>>>> have “faith” (a firm inner conviction, unjustifiably held)
>>>>>>> that this is not so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with the theists’ derisive claim that my position
>>>>>>> takes more faith than theirs. My position requires faith in
>>>>>>> the ability of mankind to learn, in our ability to
>>>>>>> understand the universe around us, something that I
>>>>>>> rationally know has limits, but I refuse to accept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In your refusal to accept that there may be limits to our
>>>>>> ability to understand the universe around us, you admit to
>>>>>> acting irrationally, and you seem to be wearing your
>>>>>> irrationality like a badge of honor.
>>>>>
>>>>> I refuse to accept that there are limits *and* that we have
>>>>> reached those limits. (That is far different than refusing to
>>>>> accept that there “may” be limits.) That is the recipe for
>>>>> apathy.
>>>>
>>>> Refusing to accept that we have reached those limits (if they
>>>> exist) is quite different to asserting (on faith, as you do above)
>>>> that we can reach those limits (if they exist). Our knowledge of
>>>> the universe around us grows continually. What does it matter
>>>> whether there is or is not some terminus towards which we are
>>>> proceeding?
>>>
>>> There logically is a terminus, but what I’m saying is that it
>>> doesn’t matter that there is a terminus. The important question is,
>>> have we already reached the terminus? The answer to that question,
>>> if it could be answered, would have a powerful impact. The issue at
>>> hand is that the question cannot ever be answered.
>>
>> I don’t know how your assertion can be justified that there logically
>> is a terminus. What kind of logical argument are you advocating here?
>
> If we can know the answer to every question, then there is a terminus
> to what we can know. the terminus in this case is the answer to every
> question.
>
> If we cannot know the answer to every question, then there is a
> terminus to what we can know. The terminus in this case is the answer
> to all but a select batch of questions.
>
> In either case there is an end to seeking knowledge. Now a question,
> “Do we know everything there is to know about the universe?”
> Logically, we can never answer this question about the universe,
> therefore we cannot answer every question.
You speak as though you take it as axiomatic that there are only a fixed
number of questions possible, and then you apply the law of the excluded
middle to your axiom. I’m questioning your axiom – how do you know that
there are only a fixed number of questions possible?
>>> The best we can do, must do, is assume an answer to the question and
>>> proceed from there. What I am saying is that it is easier (requires
>>> less faith) to assume that we already know everything we will ever
>>> know about the cosmos and stop looking for answers (the metaphysical
>>> view,) than it is to assume that, if we keep plugging away at it, we
>>> can learn more.
>>
>> If we ever reach such a terminus (should one exist) there will be no
>> new discoveries to make, and all discoveries will cease.
>
> This comment brings us full circle regarding the problem with
> induction (which we have been discussing at the top of the post.) How
> long do we have to go without making any discoveries before we know
> we have reached the terminus? How long must a runner attempt to beat
> his best time before he knows that he can’t?
>
> There is no answer to that question. We can *never* know if we have
> reached a terminus to our knowledge. Some people take it on faith that
> we have (at least in certain areas,) others do not.
What I meant by my comment above (and continued below) was nothing to do
with what you inferred from it. What I meant was that we are clearly at no
such terminus, even should such a terminus exist. This situation says
nothing about the existence or non-existence of such a terminus.
>> We clearly aren’t at any such stage, so it would not be an easy task
>> to deny that we are still making new discoveries whilst retaining
>> even a modicum of credibility.
>
> Such people would not retain credibility with you or me, but someone
> who believes we have reached the limits of our knowledge regarding,
> for example, evolutionary principles, finds Behe credible despite his
> assertions.
Who is Behe? Anyhow, anyone who believes we have reached the limits of our
knowledge must simply be shutting his eyes and putting his hands over his
ears whilst singing “I can’t hear you”. With reference to any particular
discipline, it may or may not be the case depending on the complexity of the
discipline. It might be credible to say that we have reached the limits of
our knowledge regarding the game of noughts and crosses, but such claims
about more complex disciplines (eg eveolutionary principles) are more
contentious. A person might make such a claim, but that claim is not a part
of the science about which they are speaking. Science is always provisional,
though scientists are human beings and may state their opinions as human
beings. Some working scientists are cranks.
>> Also, I don’t understand your use of the word ‘metaphysical’ in this
>> sense – I think the word ‘incredible’ would be more appropriate.
>
> This comes to the heart of my initial post.
>
> (reprinted from my original post)
> This, for me this is the real meaning of what it is to believe in the
> metaphysical. Is the universe knowable? Those who accept the
> metaphysical are saying that, at some fundamental level, it is not.
Metaphysical propositions often take the form of competing hypotheses none
of which can justifiably be eliminated on grounds of logical argument or of
empirical evidence. To believe in any particular hypothesis from such a
group would be nothing more than prejudice.
> … when someone asserts that God exists, he is not making an
> epistemological claim; he is not saying that there is some definable
> entity in the universe called God. Rather he is saying that he
> embraces ignorance; not just that human inquiry has limits, but that
> we have reached those limits.
When someone asserts that god exists, one must first ask how they are using
the word ‘god’. If they are referring to the creator of the universe then
they are showing a culturally conditioned prejudice, and the best I can say
is that I have no use for that hypothesis. I can’t see how your conclusion
follows that the theist believes we have reached to limits of human enquiry.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: BEAUTIFUL DEAD SCIENCE
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:44 am
From: Pentcho Valev
A symptom of dead science: The Michelson-Morley experiment “did not
establish the constancy of the speed of light” and yet “textbook
accounts commonly assert” it did (and nobody cares about both what the
experiment established and what textbook accounts commonly assert):
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/HumeMach.pdf
John Norton: “However it [the Michelson-Morley experiment] appeared to
Einstein to do little more than support the idea that physics must
conform to the principle of relativity; it did not establish the
constancy of the speed of light, as later textbook accounts commonly
assert.”
John Norton: “Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity……THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE.”
By the way, John Norton is mistaken: Einstein taught that the
Michelson-Morley experiment had established the constancy of the speed
of light:
The New York Times, April 19, 1921
“Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1,
the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is
contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled?
Professor Einstein asked.”
“Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of
“Potemkin villages,” which are false fronts with nothing behind them.
Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian
statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged
to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate
stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to
the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of
these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress. (…) The
science establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in
Einstein. Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein’s tricks,
they are prepared to defend his Potemkin villages. A Potemkin village
is a pretty picture to fool the gullible romantic. Einstein was
romantically infatuated with pretty pictures. He deliberately sought
theories that were aesthetically beautiful in their harmony, symmetry,
and simplicity. He romantically believed something akin to Keats’
famous poetic summation: “Beauty is truth and truth, beauty.”
Beautiful dead science institutionalized (but “no longer getting the
kind of support it needs”):
Silly Walks Applicant: “Well sir, I have a silly walk and I’d like to
obtain a Government grant to help me develop it….I think that with
Government backing I could make it very silly.” Silly Walks Director:
“Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of money. I’m afraid that the
Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer getting the kind of support it
needs. You see there’s Defence, Social Security, Health, Housing,
Education, Silly Walks … they’re all supposed to get the same. But
last year, the Government spent less on the Ministry of Silly Walks
than it did on National Defence! Now we get 348,000,000 a year, which
is supposed to be spent on all our available products.”
Selling beautiful dead science:
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue…What’s,uh…What’s wrong
with it?
Mr. Praline: I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it, my lad. ‘E’s dead,
that’s what’s wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, ‘e’s uh,…he’s resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I’m
looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he’s not dead, he’s, he’s restin’! Remarkable bird, the
Norwegian Blue, idn’it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rising racial tensions: Who are the true villains?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:42 am
From: Bret Cahill
> > > > As racial tensions are rising in America, and both black racists and
> > > > white racists are profiting from them in their desire to assert
> > > > totalitarian control over the respective races, it is about time to
> > > > put things into perspective for both groups.
>
> > > > While the white racists continue to claim that the white race is the
> > > > superior race, and the black racists claim that white people are
> > > > oppressors against black people, history shows that neither is true.
> > > > China had great cities and half the world’s GDP at the time that
> > > > Europe was a feudal backwater. At about the same time, Africa had a
> > > > city of one million people, when Europe did not have a settlement
> > > > larger than one tenth that size. As for the claim of white people
> > > > being oppressors of black people: The African leaders collaborated in
> > > > the slave trade. As for the present white people, the ones that live
> > > > in the cities are the ones that are sympathetic to black people and
> > > > have fought for civil rights, de-segregation, social inclusion, and
> > > > election of Barack Obama. And while there are many white people who
> > > > are in fact racist and hateful of black people, most vote Republican
> > > > and live in the country. So if you are black, and serious about
> > > > standing up for your people, the Democrats in the cities are not the
> > > > people you want to get.
>
> > > > The ones you do want to get are people such as …
>
> > > Internationalists/New Word Orderists/Traitors who want to break down
> > > national sovereignty by means of impugning ‘racism’ as a scourge to
> > > any and all attempts by a nationality to exert authority over their
> > > own internal affairs…
>
> > > Hoping by such action to break down societal cohesion and consensus by
> > > immigrating foreign factions that are detrimental to national
> > > democratic processes… so that they can impose their own
> > > internationalist authority instead.
>
> > That’s something one might hear from a small-time despot who wants to
> > dominate the people in the community in which he operates, and for
> > these people to have no options except putting up with his domination.
>
> Do you have a problem with an ethnic group which wishes to control its
> own affairs?
You mean like George III?
> Or do you demand that foreigners control them?
You mean like the collective formed by Jefferson to toss George III?
> It’s a simple question.. please answer.
Speaking of simple questions and answers . . .
www.bretcahill.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: One way of recognising one’s spirituality.
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:55 am
From: “thomas p.”
omprem wrote:
> On Mar 27, 11:50 pm, “The BORG” wrote:
>> wrote in message
>>
>> news:363a927a-30a2-4b8e-8068-833a69da1437@s20g2000prm.googlegroups.com…
>>
>>
>>
>>> When you can see that atheism, religiosity, and the
>>> different shades
>>> between, are valid states of consciousness, that they
>>> are ‘group rites
>>> of passage’, from which individual consciousness and
>>> awareness
>>> emerges, then you are looking from a spiritual
>>> perspective.
>>
>>> Often confirmed by being ‘accused’ from one side or the
>>> other, as
>>> belonging to their particular opposite, as happens with
>>> all growth
>>> into ‘individuality’.
>>
>>> A favorite anecdote being Sting’s dad (who was a
>>> milkman) told his
>>> sone, even when he was succesful…”yes, but thats not a
>>> ‘propper’
>>> job…Just delightful !
>>
>>> Groups do not take kindly to what they describe as
>>> ‘radicals’, and we
>>> all know the power of ‘free radicals’ have over the
>>> organism.
>>
>>> Something that the ‘group’ tries to stop at the
>>> intellectual level ,
>>> and ‘cure’ at the physiological level.
>>
>>> And the beat goes on ….
>>
>>> BOfL
>>
>> SUFFERING is one of the best ways to cause anyone’s
>> individual conscious and awareness to emerge.
>> Those who never suffer, never become “deep” in the way
>> that those who suffer do.
>> It is strange how suffering causes you to think and ask
>> deep and meaningful questions about the nature of life
>> and existence.
>> There are two kinds of suffering.
>> Physical suffering, and mental suffering.
>>
>> The Christian Church and the Bible cause a lot of mental
>> suffering to people, and many are those tormented by
>> words written in the Bible, of a mean, petty, violent,
>> prejudiced, and punishing God. And of a so called
>> “beloved son” who was not beloved at all if God had him
>> crucified.
>>
>> Physical suffering can often be relived by pain killers.
>>
>> But for mental anguish, and mental torments, there is no
>> relief, no assistance.
>> And when no God can be found, and no one anywhere can
>> give you the reassurance you need, then no belief in
>> Jesus can help, if it means embracing the violent,
>> petty, prejudiced and punishing God who is his so called
>> father.
>>
>> On Earth, the only escape from these religious nightmares
>> and torments that emanate from the Bible is really to
>> embrace Hinduism.
>> There, Krisna is viewed as God or the Supreme Being.
>> And there you will find no words on hell or damnation or
>> purgatory or punishments, as those that exist in the
>> nasty violent religion on Earth called Christianity.
>> And no talk of prejudice or pettiness or violence as
>> exist in the Old Testament.
>>
>> For those who are sensitive and frightened.
>> EMBRACE KRISNA.
>> The One True God, our Dear Lord and Saviour.
>> Who speaks only of peace and kindness and love.
>>
>> Once you embrace Krisna, you can leave all the nastiness
>> and violence and ugliness of the Bible behind and below,
>> forget the nasty crucifixion stuff, and rise up in the
>> spirit to the Supreme Being, the Greatest and highest
>> God of all.
>> The one who is ALL good and kind, the one who is PERFECT.
>>
>> This is the ONLY answer for the more sensitive people on
>> Earth, for those who suffer the fears and insanities
>> generated from the Bible.
>>
>> The dumbfucks and numbskulls and idiots and insensitive
>> creeps can have their Jesus and their horrible Old
>> Testament God.
>> Once you find Krisna, there is no turning back.
>>
>> THE BORG
>
> The ‘mental suffering’ suffered by Atheists who attempt
> to read the Bible and understand Christianity is due to
> their being brought into acute awareness of their willful
> and invincible ignorance. They are torn between wanting
> to stay addicted to their ignorance and being impelled
> forward and upward by their dim intuitive awareness of
> Divinity.
You still have not explained why you eat small children. Does
Jesus know about your nasty habit?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:56 am
From: “thomas p.”
omprem wrote:
> On Mar 28, 7:16 am, Mike Jones
> wrote:
>> Responding to bigflet…@gmail.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>> When you can see that atheism, religiosity, and the
>>> different shades between, are valid states of
>>> consciousness, that they are ‘group rites of passage’,
>>> from which individual consciousness and awareness
>>> emerges, then you are looking from a spiritual
>>> perspective.
>>
>>> Often confirmed by being ‘accused’ from one side or the
>>> other, as belonging to their particular opposite, as
>>> happens with all growth into ‘individuality’.
>>
>>> A favorite anecdote being Sting’s dad (who was a
>>> milkman) told his sone, even when he was
>>> succesful…”yes, but thats not a ‘propper’ job…Just
>>> delightful !
>>
>>> Groups do not take kindly to what they describe as
>>> ‘radicals’, and we all know the power of ‘free
>>> radicals’ have over the organism.
>>
>>> Something that the ‘group’ tries to stop at the
>>> intellectual level , and ‘cure’ at the physiological
>>> level.
>>
>>> And the beat goes on ….
>>
>>> BOfL
>>
>>> BOfL
>>
>> Except the whole concept of “spirituality” is bullshit
>> designed to create an inner mindset that will be
>> vunerable to “god shaped space” propaganda. Its like a
>> teenager getting to first base on a date. Get her blouse
>> open, distract with romantic lies, then slowly…
>>
>> Get ‘em to accept “spirituality”, then drip feed doubt
>> and fear until…
>>
>> And you just re-promoted that particular toxic meme.
>> Oops!
>>
>> –
>> *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
>> *=( For all your UK news needs.
>
> MJ is the living embodiment of invincible ignorance.
Yes, we all know that you have conclusive evidence of a
spiritual reality. Why don’t you post it?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: LSD and Gods
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:55 am
From: Xan Du
thomas p. wrote:
> “Xan Du” skrev i meddelelsen
> news:hoplis$k8j$2@news.eternal-september.org…
>> thomas p. wrote:
>>> Xan Du wrote:
>>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>>>> “Day Brown” skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>> news:4ba42e36$0$18933$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com…
>>>>>> Smiler wrote:
>>>>>>> “LSD always brings an experience of a god or Gods”
>>>>>>> Contradict yourself much?
>>>>>> Depends on who getsta define the terms. LSD, Mescaline,
>>>>>> Pscilocybin, Muscarine, and other
>>>>>> compounds have been employed for millennia- in the
>>>>>> sacred space, at the sacred time, for sacred purpose,
>>>>>> and at the direction of a spirit guide. Delusion always feeds the ego.
>>>>>> Spiritual illumination
>>>>>> always humbles. These compounds alter perception, but
>>>>>> to say it results in delusion assumes perception is not
>>>>>> delusional to start with. Of course, if a mind is too
>>>>>> limited intellectually or deranged, spiritual
>>>>>> illumination is not likely. And if your reasoning processes are
>>>>>> already too
>>>>>> limited, by all means do not perform this kind of
>>>>>> experiment. But to assume that all others are so
>>>>>> limited is delusional.
>>>>> The irony is that you are the one making the enormous
>>>>> assumption, i.e. that there is such a thing as spiritual
>>>>> illumination, and that you know what one of its
>>>>> universal effects is. That could be seen as a lack of
>>>>> humility on your part.
>>>> Mr. Brown is a pretty smart cookie. A little arrogance
>>>> is to be expected, and my view, respected.
>>>>
>>>> -Xan
>>> Being smart does not negate the possibility of expressing nonsense.
>> Obviously. But I assure you, from my POV, the man does not speak
>> nonsense.
>>
>> -Xan
>
> He is describing in some detail a phenomenon for which no objective evidence
> exists.
> That is nonsense.
>
>
I call that a hypothesis.
-Xan
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Three levels of meaningful logic.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:00 am
From: Monsieur Turtoni
“The Australian philosopher David Stove argued in typical acerbic
style that idealism rested on what he called “the worst argument in
the world”. His critique of Idealism is perhaps the most devastating
critique of subjective idealism in philosophy. From a logical point of
view his critique is no different from Russell or Nietzsche’s — but
Stove has been more widely cited and most clearly highlighted the
mistake of idealist proponents. He named the form of this argument -
invented by Berkeley — “the GEM”. Berkeley claimed that “[the mind]
is deluded to think it can and does conceive of bodies existing
unthought of, or without the mind, though at the same time they are
apprehended by, or exist in, itself”. Stove argued that this claim
proceeds from the tautology that nothing can be thought of without its
being thought of, to the conclusion that nothing can exist without its
being thought of.
The following is Stove’s version of Berkeley’s GEM (1991:139):
1) You cannot have trees-without-the-mind in mind, without having them
in mind.
2) Therefore, you cannot have trees-without-the-mind in mind.
1) Is a tautology (self-referential statement); therefore the premise
of this argument is trivially true.
2) Is not a trivially true conclusion. The logic flowing from 1) to 2)
is valid (as this premise cannot lead to a false conclusion), but
unsound because tautological premises can bring only tautological
conclusions.
Refer to Stove’s 1991 book The Plato Cult & Other Philosophical
Follies chapter 6 Idealism: A Victorian Horror Story for numerous
elucidations and numerous GEM’s quoted from the history of philosophy
and GEM’s reconstructed in syllogistic form.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:02 am
From: Monsieur Turtoni
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
Idealism is the philosophical theory which maintains that the ultimate
nature of reality is based on the mind or ideas. In the philosophy of
perception, idealism is contrasted with realism in which the external
world is said to have an apparent absolute existence after which, and
independent of completely, knowledge and consciousness.
Epistemological idealists (such as Kant), it is claimed, might insist
that the only things which can be directly known for certain are just
ideas (abstraction).
In the philosophy of mind, idealism is the opposite of materialism, in
which the ultimate nature of reality is based on physical substances.
Idealism and materialism are both theories of monism as opposed to
dualism and pluralism. Idealism sometimes refers to a tradition in
thought that represents things of a perfect form, as in the fields of
ethics, morality, aesthetics, and value. In this way, it represents a
human perfect being or circumstance. In the ancient philosophy of the
Vedas, idealism refers to the dynamic consciousness of living beings
that emanates from the divine cosmic source.[citation needed] In much
the same way, idealism has spread throughout the world. Individual
societies have inspired and grown their own specific set of idealism,
but they all have these generalities in common.
Idealism is a philosophical movement in Western thought, and names a
number of philosophical positions with sometimes quite different
tendencies and implications in politics and ethics, for instance, at
least in popular culture, philosophical idealism is associated with
Plato and the school of platonism.
Criticism
Immanuel Kant
In the 1st edition (1781) of his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant
described idealism thus:
We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within
ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and that only my
own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus the
existence of a real object outside me can never be given immediately
and directly in perception, but can only be added in thought to the
perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, and thus
inferred as its external cause … . In the true sense of the word,
therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can only infer
their existence from my own internal perception, regarding the
perception as an effect of something external that must be the
proximate cause … . It must not be supposed, therefore, that an
idealist is someone who denies the existence of external objects of
the senses; all he does is to deny that they are known by immediate
and direct perception … .
– Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f.
In the 2nd edition (1787) of his Critique of Pure Reason, he wrote a
section called Refutation of Idealism to distinguish his
transcendental idealism from Descartes’s Sceptical Idealism and
Berkeley’s Dogmatic Idealism. In addition to this refutation in both
the 1781 & 1787 editions the section “Paralogisms of Pure Reason” is
an implicit critique of Descartes’ Problematic Idealism, namely the
Cogito. He says that just from “the spontaneity of thought” (cf.
Descartes’ Cogito) it is not possible to infer the ‘I’ as an object.
Kant also defined idealism in the following manner: “The assertion
that we can never be certain whether all of our putative outer
experience is not mere imagining is idealism.”[9]
[edit] Søren Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard’s primary criticism against Hegel is based around Hegel’s
claim to have developed a fully comprehensive system that could
explain the whole of reality. The quote commonly used to express this
idea, whether fair to Hegel or not, is, “What is rational is actual;
and what is actual is rational,” in the Elements of the Philosophy of
Right (1821). Kierkegaard asserts that reality can be a system for
God, but it cannot be so for any human individual, because both
reality and humans are incomplete, and all philosophical systems imply
completeness. Kierkegaard attacked Hegel’s idealist philosophy in
several of his works, but most succinctly in Concluding Unscientific
Postscript (1846).
In the Postscript, Kierkegaard, as the pseudonymous philosopher
Johannes Climacus, argues that a logical system is possible but an
existential system is impossible. Hegel argues that once one has
reached an ultimate understanding of the logical structure of the
world, one has also reached an understanding of the logical structure
of God’s mind. Climacus claims Hegel’s absolute idealism mistakenly
blurs the distinction between existence and thought. Climacus also
argues that our mortal nature places limits on our understanding of
reality. As Climacus argues:
So-called systems have often been characterized and challenged in the
assertion that they abrogate the distinction between good and evil,
and destroy freedom. Perhaps one would express oneself quite as
definitely, if one said that every such system fantastically
dissipates the concept existence. … Being an individual man is a
thing that has been abolished, and every speculative philosopher
confuses himself with humanity at large; whereby he becomes something
infinitely great, and at the same time nothing at all.
A major concern of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) and of the
philosophy of Spirit that he lays out in his Encyclopedia of the
Philosophical Sciences (1817-1830) is the interrelation between
individual humans, which he conceives in terms of “mutual
recognition.” However, what Climacus means by the aforementioned
statement, is that Hegel, in the Philosophy of Right, believed the
best solution was to surrender one’s individuality to the customs of
the State, identifying right and wrong in view of the prevailing
bourgeois morality. Individual human will ought, at the State’s
highest level of development, to properly coincide with the will of
the State. Climacus rejects Hegel’s suppression of individuality by
pointing out it is impossible to create a valid set of rules or system
in any society which can adequately describe existence for any one
individual. Submitting one’s will to the State denies personal
freedom, choice, and responsibility.
In addition, Hegel does believe we can know the structure of God’s
mind, or ultimate reality. Hegel agrees with Kierkegaard that both
reality and humans are incomplete, inasmuch as we are in time, and
reality develops through time. But the relation between time and
eternity is outside time and this is the “logical structure” that
Hegel thinks we can know. Kierkegaard disputes this assertion, because
it eliminates the clear distinction between ontology and epistemology.
Existence and thought are not identical and one cannot possibly think
existence. Thought is always a form of abstraction, and thus not only
is pure existence impossible to think, but all forms in existence are
unthinkable; thought depends on language, which merely abstracts from
experience, thus separating us from lived experience and the living
essence of all beings. In addition, because we are finite beings, we
cannot possibly know or understand anything that is universal or
infinite such as God, so we cannot know God exists, since that which
transcends time simultaneously transcends human understanding.
[edit] Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche was the first to mount a logically serious
criticism of Idealism. He argued that Kant’s argument for his
transcendental idealism rests on a confusion between a tautology and/
or petitio principii, and is therefore an invalid argument.
In his book Beyond Good and Evil, Part 1 On the Prejudice of
Philosophers Section 11, he ridicules Kant for admiring himself
because he had undertaken and (thought he) succeeded in tackling “the
most difficult thing that could ever be undertaken on behalf of
metaphysics.”
“But let us reflect; it is high time to do so. ‘How are synthetic
judgements a priori possible?’ Kant asked himself-and what really is
his answer? ‘By virtue of a faculty’ – but unfortunately not in five
words,…The honeymoon of German philosophy arrived. All the young
theologians of the Tübingen seminary went into the bushes all looking
for ‘faculties.’…’By virtue of a faculty’ – he had said, or at least
meant. But is that an answer? An explanation? Or is it not rather
merely a repetition of the question? How does opium induce sleep? ‘By
virtue of a faculty,’ namely the virtus dormitiva, replies the doctor
in Moliére.”[citation needed]
This argument Nietzsche advances can also be constructed to read that
Kant was making a tautological argument (i.e. necessarily true). An
argument that has a necessarily true premise cannot make any synthetic
a priori statements, because (qua Kant) the synthetic cannot be
necessarily true.
In addition to the Kant’s idealism, Nietzsche in the same book attacks
the idealism of Schopenhauer and Descartes via a similar argument to
Kant’s original critique of Descartes. Quoting Nietzsche:
“There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are
“immediate certainties”; for example, “I think,” or as the
superstition of Schopenhauer put it, “I will”; as though knowledge
here got hold of its objects purely and nakedly as “the thing in
itself,” without any falsification on the part of either the subject
or the object. But that “immediate certainty,” as well as “absolute
knowledge” and the “thing in itself,” involved a contradictio in
adjecto, I shall repeat a hundred times; we really ought to free
ourselves from the seduction of words!”[citation needed]
[edit] G. E. Moore
The first criticism of Idealism that falls within the analytic
philosophical framework is by one of its co-founders G. E. Moore. This
1903 seminal article, The Refutation of Idealism. This one of the
first demonstrations of Moore’s commitment to analysis as the proper
philosophical method.
Moore proceeds by examining the Berkeleian aphorism esse est percipi:
“to be is to be perceived”. He examines in detail each of the three
terms in the aphorism, finding that it must mean that the object and
the subject are necessarily connected. So, he argues, for the
idealist, “yellow” and “the sensation of yellow” are necessarily
identical – to be yellow is necessarily to be experienced as yellow.
But, in a move similar to the open question argument, it also seems
clear that there is a difference between “yellow” and “the sensation
of yellow”. For Moore, the idealist is in error because “that esse is
held to be percipi, solely because what is experienced is held to be
identical with the experience of it”.
Though far from a complete refutation, this was the first strong
statement by analytic philosophy against its idealist predecessors—or
at any rate against the type of idealism represented by Berkeley—this
argument did not show that the GEM (in post Stove vernacular, see
below) is logically invalid. Arguments advanced by Nietzsche (prior to
Moore), Russell (just after Moore) & 80 years later Stove put a nail
in the coffin for the “master” argument supporting (Berkeleyan)
idealism.
[edit] Bertrand Russell
Despite Bertrand Russell’s hugely popular book The Problems of
Philosophy (this book was in its 17th printing by 1943) which was
written for a general audience rather than academia, few ever mention
his critique even though he completely anticipates David Stove’s GEM
both in form and content (see below for David Stove’s GEM). In chapter
4 (Idealism) he highlights Berkeley’s tautological premise for
advancing idealism.
Quoting Russell’s prose (1912:42-43):
“If we say that the things known must be in the mind, we are either un-
duly limiting the mind’s power of knowing, or we are uttering a mere
tautology. We are uttering a mere tautology if we mean by ‘in the
mind’ the same as by ‘before the mind’, i.e. if we mean merely being
apprehended by the mind. But if we mean this, we shall have to admit
that what, in this sense, is in the mind, may nevertheless be not
mental. Thus when we realize the nature of knowledge, Berkeley’s
argument is seen to be wrong in substance as well as in form, and his
grounds for supposing that ‘idea’-i.e. the objects apprehended-must be
mental, are found to have no validity whatever. Hence his grounds in
favour of the idealism may be dismissed.”
[edit] A.C. Ewing
Published in 1933, A. C. Ewing, according to David Stove, mounted the
first full length book critique of Idealism, entitled Idealism; a
critical survey. Stove does not mention that Ewing anticipated his
GEM.
[edit] David Stove
The Australian philosopher David Stove argued in typical acerbic style
that idealism rested on what he called “the worst argument in the
world”. From a logical point of view his critique is no different from
Russell or Nietzsche’s—but Stove has been more widely cited and most
clearly highlighted the mistake of proponents (like Berkeley) of
subjective idealism. He named the form of this argument – invented by
Berkeley — “the GEM”. Berkeley claimed that “[the mind] is deluded to
think it can and does conceive of bodies existing unthought of, or
without the mind, though at the same time they are apprehended by, or
exist in, itself”. Stove argued that this claim proceeds from the
tautology that nothing can be thought of without its being thought of,
to the conclusion that nothing can exist without its being thought of.
Alan Musgrave recently extended this argument to attack Conceptual
Idealism.
[edit] John Searle
In The Construction of Social Reality, John Searle offers an attack on
some versions of idealism. Searle conveniently summarises two
important arguments for (subjective) idealism. The first is based on
our perception of reality:
1. All we have access to in perception are the contents of our own
experiences
2. The only epistemic basis we can have for claims about the external
world are our perceptual experiences
therefore,
3. the only reality we can meaningfully speak of is the reality of
perceptual experiences (The Construction of Social Reality p. 172)
Whilst agreeing with (2), Searle argues that (1) is false, and points
out that (3) does not follow from (1) and (2).
The second argument for (subjective) idealism runs as follows:
Premise: Any cognitive state occurs as part of a set of cognitive
states and within a cognitive system
Conclusion 1: It is impossible to get outside of all cognitive states
and systems to survey the relationships between them and the reality
they are used to cognize
Conclusion 2: No cognition is ever of a reality that exists
independently of cognition (The Construction of Social Reality p.
174)
Searle goes on to point out that conclusion 2 simply does not follow
from its precedents.
[edit] Alan Musgrave
Alan Musgrave in an article titled Realism and Antirealism in R. Klee
(ed), Scientific Inquiry: Readings in the Philosophy of Science,
Oxford, 1998, 344-352 – later re-titled to Conceptual Idealism and
Stove’s GEM in A. Musgrave, Essays on Realism and Rationalism, Rodopi,
1999 also in M.L. Dalla Chiara et al. (eds), Language, Quantum, Music,
Kluwer, 1999, 25-35 – Alan Musgrave argues in addition to Stove’s GEM,
Conceptual Idealists compound their mistakes with use/mention
confusions and proliferation of unnecessary hyphenated entities.
stock examples of use/mention confusions:
Santa Claus (the person) does not exist.
‘Santa Claus’ (the name/concept/fairy tale) does exist; because adults
tell children this every Christmas season.
The distinction in philosophical circles is highlighted by putting
quotations around the word when we want to refer only to the name and
not the object.
stock examples of hyphenated entities:
things-in-itself (Immanuel Kant)
things-as-interacted-by-us (Arthur Fine)
Table-of-commonsense (Sir Arthur Eddington)
Table-of-physics (Sir Arthur Eddington)
Moon-in-itself
Moon-as-howled-by-wolves
Moon-as-conceived-by-Aristotelians
Moon-as-conceived-by-Galileans
Hyphenated entities are “warning signs” for conceptual idealism
according to Musgrave because they over emphasise the epistemic (ways
in which people come to learn about the world) activities and will
more likely commit errors in use/mention. These entities do not exist
(strictly speaking and are ersatz entities) but highlight the numerous
ways in which people come to know the world.
In Sir Arthur Eddington’s case use/mention confusions compounded his
problem when he thought he was sitting at two different tables in his
study (table-of-commonsense and table-of-physics). In fact Eddington
was sitting at one table but had two different perspectives or ways of
knowing about that one table.
Richard Rorty and Postmodernist Philosophy in general have been
attacked by Musgrave for committing use/mention confusions. Musgrave
argues that these confusions help proliferate GEM’s in our thinking
and serious thought should avoid GEM’s.
[edit] Philip J. Neujahr
“Although it would be hard to legislate about such matters, it would
perhaps be well to restrict the idealist label to theories which hold
that the world, or its material aspects, are dependent upon the
specifically cognitive activities of the mind or Mind in perceiving or
thinking about (or ‘experiencing’) the object of its
awareness.” (Kant’s Idealism, Ch. 1)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Abortion improves and increases the value of life!
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:12 am
From: “yarrido@aol.com”
On Mar 28, 1:06 pm, elizabeth wrote:
> On Mar 28, 12:38 pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 2:16 pm, elizabeth wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 26, 8:52 am, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 25, 11:25 am, elizabeth wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 24, 12:00 pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 23, 12:26 pm, elizabeth wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 22, 3:48 pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 1:03 pm, SkyEyes wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 10:35 am, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 7:34 pm, Rob Par wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:42:06 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> >
> > > > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > So, you aren’t animal, mineral or vegetable, and thus, you claim you
> > > > > do not exist.
>
> > > > I exist, you just don’t believe it. You think that my body
> > > > exists, not me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > YOu exist, it’s just you don’t believe no one wants you to.
>
> > How do you know that I exist?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > – Show quoted text -
>
> It’s too bad you don’t. I’m sure everyone in the world aware of your
> miserable existance agrees with me.
You have no evidence that I exist. These letters you see here have
just randomly appeared from nowhere and assembled themselves in this
arrangement by themselves because it is the substance from which they
are made that makes them do so. Your pattern seeking mind then
interpreted them into words and sentences and meanings and information
to fool you into thinking that there is a mind behind them. But the
reality is that cannot possibly be the case since you cannot see me,
touch me or in any way empirically verify my existence. So, I don’t
actually exist. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. You
believe in a myth.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:18 am
From: “yarrido@aol.com”
On Mar 27, 3:06 am, Attila < wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:48:34 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
> in alt.abortion with message-id
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 20, 10:16 am, elizabeth wrote:
> >> On Mar 20, 8:51 am, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 19, 5:42 pm, SkyEyes wrote:
>
> >> > > On Mar 19, 1:20 pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
> >> e is something not normal about that kind of
> >> > thinking.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > – Show quoted text -
>
> >> We *are* animals, fuckwit, and most of them are worth far more than
> >> you are.
>
> >If you are, then you have no objection of us sticking you into a zoo.
> >Furthermore, if you intentionally injure someone we can just put you
> >to sleep and you fully approve of that? We can chain you up so that
> >you won’t run away. We can make you plow the field or pull carts
> >without paying you anything for the work you do. You are volunteering
> >for this kind of treatment? Now, that’s a smart move!
>
> You are saying humans are not animals? What are we? Vegetable?
> Mineral?
You are an invisible being that forms your thoughts and makes
decisions based on your will and directs the body that you posses.
While we as creatures fall within the animal kingdom(scientifically),
we are so much more than that which science can describe and we
transcend the categories you list.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why The Supreme Court By 5-4 Will Dump The Democrats Health Legislation
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:17 am
From: Robert Cohen
This prediction is based on my fear that the Supreme Court is partisan
At least two decisions, Bush v Gore and the recent corporation
political contribution decision are
indicators of POSSIBLE SC partisan decision-making
Am I being foolish & simple-minded if not stupid?
Perhaps
Am I being unfair if not unpatriotic?
I dunno, am I really?
Is this note a typical piece of internet dogshit?
I hope that it proves to be a nutty woof-woof-woof
To try to briefly explain my thinking, since this is supposed to be a
philosophy n.g.
Previously I have posted umpteen times my perceptions of the SC
interpreting the
U.S. Constitution, Google’s archive has apparently cut some years out,
while much is still here
The SC is not robotic: It is indeed human and adaptive and
“maladaptive,” creative and traditional,
candid & intellectually disingenuous, reactionary and progressive
The Constitution cannot always be interpreted purely mechanistically,
though some try
Reality is slightly more complex if not convoluted if not dynamic
The Justices in their black robes are ad hoc “our secular gods &
goddesses”
Their overall power & responsibility cannot be discounted, despite
that allegation of ‘let the
Supreme Court enforce their g-damn decision,’ possibly made by Tom
Jefferson after his Louisiana
Purchase was ruled unconstitutional (or whatever the crisis
situation)
The Justices decision-making is ultimately discretionary human
Legalistic jargon is just that in my humble, cynical take of reality,
and the gifted clerks know
how to spread wordy fertilizer
I’m attempting to be rational if not paranoiac, while the p word
cannot be sloughed away
I apologize to Americans offended by this heretical ass-say (which
should be all)
On Mar 29, 7:42 pm, cc000001 wrote:
> > Of course it’s possible. Everything is possible!
>
> I like your style!
Hehe, you must be a developer.
> But, I notice this is using Panoramio.
> I’m wondering, is that kind of functionality in combination with the
> custom tiles going to be a mammoth task?
That’s a relative question! The answer is that it would depend on your
skill level.
Creating custom tiles, and making them appear active, is not for
beginners, but I don’t know how much you know.
–
Marcelo – http://maps.forum.nu
–
> To make things even more
> complicated, we’d like the data to be dynamic too as new entries will
> be added constantly.
>
> many thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> On 29 Mar, 17:46, Marcelo wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 6:36 pm, cc000001 wrote:
>
> > > What I want to know is, is it possible to display a unique thumbnail
> > > image instead of a normal map marker?
>
> > Of course it’s possible. Everything is possible!
>
> > > Is this possible and if it is, is there going to be a significant
> > > overhead to doing it?
>
> > It depends on how you show the images.
>
> > If you use custom markers, you’re limited to 100-200 markers at a
> > time:http://econym.org.uk/gmap/basic16.htm
>
> > but if you use custom tiles, then there is no limit:http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.0625,-95.677068&spn=39.235538,79.01…
>
> > –
> > Marcelo -http://maps.forum.nu
> > –
>
> > > This database could grow to include a few
> > > thousand entries, although at the moment there are only a couple of
> > > hundred entries. I know I’ll have to use some form of clustering
> > > anyway.
>
> > > many thanks,
>
> > > Chris
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Google Maps API” group.
To post to this group, send email to google-maps-api@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-api+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:18 am
From: “yarrido@aol.com”
On Mar 27, 3:06 am, Attila < wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:48:34 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
> in alt.abortion with message-id
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 20, 10:16 am, elizabeth wrote:
> >> On Mar 20, 8:51 am, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 19, 5:42 pm, SkyEyes wrote:
>
> >> > > On Mar 19, 1:20 pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
> >> e is something not normal about that kind of
> >> > thinking.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > – Show quoted text -
>
> >> We *are* animals, fuckwit, and most of them are worth far more than
> >> you are.
>
> >If you are, then you have no objection of us sticking you into a zoo.
> >Furthermore, if you intentionally injure someone we can just put you
> >to sleep and you fully approve of that? We can chain you up so that
> >you won’t run away. We can make you plow the field or pull carts
> >without paying you anything for the work you do. You are volunteering
> >for this kind of treatment? Now, that’s a smart move!
>
> You are saying humans are not animals? What are we? Vegetable?
> Mineral?
You are an invisible being that forms your thoughts and makes
decisions based on your will and directs the body that you posses.
While we as creatures fall within the animal kingdom(scientifically),
we are so much more than that which science can describe and we
transcend the categories you list.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:25 am
From: “yarrido@aol.com”
On Mar 23, 10:14 am, Rob Par wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:48:48 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
>
>
>
> wrote:
> >>When I no
> >> longer am, I plan to end it, one way or the other. But it will be on
> >> *my* say-so, not that of the gubmint nor any religion.
>
> >> And as far as being “treated like an animal” goes, when it comes to
> >> end-of-life issues, we treat animals far, far better than we treat
> >> humans. We enable terminal animals to be put out of their suffering.
> >> We make humans drag it out as long as it takes to die “naturally,”
> >> with no thought to their pain or their personal wishes.
>
> >> My hope for you is that you live a long, long life – with esophageal
> >> cancer.
>
> >Actually, that’s a pretty good call. Due to my genetics, I am prone to
> >that. It may be a good call, but it is not a very nice thing to say.
> >Would you like to take it back?
> >Just because we disagree, we don’t have to be disagreeable.
>
> You are easily the most disagreeable lying son of a bitch on this
> group. A shit head like you doesn’t deserve any respect, because of
> your behavior. You want respect, have respect for others.
Lies are easily shown to be such and I have not seen anything
like that shown about the positions I have taken here.
As to respect…it’s over rated. The truth has higher value.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:27 am
From: “yarrido@aol.com”
On Mar 22, 11:01 pm, rfisc…@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> yarr…@aol.com wrote:
> >On Mar 20, 11:29 am, Rob Par wrote:
> >> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:35:02 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Mar 19, 7:34 pm, Rob Par wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:42:06 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Mar 19, 1:20 pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mar 18, 6:59 pm, Rob Par wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:54:23 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> > >On Mar 17, 1:48 pm, Rob Par wrote:
> >> >> >> > >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:34:04 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
>
> >> >> >> > >> >where you state that a person is considered guilty in opposition of
> >> >> >> > >> >presumption of innocence. That was when I realized how wrong I was.
> >> >> >> > >> >During an investigation, the investigator follows the evidence where
> >> >> >> > >> >it leads without consideration of guilt or innocence. He does so if he
> >> >> >> > >> >is a good investigator. If he is a lousy and incompetent one, then he
> >> >> >> > >> >does what you describe. Mind you, I am not disagreeing with you that
> >> >> >> > >> >there are some of those out there, but such an assumption is unfair
> >> >> >> > >> >and downright rude to those who are good honest investigators working
> >> >> >> > >> >with great care and diligence to discover the truth behind the crimes
> >> >> >> > >> >they investigate.
>
> >> >> >> > >> >Having said what I said, what does all this have to do with my topic
> >> >> >> > >> >of how we determine the value of human life?
>
> >> >> >> >Nor should you have any right to deny me the right
> >> >> >> > to assistance in ending my own life.
>
> > it in neatly and quickly and
> >> >> >with a minimum of fuss. I want someone to have as much compassion for
> >> >> >*me* as they would have for a terminally ill pet.
>
> >> >> I concur heartily.
>
> >> >Why wait until then. You have just set a case for treating you like an
> >> >animal.
>
> >> Yarrido are you naturally stupid, are do you work at it? Many of us
> >> want our right to control of our own bodies to include the right to a
> >> simple painless death.
>
> >No one is guaranteed a painless death. Why are you so special that you
> >should be?
>
> Nobody has any right to torture other people. Why do you think that
> you should have such a right?
Never said I had a right to torture people. Re-read what I “did”
state above and do try to understand it this time.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:40 am
From: “yarrido@aol.com”
On Mar 22, 11:00 pm, rfisc…@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> yarr…@aol.com wrote:
> >On Mar 20, 2:05 pm, rfisc…@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> yarr…@aol.com wrote:
> >> >On Mar 19, 7:56 pm, rfisc…@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> yarr…@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> >On Mar 18, 6:59 pm, Rob Par wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:54:23 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
> >> >> >> > Actually, I am not unaware of some of this kind of thinking. What
> >> >> >> >troubles me is setting a precedent of allowing killings for those
> >> >
> >> >behold.
>
> >> It is at the level of yours. When you resort to stupid and obvious
> >> lies then you should expect to be called a liar.
>
> >> To claim that pregnancy and childbirth doesn’t involve the active
> >> participation of the women is either a stupid lie or appalling
> >> ignorance.
>
> >Well of course it does….that is why I never said it.
>
> You admit to it.
Why wouldn’t I admit to never having made a statement you accuse me of
making?
>
> > I said that
> >the condition of pregnancy itself doesn’t and never said anything
> >about childbirth.
>
> That’s a pathetic bit of weaselling.
You think of telling the truth as being a pathetic bit of
weaseling?
Am I to take it then that you try to avoid “pathetic bit of
weaseling”?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How ‘A’ is and is not ‘A’
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:18 am
From: Tim
On Mar 29, 12:45 pm, M Purcell wrote:
> On Mar 29, 8:43 am, “Robakks” wrote:
>
>
>
> > Be and to exist.
> > The horse to be in the real world.
> > The image of a horse exists in the psyche.
>
> > Identity = compliance
> > what IS and what exists.
>
> Certainly if the horse stepped on your foot you would know it exists
> independent of your imagination but suppose the horse went somewhere
> else?
How so? Why does being stepped on by the horse constitute its
ontological status better than seeing the horse.
>How would you know it is still in the “real world”, maybe
> something ate it. Egotists seem to believe all horses will always step
> on people’s feet because one stepped on their foot.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:14 am
From: M Purcell
On Mar 29, 10:18 am, Tim wrote:
> On Mar 29, 12:45 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>
> > On Mar 29, 8:43 am, “Robakks” wrote:
>
> > > Be and to exist.
> > > The horse to be in the real world.
> > > The image of a horse exists in the psyche.
>
> > > Identity = compliance
> > > what IS and what exists.
>
> > Certainly if the horse stepped on your foot you would know it exists
> > independent of your imagination but suppose the horse went somewhere
> > else?
>
> How so? Why does being stepped on by the horse constitute its
> ontological status better than seeing the horse.
There is a more intense and less ambiguous sensation directly
relateable to the horse by proximity and requiring a more immediate
reaction in the intrest of self preservation. Most people do not
require this verification but you could test it for yourself.
> >How would you know it is still in the “real world”, maybe
> > something ate it. Egotists seem to believe all horses will always step
> > on people’s feet because one stepped on their foot.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:19 am
From: “Robakks”
“M Purcell”
news:a4833f89-d883-4476-a722-3c904a57b88b@y33g2000pre.googlegroups.com…
> On Mar 29, 8:43 am, “Robakks” wrote:
>> Be and to exist.
>> The horse to be in the real world.
>> The image of a horse exists in the psyche.
>>
>> Identity = compliance
>> what IS and what exists.
> Certainly if the horse stepped on your foot you would know it exists
> independent of your imagination but suppose the horse went somewhere
> else? How would you know it is still in the “real world”, maybe
> something ate it. Egotists seem to believe all horses will always step
> on people’s feet because one stepped on their foot.
See:
Awareness
The horse exists here. Soft (info). Interior.
|
transmission \
= 0 == 1 == 2 == 3 == 4 == 5 == 6 == psyche (mirror)
transmission /
|
The horse is here. Hard (objects). Exterior.
senses:
0 = mind (thinking)
1 = look (eye)
2 = sound (ears)
etc.
Edward Robak* from Nowa Huta
~>�<~ http://translate.google.com/ #
lover of wisdom and not only:)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What makes a good scientist?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:20 am
From: "Daniel T."
omprem wrote:
> On Mar 29, 9:30 am, “Daniel T.” wrote:
> > John Jones wrote:
> >
> > > There are only two kinds of scientist.
> >
> > > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy
> > > and leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering
> > > to onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of
> > > science in action.
> >
> > > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler
> > > is silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are
> > > impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden
> > > strengths of science.
> >
> > There are lots of kinds of scientists, but to the question “What
> > makes a good scientist?” my answer is “objectivity.”
>
> But according to Atheism, all mental content and activity is just
> biochemical reaction and is subjective. There cannot be objectivity.
Ridiculous. According to atheism, gods don’t exist. That says nothing
about mental content or activity.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Obamas must die!
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:24 am
From: purple
On 3/29/2010 10:52 AM, tooly wrote:
[...]
> I read, and I learn how Communists work. Nothing is out in the open
> for them. They are always ‘behind the scenes’…a small, but
> effectively agitating force, whose only aim is to bring down
> capitalism. It is not about serving women, minorities, or any NEW
> PROLETARIAT…but only about bringing down capitalism to raise
> socialism.
>
> Sleep away to your own peril.
It isn’t even socialism that’s the goal. There’s a radical oligarchy
that wants to seize power, but in the US that doesn’t come easily,
so they have to evolve into it through legal means. Those in power
live very well, everyone else, not so much. Health care is a very
nice example. Those pigs are more equal than the rest of the pigs.
Read Saul Alinsky to understand the mechanics. It is all out in the
open. The problem with this is that we in the west have not yet had
our flirtation with communism, so we have no believers in how very
vile it is. Unfortunately for those of us who already know better,
we’re going to be dragged down economically with the rest. Recovery,
that eventually must happen, won’t be any better here in the USA
than it has been for now going on for two decades in the former
soviet union. The experiment of communism will last several
generations, and so will recovery from it.
apply, lather, rinse
apply, lather, rinse
apply, lather, rinse
etc.
It is probably already too late to stop the sequence(s). They took
over education and teachers’ unions long ago. We have several
generations raised with the ideology ready to surface.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:15 am
From: High Miles
purple wrote:
> On 3/29/2010 10:52 AM, tooly wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>> I read, and I learn how Communists work. Nothing is out in the open
>> for them. They are always ‘behind the scenes’…a small, but
>> effectively agitating force, whose only aim is to bring down
>> capitalism. It is not about serving women, minorities, or any NEW
>> PROLETARIAT…but only about bringing down capitalism to raise
>> socialism.
>>
>> Sleep away to your own peril.
>
>
> It isn’t even socialism that’s the goal. There’s a radical oligarchy
> that wants to seize power, but in the US that doesn’t come easily,
> so they have to evolve into it through legal means. Those in power
> live very well, everyone else, not so much. Health care is a very
> nice example. Those pigs are more equal than the rest of the pigs.
>
> Read Saul Alinsky to understand the mechanics. It is all out in the
> open. The problem with this is that we in the west have not yet had
> our flirtation with communism, so we have no believers in how very
> vile it is. Unfortunately for those of us who already know better,
> we’re going to be dragged down economically with the rest. Recovery,
> that eventually must happen, won’t be any better here in the USA
> than it has been for now going on for two decades in the former
> soviet union. The experiment of communism will last several
> generations, and so will recovery from it.
>
> apply, lather, rinse
> apply, lather, rinse
> apply, lather, rinse
> etc.
>
> It is probably already too late to stop the sequence(s). They took
> over education and teachers’ unions long ago. We have several
> generations raised with the ideology ready to surface.
We can only hope so………….
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:20 am
From: Ramon F Herrera
On Mar 29, 9:21 am, GLOBALIST wrote:
> I always get a kick out of folks who are ‘still’ hunting down
> communists. Oh well ..they need something to keep them busy, so they
> don’t have to face reality
Good flick:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0165929/
-RFH
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Extremists Now Purging Moderates From Arizona and Florida GOP
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:24 am
From: Bible Studies with Satan
Bret Cahill wrote:
> McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
Exactly. I think the time is right for a third party.
>
> This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> nonsense.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
–
Ezekiel 23:20
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:37 am
From: cop welfare
On Mar 29, 11:50 am, tooly wrote:
> On Mar 29, 12:08 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > nonsense.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> We are not extremists of course, but actually, we were the LAND and
> it’s culture before progressives started taking it over.
>
> But there are political realities coming to bear for the
> traditionalist. Once again, I’ll say…the Hart-Cellar Immigration
> act pretty much ‘sealed the deal’ for socialists. The 2003
> demographics showed for every 1 additional caucasion in America, there
> were 3 blacks and 7 hispanics coming in [or being born].
>
> That spells doom any way one can put it [for caucasions...ergo, the
> founding element of this country; ergo, from europe].
>
> It probably puts this culture on a path toward ‘afro centrism’ of all
> things? Go figure.
>
> There might be one or two elections that conservatives can still
> muster out…one being this next November [2010]. Even with all that
> has taken place [Obama's socialism and grand ire being created in half
> the land], traditionalists and conservatives will still only barely
> muster a bare majority at the national level.
>
> Some argue however, that the founder’s prodgeny may not go into the
> night so meakly however. It still IS our country; we invented it; we
> created it’s founding by laws, it’s principles…including laizez
> faire economics.
>
> No nation has ever simply been ‘taken over’ by internal socially
> disparate forces such that is taking place in America now. It’s not
> natural. But there has been a gargantuan ‘campaign’ going on in our
> institutions, classrooms, media etc, to ‘charm the snake’ so speak; to
> mesmerize the founder’s prodgeny into believing they have no RIGHT to
> defend what is theirs [that it is NOT theirs; they it was somehow NOT
> their forebears who invented the place].
>
> No one really wants to put a color on it…but REALITY stars us in the
> face and we look into the eyes or our own doom IF WE DON”T.
>
> So, one might ask, what does any cornered animal do when the world
> [Obama's world anyway, ha]…paints that animal into that corner with
> nowhere else to go? I think hispanics and blacks are betting that the
> white guy is just going to lay down and die. HA…I see all them
> white teens with ‘pants on the ground’, and I can see why.
>
> Ah well…I suppose we can always laugh [after we cry]. It was not
> right what has been done to us.
>
> We’ll see; who knows, anything can happen. Obama might actually be
> ushering in something entirely opposite to what seems apparent. But
> those tea party’ers…they look awfully old and haggard. I have
> faith SOMETHING will happen though; something ‘reactionary’…to take
> what is ours back. This simply is not natural what is happening.- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
bullshit.
you obviously know hoe to read.
a real teapartier would kcik yer ass.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:39 am
From: “Sid9″
“tooly” wrote in message
news:baf1487f-a39d-4a71-841a-b7146dfeb2e4@n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com…
> On Mar 29, 12:08 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
>> his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
>> ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>>
>> Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>>
>> A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
>> independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>>
>> This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
>> commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
>> the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
>> the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
>> nonsense.
>>
>> Bret Cahill
>
> We are not extremists of course, but actually, we were the LAND and
> it’s culture before progressives started taking it over.
>
> But there are political realities coming to bear for the
> traditionalist. Once again, I’ll say…the Hart-Cellar Immigration
> act pretty much ‘sealed the deal’ for socialists. The 2003
> demographics showed for every 1 additional caucasion in America, there
> were 3 blacks and 7 hispanics coming in [or being born].
>
> That spells doom any way one can put it [for caucasions...ergo, the
> founding element of this country; ergo, from europe].
>
> It probably puts this culture on a path toward ‘afro centrism’ of all
> things? Go figure.
>
> There might be one or two elections that conservatives can still
> muster out…one being this next November [2010]. Even with all that
> has taken place [Obama's socialism and grand ire being created in half
> the land], traditionalists and conservatives will still only barely
> muster a bare majority at the national level.
>
> Some argue however, that the founder’s prodgeny may not go into the
> night so meakly however. It still IS our country; we invented it; we
> created it’s founding by laws, it’s principles…including laizez
> faire economics.
>
> No nation has ever simply been ‘taken over’ by internal socially
> disparate forces such that is taking place in America now. It’s not
> natural. But there has been a gargantuan ‘campaign’ going on in our
> institutions, classrooms, media etc, to ‘charm the snake’ so speak; to
> mesmerize the founder’s prodgeny into believing they have no RIGHT to
> defend what is theirs [that it is NOT theirs; they it was somehow NOT
> their forebears who invented the place].
>
> No one really wants to put a color on it…but REALITY stars us in the
> face and we look into the eyes or our own doom IF WE DON”T.
>
> So, one might ask, what does any cornered animal do when the world
> [Obama's world anyway, ha]…paints that animal into that corner with
> nowhere else to go? I think hispanics and blacks are betting that the
> white guy is just going to lay down and die. HA…I see all them
> white teens with ‘pants on the ground’, and I can see why.
>
> Ah well…I suppose we can always laugh [after we cry]. It was not
> right what has been done to us.
>
> We’ll see; who knows, anything can happen. Obama might actually be
> ushering in something entirely opposite to what seems apparent. But
> those tea party’ers…they look awfully old and haggard. I have
> faith SOMETHING will happen though; something ‘reactionary’…to take
> what is ours back. This simply is not natural what is happening.
>
>
>
.
.
What do you propose to do about it?
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:47 am
From: cop welfare
On Mar 29, 11:50 am, tooly wrote:
> On Mar 29, 12:08 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > nonsense.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> We are not extremists of course, but actually, we were the LAND and
> it’s culture before progressives started taking it over.
>
> But there are political realities coming to bear for the
> traditionalist. Once again, I’ll say…the Hart-Cellar Immigration
> act pretty much ‘sealed the deal’ for socialists. The 2003
> demographics showed for every 1 additional caucasion in America, there
> were 3 blacks and 7 hispanics coming in [or being born].
>
> That spells doom any way one can put it [for caucasions...ergo, the
> founding element of this country; ergo, from europe].
>
> It probably puts this culture on a path toward ‘afro centrism’ of all
> things? Go figure.
>
> There might be one or two elections that conservatives can still
> muster out…one being this next November [2010]. Even with all that
> has taken place [Obama's socialism and grand ire being created in half
> the land], traditionalists and conservatives will still only barely
> muster a bare majority at the national level.
>
> Some argue however, that the founder’s prodgeny may not go into the
> night so meakly however. It still IS our country; we invented it; we
> created it’s founding by laws, it’s principles…including laizez
> faire economics.
>
> No nation has ever simply been ‘taken over’ by internal socially
> disparate forces such that is taking place in America now. It’s not
> natural. But there has been a gargantuan ‘campaign’ going on in our
> institutions, classrooms, media etc, to ‘charm the snake’ so speak; to
> mesmerize the founder’s prodgeny into believing they have no RIGHT to
> defend what is theirs [that it is NOT theirs; they it was somehow NOT
> their forebears who invented the place].
>
> No one really wants to put a color on it…but REALITY stars us in the
> face and we look into the eyes or our own doom IF WE DON”T.
>
> So, one might ask, what does any cornered animal do when the world
> [Obama's world anyway, ha]…paints that animal into that corner with
> nowhere else to go? I think hispanics and blacks are betting that the
> white guy is just going to lay down and die. HA…I see all them
> white teens with ‘pants on the ground’, and I can see why.
>
> Ah well…I suppose we can always laugh [after we cry]. It was not
> right what has been done to us.
>
> We’ll see; who knows, anything can happen. Obama might actually be
> ushering in something entirely opposite to what seems apparent. But
> those tea party’ers…they look awfully old and haggard. I have
> faith SOMETHING will happen though; something ‘reactionary’…to take
> what is ours back. This simply is not natural what is happening.- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
i hope the indians cut yer f***in’ throats.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: LSD and Gods
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:33 am
From: “thomas p.”
Xan Du wrote:
> thomas p. wrote:
>> “Xan Du” skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:hoplis$k8j$2@news.eternal-september.org…
>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>>> Xan Du wrote:
>>>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>>>>> “Day Brown” skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>> news:4ba42e36$0$18933$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com…
>>>>>>> Smiler wrote:
>>>>>>>> “LSD always brings an experience of a god or Gods”
>>>>>>>> Contradict yourself much?
>>>>>>> Depends on who getsta define the terms. LSD,
>>>>>>> Mescaline, Pscilocybin, Muscarine, and other
>>>>>>> compounds have been employed for millennia- in the
>>>>>>> sacred space, at the sacred time, for sacred
>>>>>>> purpose, and at the direction of a spirit guide. Delusion
>>>>>>> always feeds the ego. Spiritual illumination
>>>>>>> always humbles. These compounds alter perception,
>>>>>>> but to say it results in delusion assumes perception is
>>>>>>> not delusional to start with. Of course, if a mind is
>>>>>>> too limited intellectually or deranged, spiritual
>>>>>>> illumination is not likely. And if your reasoning
>>>>>>> processes are already too
>>>>>>> limited, by all means do not perform this kind of
>>>>>>> experiment. But to assume that all others are so
>>>>>>> limited is delusional.
>>>>>> The irony is that you are the one making the enormous
>>>>>> assumption, i.e. that there is such a thing as
>>>>>> spiritual illumination, and that you know what one
>>>>>> of its universal effects is. That could be seen as
>>>>>> a lack of humility on your part.
>>>>> Mr. Brown is a pretty smart cookie. A little
>>>>> arrogance is to be expected, and my view, respected.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Xan
>>>> Being smart does not negate the possibility of
>>>> expressing nonsense.
>>> Obviously. But I assure you, from my POV, the man does
>>> not speak nonsense.
>>>
>>> -Xan
>>
>> He is describing in some detail a phenomenon for which
>> no objective evidence exists.
>> That is nonsense.
>>
>>
> I call that a hypothesis.
>
> -Xan
Is it falsifiable?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:37 am
From: Xan Du
thomas p. wrote:
> Xan Du wrote:
>> thomas p. wrote:
>>> “Xan Du” skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:hoplis$k8j$2@news.eternal-september.org…
>>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>>>> Xan Du wrote:
>>>>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>>>>>> “Day Brown” skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>>> news:4ba42e36$0$18933$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com…
>>>>>>>> Smiler wrote:
>>>>>>>>> “LSD always brings an experience of a god or Gods”
>>>>>>>>> Contradict yourself much?
>>>>>>>> Depends on who getsta define the terms. LSD,
>>>>>>>> Mescaline, Pscilocybin, Muscarine, and other
>>>>>>>> compounds have been employed for millennia- in the
>>>>>>>> sacred space, at the sacred time, for sacred
>>>>>>>> purpose, and at the direction of a spirit guide. Delusion
>>>>>>>> always feeds the ego. Spiritual illumination
>>>>>>>> always humbles. These compounds alter perception,
>>>>>>>> but to say it results in delusion assumes perception is
>>>>>>>> not delusional to start with. Of course, if a mind is
>>>>>>>> too limited intellectually or deranged, spiritual
>>>>>>>> illumination is not likely. And if your reasoning
>>>>>>>> processes are already too
>>>>>>>> limited, by all means do not perform this kind of
>>>>>>>> experiment. But to assume that all others are so
>>>>>>>> limited is delusional.
>>>>>>> The irony is that you are the one making the enormous
>>>>>>> assumption, i.e. that there is such a thing as
>>>>>>> spiritual illumination, and that you know what one
>>>>>>> of its universal effects is. That could be seen as
>>>>>>> a lack of humility on your part.
>>>>>> Mr. Brown is a pretty smart cookie. A little
>>>>>> arrogance is to be expected, and my view, respected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Xan
>>>>> Being smart does not negate the possibility of
>>>>> expressing nonsense.
>>>> Obviously. But I assure you, from my POV, the man does
>>>> not speak nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> -Xan
>>> He is describing in some detail a phenomenon for which
>>> no objective evidence exists.
>>> That is nonsense.
>>>
>>>
>> I call that a hypothesis.
>>
>> -Xan
>
> Is it falsifiable?
>
Good question. I don’t know.
-Xan
==============================================================================
TOPIC: One way of recognising one’s spirituality.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:50 am
From: Monsieur Turtoni
“In spirituality, and especially nondual, mystical and eastern
meditative traditions, the human being is often conceived as being in
the illusion of individual existence, and separateness from other
aspects of creation. This “sense of doership” or sense of individual
existence is that part which believes it is the human being, and
believes it must fight for itself in the world, is ultimately unaware
and unconscious of its own true nature. The ego is often associated
with mind and the sense of time, which compulsively thinks in order to
be assured of its future existence, rather than simply knowing its own
self and the present.
The spiritual goal of many traditions involves the dissolving of the
ego, allowing self-knowledge of one’s own true nature to become
experienced and enacted in the world. This is variously known as
enlightenment, nirvana, presence, and the “here and now”.”
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:16 am
From: “Rod Speed”
Anarcissie wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> Anarcissie wrote:
>>> M Purcell wrote:
>>>> On Mar 27, 2:55 pm, *Anarcissie* wrote:
>>>>> M Purcell:
>>>>>> On Mar 26, 8:03 am, Anarcissie wrote:
>>>>>>> M Purcell wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 26, 6:36 am, Anarcissie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Zerkon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:36:26 -0700, *Anarcissie* wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> My view is that “doublethink”, as George Orwell called it in
>>>>>>>>>>> 1984 — the ability to maintain two or more contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>> models of the world more or less continuously — is of
>>>>>>>>>>> considerable advantage to life and reproduction. Our
>>>>>>>>>>> faculty for this behavior is derived from evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>> pressures.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> de-evolutionary, I’d say.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Double-think was made possible by Newspeak. Newspeak was an
>>>>>>>>>> eradication of existing concepts. Opposition to the
>>>>>>>>>> CorpState became impossible because the concept ‘opposition
>>>>>>>>>> to state’ was removed so thought about this was impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doublethink appeared in nature long, long before _1984_. A
>>>>>>>>> medium-sized carnivore prowling through the brush hears
>>>>>>>>> something rustling. Is it lunch or a larger-sized carnivore?
>>>>>>>>> The m.s.c. must simultaneously entertain both contradictory
>>>>>>>>> possibilities until something happens to fill out one pattern
>>>>>>>>> or the other and then will have only a fraction of a second
>>>>>>>>> to act. It will not have time to construct a new model of the
>>>>>>>>> world because the previous one failed. Hence it constructs
>>>>>>>>> two (or more) provisional models and keeps them both in mind,
>>>>>>>>> however contradictory they may be.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem to have a contradictory equivocation of doublethink
>>>>>>>> with the fight or flee responce (resulting from ignorance of
>>>>>>>> the enviornment) and cognative dissonance (an internal
>>>>>>>> conflict). From what I understand, doublethink is a willful
>>>>>>>> contradiction.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> A necessary contradiction, although in the case of Big Brother
>>>>>>> (a many modern politicians) much of the difficulty is
>>>>>>> self-caused, such as simultaneously creating libertarian and
>>>>>>> authoritarian rhetoric which the public is expected to consume.
>>>>>>> So what is contradictory in my equivocation, if that’s what it
>>>>>>> is? I said that animals (including humans) are ignorant, so
>>>>>>> that they need the ability to maintain contradictory views of
>>>>>>> the world. Our small predator is in exactly this situation.
>>>>>>> If the s.p. took the time to work out things logically, it
>>>>>>> would probably wind up missing lunch or being lunch.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are different types of contradictions, doublethink is not
>>>>>> the same as cognitive dissonance and neither are the same as an
>>>>>> adrenaline rush.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose one could get an adrenaline rush
>>>>> from either. But you are certainly correct that
>>>>> doublethink and cognitive dissonance are not the
>>>>> same. Cognitive dissonance is a sort of mental
>>>>> excitement which doublethinkers experience, or are
>>>>> suppose to experience, when their contradictory
>>>>> ideas rub up against one another. It’s probably
>>>>> a sort of intellectual taste — as I said, most
>>>>> people have no trouble entertaining contradictory
>>>>> ideas about the world.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to find it exciting. I suppose there is an excitement in
>>>> discovering a contradiction which can lead to new knowledge but I
>>>> don’t believe that is considered cognitive dissonance while
>>>> “doublethink” is deliberate.
>>>
>>> To my observation, the practice of holding two or more
>>> contradictory ideas of the world with no apparent
>>> evidence of discomfort is the default case (and this is
>>> borne out by polls on political issues, as I have
>>> mentioned). This is what I’m calling “doublethink”.
>>> It doesn’t need to be practiced intentionally if it’s
>>> naturally the default. People just do it. In order to
>>> be uncomfortable with cognitive dissonance, they have
>>> to expect cognitive consonance, and I’m guessing that
>>> is the result of a specific kind of training reserved
>>> for intellectuals and intellectual-wannabes. George
>>> Orwell, for example. The guy wrote books — how many
>>> people ever write a book? Once you learn about how
>>> your ideas ought not to contradict one another, you can
>>> enjoy getting all excited and bent out of shape because
>>> you discover that some of them do contradict each other.
>
>> First, on Orwell, here’s two prominent Orwell scholars wrestling with
>> him :
>> > +Facing+Unpleasant+Facts+and+All+Art+Is+Propaganda+interviewed+by+Christopher+
>> Hitchens.aspx>
>>
>> (sorry, long-arse URL, but good stuff)
>>
>> Indeed, the picture that emerges with Orwell is:
>> – a preference for physical risk
>> – an abhorrence of inconsistency in his own behavior.
>> – intolerance of hypocrisy at the visceral level
>>
>> he emerges as a bit vain and egocentric. Not that bad a trade,
>> I think. He extends the fundamental premise of Liberalism – that
>> the individual is the irreducible unit – to a much higher plane.
>>
>> But there’s more to it than that. The (arguably) greatest rising
>> technology of the last 60 years is entertainment. Entertainment
>> depends completely on the willing suspension of disbelief – on
>> pure cognitive dissonance. Of course, we expect that tension
>> to be resolved at the end. The point is that people are
>> possibly “addicted” to increasing levels of cognitive dissonance.
> That’s an interesting hypothesis, one
> which I think the evidence bears out.
Thats just entertainment tho, just a device that makes that work better.
> Indeed, many kinds of entertainment (including the arts
> low and high) not only present a special world at odds
> with the greater world around them,
Thats just plain wrong with a lot of art.
> but also conflicts within themselves between
> interests, emotions, perceptions and ideas.
Thats not what cognitive dissonance is about.
> I think this would follow from my hypothesis that doublethink
> (my meaning) is advantageous to survival of the individual;
Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that claim.
> nature sees to it that its exercise is pleasurable.
‘nature’ doesnt ‘see’ a damned thing.
> So then the question arises, who has a problem
> with cognitive dissonance, and why, when
> doublethink is such an excellent thing?
You havent established that it is, just CLAIMED that, a different matter entirely.
> My guess is that it is an intellectuals’ quirk.
More just whats easy to with with unresolvable conflicts.
If for example you have a mental need to believe in some
damned god or other, because you need that crutch for
your ‘mind’, its hardly surprising that the conflict between
that line and reality, that whether you end up with a serious
medical problem is much more due to luck than any arsehole
of a god deciding to give you cancer etc is unresolvable.
> While doublethink is advantageous to perception and cognition,
You havent established that it is.
> the exercise of will and power is usually best when it is unitary.
Its perfectly possible to engage in doublethink and grovel to some
god or other while also getting medical attention for your cancer etc.
> In most of the more complex societies, the role of the
> intellectual is to subordinate oneself to and serve the rulers,
Oh bullshit. There are no ‘rulers’ in modern democratic societys.
Its all about ideas and selling ideas to the voters etc.
> that is, to serve power as a tool.
Even sillier.
> The doublethinking intellectual is unpredictable,
> unreliable, a bad tool for power.
Yes, someone who cant resolve conficts isnt going
to be much use in the development of new policy etc.
It makes a hell of a lot more sense to be able to accept
that there will always be downsides with any policy, like
the fact that while modern welfare works a hell of a lot
better than charity does, it will always have the massive
downside that some will be quite happy with the standard
of living that welfare provides and wont bother to work etc.
Or that a decent compulsory provision for the time
past working will always see some rather profligate
with their savings because they can always rely on
the govt pension for their time past working.
Or that while ever the govt does provide unemployment
relief, that will inevitably see some not try as hard to find
a job or not be prepared to accept any work available that
doesnt appeal as much as the sort of work you prefer does etc.
> Therefore, the intellectual-wannabe is taught in school to be
> consistent so that he or she will be a good tool for the rulers.
Even sillier. There are no rulers who decide that level of detail
of what is taught in schools. The reality is that kids are taught
the importance of consistency because if you dont strive for
consistency in your arguments, you wont convince anyone etc.
> The intellectual earnestly sweats to iron out contradictions,
> while the folk go on merrily playing with them.
Even sillier.
> However, I agree that a fondness for cognitive dissonance may
> become a dangerous addiction, as witness American politics.
Its MUCH more pervasive in religion.
>>> Of course I find it exciting — I am cursed with reason,
>>> which sets me at odds with most of the human race.
>>> Recently I’ve come to the conclusion that I must
>>> be from another planet.
>> But you still have this thing, too. No escaping it.
>> Your mid and hindbrain are just as much a part
>> of reason as your frontal lobes.
> That depends on how the Neptunians constructed me.
> They may have gotten a few things wrong.
No may have about it.
>> The logic parts are nothing but handmaidens of the unconscious/id.
> As Hume said, although with a more elegant 18th-century vocabulary.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:21 am
From: “Rod Speed”
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Mar 29, 4:49 am, Anarcissie wrote:
>> In article
>> > egroups.com>,
>> M Purcell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 27, 2:55 pm, *Anarcissie* wrote:
>>>> M Purcell:
>>>>> On Mar 26, 8:03 am, Anarcissie wrote:
>>>>>> M Purcell wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 26, 6:36 am, Anarcissie wrote:
>>>>>>>> Zerkon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:36:26 -0700, *Anarcissie* wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> My view is that “doublethink”, as George Orwell called it in
>>>>>>>>>> 1984 — the ability to maintain two or more contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> models of the world more or less continuously — is of
>>>>>>>>>> considerable advantage to life and reproduction. Our faculty
>>>>>>>>>> for this behavior is derived from evolutionary pressures.
>>
>>>>>>>>> de-evolutionary, I’d say.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Double-think was made possible by Newspeak. Newspeak was an
>>>>>>>>> eradication of existing concepts. Opposition to the CorpState
>>>>>>>>> became impossible because the concept ‘opposition to state’
>>>>>>>>> was removed so thought about this was impossible.
>>
>>>>>>>> Doublethink appeared in nature long, long before _1984_. A
>>>>>>>> medium-sized carnivore prowling through the brush hears
>>>>>>>> something rustling. Is it lunch or a larger-sized carnivore?
>>>>>>>> The m.s.c.
>>>>>>>> must simultaneously entertain both contradictory possibilities
>>>>>>>> until something happens to fill out one pattern or the other
>>>>>>>> and then will have only a fraction of a second to act. It will
>>>>>>>> not have time to construct a new model of the world because
>>>>>>>> the previous one failed. Hence it constructs two (or more)
>>>>>>>> provisional models and keeps them both in mind, however
>>>>>>>> contradictory they may be.
>>
>>>>>>> You seem to have a contradictory equivocation of doublethink
>>>>>>> with the fight or flee responce (resulting from ignorance of
>>>>>>> the enviornment) and cognative dissonance (an internal
>>>>>>> conflict). From what I understand, doublethink is a willful
>>>>>>> contradiction.
>>
>>>>>> A necessary contradiction, although in the case of Big Brother
>>>>>> (a many modern politicians) much of the difficulty is
>>>>>> self-caused, such as simultaneously creating libertarian and
>>>>>> authoritarian rhetoric which the public is expected to consume.
>>>>>> So what is contradictory in my equivocation, if that’s what it
>>>>>> is? I said that animals (including humans) are ignorant, so that
>>>>>> they need the ability to maintain contradictory views of the
>>>>>> world. Our small predator is in exactly this situation. If the
>>>>>> s.p. took the time to work out things logically, it would
>>>>>> probably wind up missing lunch or being lunch.
>>
>>>>> There are different types of contradictions, doublethink is not
>>>>> the same as cognitive dissonance and neither are the same as an
>>>>> adrenaline rush.
>>
>>>> I suppose one could get an adrenaline rush
>>>> from either. But you are certainly correct that
>>>> doublethink and cognitive dissonance are not the
>>>> same. Cognitive dissonance is a sort of mental
>>>> excitement which doublethinkers experience, or are
>>>> suppose to experience, when their contradictory
>>>> ideas rub up against one another. It’s probably
>>>> a sort of intellectual taste — as I said, most
>>>> people have no trouble entertaining contradictory
>>>> ideas about the world.
>>
>>> You seem to find it exciting. I suppose there is an excitement in
>>> discovering a contradiction which can lead to new knowledge but I
>>> don’t believe that is considered cognitive dissonance while
>>> “doublethink” is deliberate.
>>
>> To my observation, the practice of holding two or more
>> contradictory ideas of the world with no apparent
>> evidence of discomfort is the default case (and this is
>> borne out by polls on political issues, as I have
>> mentioned). This is what I’m calling “doublethink”.
>> It doesn’t need to be practiced intentionally if it’s
>> naturally the default. People just do it.
> Criminals and madmen do doublethink naturally.
Almost everyone does, most obviously with religion.
At the most fundamental level that if there is just one
‘true’ god, how come there are so many of them ?
> Or, if not one of those two groups, those really desperate.
It isnt just the really desperate, its almost everyone, most obviously with religion.
> Of course, I am placing politicians, businessmen, theoretical
> physicists, theologians, etc. in the criminal-madman category.
And its completely silly to do that.
> The huge success of these types, is essentially parasitical or piratical
Not with with theoretical physicists.
> – when applied to the masses there is massive madness expressing as depression
Depression isnt madness.
> – and that is a big hooray for the pharmaceutical industries and the shrinks.
Most dont bother with either when depressed.
> In order to
>> be uncomfortable with cognitive dissonance, they have
>> to expect cognitive consonance, and I’m guessing that
>> is the result of a specific kind of training reserved
>> for intellectuals and intellectual-wannabes. George
>> Orwell, for example. The guy wrote books — how many
>> people ever write a book? Once you learn about how
>> your ideas ought not to contradict one another, you can
>> enjoy getting all excited and bent out of shape because
>> you discover that some of them do contradict each other.
>>
>> Of course I find it exciting — I am cursed with
>> reason, which sets me at odds with most of the human
>> race. Recently I’ve come to the conclusion that I must
>> be from another planet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> That’s why intuition (association and pattern-matching) show up
>>>>>> early in evolution and logic shows up late even though it’s
>>>>>> simpler and less costly to perform.
>>
>>>>> Subconscious is not the same as conscious and logic is not simple
>>>>> or cheap.
>>
>>>> Well, I don’t know what your first phrase
>>>> refers to; for the second I have only my
>>>> experience of programming, in which pattern-
>>>> matching is considerably more complicated
>>>> than executing a few logical operations. But
>>>> I suppose that may be because the substrate
>>>> is logical. It’s the other way around in the
>>>> animal brain, where intuition is much easier
>>>> than logic because that’s the way the circuits
>>>> are built. Perhaps there is no underlying
>>>> “easier”. I’ll have to give that some thought.
>>
>>> Logic is not instinctual as intuition is and although the same logic
>>> can be applied in different situations, it requires an initial
>>> investment and is certainly not the same as pattern-matching. And
>>> the human brain is not the same as a computer. These are all false
>>> equivocations, are you trying to be disingenuous?
>>
>> Yeah, that must be it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Speaking of _1984_, it seems to me that logic is much more
>>>>>>>> consistent with the One True Truth of totalitarian regimes
>>>>>>>> than of liberalism or anarchism, which assume that no one
>>>>>>>> possesses the One True Truth, or that many perhaps
>>>>>>>> contradictory truths are possible. So why was doublethink
>>>>>>>> necessary? Because to some extent Big Brother had to deal with
>>>>>>>> the real, physical world which may be logical in its deep
>>>>>>>> structure but on the surface presents many apparent
>>>>>>>> contradictions to which logic can be applied only
>>>>>>>> intermittently and tentatively. Curiously, Orwell finds this
>>>>>>>> to be some kind of problem whereas it is the one aspect of
>>>>>>>> Ingsoc’s fantasy of unanimity which continues to have any
>>>>>>>> possibility of life in it.
>>
>>>>>>> Otherwise you might be a totalitarian? There is a difference
>>>>>>> between objectivity and subjectivity and you are refering to a
>>>>>>> fictional novel.
>>
>>>>>> I’m simply pointing out that logic, which requires agreement
>>>>>> about premises and methods, is more consistent with one single
>>>>>> authority than the contradictions (and fuzziness) which
>>>>>> inevitably result from our imperfect perception and knowledge.
>>>>>> If freedom of expression (for example) is a good thing, it must
>>>>>> be because no one has announced the last, absolutely correct
>>>>>> word.
>>
>>>>> Who is this single authority?
>>
>>>> It could be anyone the logician likes,
>>>> I guess. You could ask one.
>>
>>> Which logician?
>>
>>>>>> The novel is an example of what I am talking about, regardless
>>>>>> of its fictionality. In fact, if you read Orwell’s appendix or
>>>>>> afterword you’ll find that much of it is a transcription of
>>>>>> behavior he observed around him during World War 2 (he worked
>>>>>> for the BBC).
>>
>>>>> So Orwell is the single authority?
>>
>>>> No, just an observer.
>>
>>> He is the only “observer” you have presented.
>>
>> I only need one if I’m trying to present an example.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> – Show quoted text — Hide quoted text -
>>
>> – Show quoted text — Hide quoted text -
>>
>> – Show quoted text –
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:16 am
From: Zurab57
On Mar 29, 3:18 pm, “THE BORG” wrote:
> See the suicide bombers in Moscow were two women.
> Islam is supposed to have a Holy War against America, what
> were these two stupid women doing blowing up Russians?
There was a war in Russia with Chechnia .Maybe it has local
importance, but Chechens are muslims and so are many small nations of
Caucasus.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Various notable critics of capitalism
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:32 am
From: “Rod Speed”
Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Mar 29, 12:16 am, M Purcell wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 9:59 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 28, 7:13 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mar 28, 4:35 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 28, 5:53 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Gotta wonder, A couple of months ago the enviornmentalists were
>>>>>> protesting the grape growers water usage.
>>
>>>>> then its looking quite likely that those capitalists are not
>>>>> operating in their own best long term interests. in my state,
>>>>> clear cutting was done by robber barons before government
>>>>> intervened. my state was 2/3rds covered by tree’s. there were
>>>>> large area’s, hundreds of square miles of forest, were hardly a
>>>>> tree was left standing. then government stepped in to limit what
>>>>> was left of the forests. during the great depression, government
>>>>> subsidized tree plantings, and the great northern forests came
>>>>> back, minus the clear cutting from the private sector. today the
>>>>> forests are well managed by the state, and the lumber and paper
>>>>> mills are quite stable.
>>
>>>> Closing the National Forests closed a lot of mills in the
>>>> northwest, the Forest Service was unable to practice
>>>> sustainability. I suspect you are refering to state forest. Some
>>>> companies (such as Medicino Redwood Company) are certified by the
>>>> Forest Stewardship Council as practicing sustained yield whereas
>>>> there is some contraversy with Sierra Pacific Industries owed by
>>>> “Red” Emmerson. The problem with clearcuts is there are no seed
>>>> trees left and it needs to be replanted and there are still a lot
>>>> of clearcuts in National Forests that haven’t been replanted.
>>>> Redwoods on the other hand have several ways of reproducing
>>>> theirselves and often grow from stumps.
>>
>>> it was a common practice in the good old unregulated days of
>>> america. it matters not what state. capitalists cut, slashed, and
>>> burned down much of americas forests, till government stepped in.
>>> the same thing is going on with the fisheries today. the fishing
>>> industry would fish the seas, till every last fish is gone. we saw
>>> that happen in alaska.
>>
>> There are ethical capitalists as well as the unethical ones who need
>> to be regulated. But the main reason there are fewer resources is
>> that there are more people. Now that most of mills in the northwest
>> are closed, we import lumber from Canada.
> of course there are a few ethical ones. responsible wealth
> has a few. but they are outnumbered by the many. there is
> plenty for all if the resource is managed properly.
Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with fish stocks.
Its certainly possible to manage fish stocks sustainably, but when
that is done, there isnt plenty for all, not enough for all in fact.
> and that has been by governments world wide, some
> bad, some good, some really good. finland provides the
> world with about 25% of the worlds paper products,
Like hell it does.
> yet has about 2% of the worlds forests. and finlands forests are
> heavily regulated by government. left onto their own, markets
> almost always fail. they cannot self regulate, self police, self
> right, self correct. they almost always end in failure.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The point.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:56 am
From: retrogrouch
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:27:58 -0400, Les Cargill
wrote:
>
>> Govertnemtn employees can invariably make more money in the private
>> secotr. Govet. needs benefits to make the compensation at all
>> attractive.
>
>Why should government employment be attractive *at all*?
You don’t want good people?
Where’d al that captialist fervor about talent following money?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Food Drug
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:11 pm
From: tunderbar
On Mar 28, 5:56 pm, Immortalist wrote:
> Scientists have finally confirmed what the rest of us have suspected
> for years: Bacon, cheesecake, and other delicious yet fattening foods
> may be addictive.
>
> A new study in rats suggests that high-fat, high-calorie foods affect
> the brain in much the same way as cocaine and heroin. When rats
> consume these foods in great enough quantities, it leads to compulsive
> eating habits that resemble drug addiction, the study found.
>
> Doing drugs such as cocaine and eating too much junk food both
> gradually overload the so-called pleasure centers in the brain,
> according to Paul J. Kenny, Ph.D., an associate professor of molecular
> therapeutics at the Scripps Research Institute, in Jupiter, Florida.
> Eventually the pleasure centers “crash,” and achieving the same
> pleasure–or even just feeling normal–requires increasing amounts of
> the drug or food, says Kenny, the lead author of the study.
>
> “People know intuitively that there’s more to [overeating] than just
> willpower,” he says. “There’s a system in the brain that’s been turned
> on or over-activated, and that’s driving [overeating] at some
> subconscious level.”
>
> In the study, published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, Kenny and
> his co-author studied three groups of lab rats for 40 days. One of the
> groups was fed regular rat food. A second was fed bacon, sausage,
> cheesecake, frosting, and other fattening, high-calorie foods–but
> only for one hour each day. The third group was allowed to pig out on
> the unhealthy foods for up to 23 hours a day.
>
> Not surprisingly, the rats that gorged themselves on the human food
> quickly became obese. But their brains also changed. By monitoring
> implanted brain electrodes, the researchers found that the rats in the
> third group gradually developed a tolerance to the pleasure the food
> gave them and had to eat more to experience a high.
>
> They began to eat compulsively, to the point where they continued to
> do so in the face of pain. When the researchers applied an electric
> shock to the rats’ feet in the presence of the food, the rats in the
> first two groups were frightened away from eating. But the obese rats
> were not. “Their attention was solely focused on consuming food,” says
> Kenny.
>
> In previous studies, rats have exhibited similar brain changes when
> given unlimited access to
> cocaine or heroin. And rats have similarly ignored punishment to
> continue consuming cocaine, the researchers note.
>
> The fact that junk food could provoke this response isn’t entirely
> surprising, says Dr.Gene-Jack Wang, M.D., the chair of the medical
> department at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National
> Laboratory, in Upton, New York.
>
> “We make our food very similar to cocaine now,” he says.
>
> Coca leaves have been used since ancient times, he points out, but
> people learned to purify or alter cocaine to deliver it more
> efficiently to their brains (by injecting or smoking it, for
> instance). This made the drug more addictive.
>
> According to Wang, food has evolved in a similar way. “We purify our
> food,” he says. “Our ancestors ate whole grains, but we’re eating
> white bread. American Indians ate corn; we eat corn syrup.”
>
> The ingredients in purified modern food cause people to “eat
> unconsciously and unnecessarily,” and will also prompt an animal to
> “eat like a drug abuser [uses drugs],” says Wang.
>
> The neurotransmitter dopamine appears to be responsible for the
> behavior of the overeating rats, according to the study. Dopamine is
> involved in the brain’s pleasure (or reward) centers, and it also
> plays a role in reinforcing behavior. “It tells the brain something
> has happened and you should learn from what just happened,” says
> Kenny.
>
> Overeating caused the levels of a certain dopamine receptor in the
> brains of the obese rats to drop, the study found. In humans, low
> levels of the same receptors have been associated with drug addiction
> and obesity, and may be genetic, Kenny says.
>
> However, that doesn’t mean that everyone born with lower dopamine
> receptor levels is destined to become an addict or to overeat. As Wang
> points out, environmental factors, and not just genes, are involved in
> both behaviors.
>
> Wang also cautions that applying the results of animal studies to
> humans can be tricky. For instance, he says, in studies of weight-loss
> drugs, rats have lost as much as 30 percent of their weight, but
> humans on the same drug have lost less than 5 percent of their weight.
> “You can’t mimic completely human behavior, but [animal studies] can
> give you a clue about what can happen in humans,” Wang says.
>
> Although he acknowledges that his research may not directly translate
> to humans, Kenny says the findings shed light on the brain mechanisms
> that drive overeating and could even lead to new treatments for
> obesity.
>
> “If we could develop therapeutics for drug addiction, those same drugs
> may be good for obesity as well,” he says.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/index.html?hpt=C1
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:11 pm
From: tunderbar
On Mar 28, 5:56 pm, Immortalist wrote:
> Scientists have finally confirmed what the rest of us have suspected
> for years: Bacon, cheesecake, and other delicious yet fattening foods
> may be addictive.
>
> A new study in rats suggests that high-fat, high-calorie foods affect
> the brain in much the same way as cocaine and heroin. When rats
> consume these foods in great enough quantities, it leads to compulsive
> eating habits that resemble drug addiction, the study found.
>
> Doing drugs such as cocaine and eating too much junk food both
> gradually overload the so-called pleasure centers in the brain,
> according to Paul J. Kenny, Ph.D., an associate professor of molecular
> therapeutics at the Scripps Research Institute, in Jupiter, Florida.
> Eventually the pleasure centers “crash,” and achieving the same
> pleasure–or even just feeling normal–requires increasing amounts of
> the drug or food, says Kenny, the lead author of the study.
>
> “People know intuitively that there’s more to [overeating] than just
> willpower,” he says. “There’s a system in the brain that’s been turned
> on or over-activated, and that’s driving [overeating] at some
> subconscious level.”
>
> In the study, published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, Kenny and
> his co-author studied three groups of lab rats for 40 days. One of the
> groups was fed regular rat food. A second was fed bacon, sausage,
> cheesecake, frosting, and other fattening, high-calorie foods–but
> only for one hour each day. The third group was allowed to pig out on
> the unhealthy foods for up to 23 hours a day.
>
> Not surprisingly, the rats that gorged themselves on the human food
> quickly became obese. But their brains also changed. By monitoring
> implanted brain electrodes, the researchers found that the rats in the
> third group gradually developed a tolerance to the pleasure the food
> gave them and had to eat more to experience a high.
>
> They began to eat compulsively, to the point where they continued to
> do so in the face of pain. When the researchers applied an electric
> shock to the rats’ feet in the presence of the food, the rats in the
> first two groups were frightened away from eating. But the obese rats
> were not. “Their attention was solely focused on consuming food,” says
> Kenny.
>
> In previous studies, rats have exhibited similar brain changes when
> given unlimited access to
> cocaine or heroin. And rats have similarly ignored punishment to
> continue consuming cocaine, the researchers note.
>
> The fact that junk food could provoke this response isn’t entirely
> surprising, says Dr.Gene-Jack Wang, M.D., the chair of the medical
> department at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National
> Laboratory, in Upton, New York.
>
> “We make our food very similar to cocaine now,” he says.
>
> Coca leaves have been used since ancient times, he points out, but
> people learned to purify or alter cocaine to deliver it more
> efficiently to their brains (by injecting or smoking it, for
> instance). This made the drug more addictive.
>
> According to Wang, food has evolved in a similar way. “We purify our
> food,” he says. “Our ancestors ate whole grains, but we’re eating
> white bread. American Indians ate corn; we eat corn syrup.”
>
> The ingredients in purified modern food cause people to “eat
> unconsciously and unnecessarily,” and will also prompt an animal to
> “eat like a drug abuser [uses drugs],” says Wang.
>
> The neurotransmitter dopamine appears to be responsible for the
> behavior of the overeating rats, according to the study. Dopamine is
> involved in the brain’s pleasure (or reward) centers, and it also
> plays a role in reinforcing behavior. “It tells the brain something
> has happened and you should learn from what just happened,” says
> Kenny.
>
> Overeating caused the levels of a certain dopamine receptor in the
> brains of the obese rats to drop, the study found. In humans, low
> levels of the same receptors have been associated with drug addiction
> and obesity, and may be genetic, Kenny says.
>
> However, that doesn’t mean that everyone born with lower dopamine
> receptor levels is destined to become an addict or to overeat. As Wang
> points out, environmental factors, and not just genes, are involved in
> both behaviors.
>
> Wang also cautions that applying the results of animal studies to
> humans can be tricky. For instance, he says, in studies of weight-loss
> drugs, rats have lost as much as 30 percent of their weight, but
> humans on the same drug have lost less than 5 percent of their weight.
> “You can’t mimic completely human behavior, but [animal studies] can
> give you a clue about what can happen in humans,” Wang says.
>
> Although he acknowledges that his research may not directly translate
> to humans, Kenny says the findings shed light on the brain mechanisms
> that drive overeating and could even lead to new treatments for
> obesity.
>
> “If we could develop therapeutics for drug addiction, those same drugs
> may be good for obesity as well,” he says.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/index.html?hpt=C1
google “high fructose corn syrup”
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:40 pm
From: Sidney Lambe
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.food.vegan.]
On alt.food.vegan, tunderbar wrote:
> On Mar 28, 5:56=A0pm, Immortalist wrote:
>> Scientists have finally confirmed what the rest of us have suspected
>> for years: Bacon, cheesecake, and other delicious yet fattening foods
>> may be addictive.
>>
[delete]
>> “If we could develop therapeutics for drug addiction, those
>> same drugs may be good for obesity as well,” he says.
Look around at the real world and quit taking scientists in the
pockets of major corporations so seriously. It is obvious as hell
that this commercially-motivated search for drugs that will cure
conditions that that are obviously caused by psychological
factors (even if they have a physical component _after_ the
fact) isn’t working.
Theses same corrupt scientists tell us that depression is
a purely physical condition. But their drugs don’t cure
depression, they just turn people into zombies.
And there are a lot of serious side effects.
Drugs that will cure addiction? What a _joke_!
[delete]
What does this have to do with vegetarianism/veganism?
Sid
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Extremists Now Purging Moderates From Arizona and Florida GOP
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:14 pm
From: The PHANTOM
On Mar 29, 11:08 am, Bret Cahill wrote:
> McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> nonsense.
>
> Bret Cahill
Fuck McBeaner. We’re tired of linguini spined RINOS that think they
need to “cross party lines” to get along with progressives. We want
conservative candidates that are willing to use the same slash and
burn tactics as progressives. Kill em’ all and let GOD sort em’ out !!
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:18 pm
From: The PHANTOM
On Mar 29, 11:39 am, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > nonsense.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > Keep on believin that load of crap, gonna make your ass whuppin in
> > November even
> > more historic.
> > BTW we are gettin rid of the non-conservatives and if we have such
> > clout it isn’t because
> > were a minority and news flash BC, 25% of dems and over 2/3rds of
> > independents either
> > associate with or support the tea party principles so keep on with the
> > Bama Kool Aid cuz
> > your going down with the great failure.
> > And don’t think were not getting rid of the BS you fools have enacted,
> > you just pissed away
> > your parties dominance for something that the American people will not
> > let stand!
>
> Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Very
> local. Just shoot up your trailer.
>
> Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
We can always hope the molotov cocktails you build in your granny’s
basement for the upcoming revolution will blow up in your face.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:20 pm
From: The PHANTOM
On Mar 29, 12:39 pm, “Sid9″ wrote:
> “tooly” wrote in message
>
> news:baf1487f-a39d-4a71-841a-b7146dfeb2e4@n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com…
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 12:08 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> >> McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> >> his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> >> ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> >> Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> >> A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> >> independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> >> This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> >> commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> >> the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> >> the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> >> nonsense.
>
> >> Bret Cahill
>
> > We are not extremists of course, but actually, we were the LAND and
> > it’s culture before progressives started taking it over.
>
> > But there are political realities coming to bear for the
> > traditionalist. Once again, I’ll say…the Hart-Cellar Immigration
> > act pretty much ‘sealed the deal’ for socialists. The 2003
> > demographics showed for every 1 additional caucasion in America, there
> > were 3 blacks and 7 hispanics coming in [or being born].
>
> > That spells doom any way one can put it [for caucasions...ergo, the
> > founding element of this country; ergo, from europe].
>
> > It probably puts this culture on a path toward ‘afro centrism’ of all
> > things? Go figure.
>
> > There might be one or two elections that conservatives can still
> > muster out…one being this next November [2010]. Even with all that
> > has taken place [Obama's socialism and grand ire being created in half
> > the land], traditionalists and conservatives will still only barely
> > muster a bare majority at the national level.
>
> > Some argue however, that the founder’s prodgeny may not go into the
> > night so meakly however. It still IS our country; we invented it; we
> > created it’s founding by laws, it’s principles…including laizez
> > faire economics.
>
> > No nation has ever simply been ‘taken over’ by internal socially
> > disparate forces such that is taking place in America now. It’s not
> > natural. But there has been a gargantuan ‘campaign’ going on in our
> > institutions, classrooms, media etc, to ‘charm the snake’ so speak; to
> > mesmerize the founder’s prodgeny into believing they have no RIGHT to
> > defend what is theirs [that it is NOT theirs; they it was somehow NOT
> > their forebears who invented the place].
>
> > No one really wants to put a color on it…but REALITY stars us in the
> > face and we look into the eyes or our own doom IF WE DON”T.
>
> > So, one might ask, what does any cornered animal do when the world
> > [Obama's world anyway, ha]…paints that animal into that corner with
> > nowhere else to go? I think hispanics and blacks are betting that the
> > white guy is just going to lay down and die. HA…I see all them
> > white teens with ‘pants on the ground’, and I can see why.
>
> > Ah well…I suppose we can always laugh [after we cry]. It was not
> > right what has been done to us.
>
> > We’ll see; who knows, anything can happen. Obama might actually be
> > ushering in something entirely opposite to what seems apparent. But
> > those tea party’ers…they look awfully old and haggard. I have
> > faith SOMETHING will happen though; something ‘reactionary’…to take
> > what is ours back. This simply is not natural what is happening.
>
> .
> .
> What do you propose to do about it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
Do about it?? Vote the extreme radical “fundamentally
transforming”progressives out of office and make your community
organiser a lame duck for his last two years.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:22 pm
From: The PHANTOM
On Mar 29, 12:47 pm, cop welfare wrote:
> On Mar 29, 11:50 am, tooly wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 12:08 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > nonsense.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > We are not extremists of course, but actually, we were the LAND and
> > it’s culture before progressives started taking it over.
>
> > But there are political realities coming to bear for the
> > traditionalist. Once again, I’ll say…the Hart-Cellar Immigration
> > act pretty much ‘sealed the deal’ for socialists. The 2003
> > demographics showed for every 1 additional caucasion in America, there
> > were 3 blacks and 7 hispanics coming in [or being born].
>
> > That spells doom any way one can put it [for caucasions...ergo, the
> > founding element of this country; ergo, from europe].
>
> > It probably puts this culture on a path toward ‘afro centrism’ of all
> > things? Go figure.
>
> > There might be one or two elections that conservatives can still
> > muster out…one being this next November [2010]. Even with all that
> > has taken place [Obama's socialism and grand ire being created in half
> > the land], traditionalists and conservatives will still only barely
> > muster a bare majority at the national level.
>
> > Some argue however, that the founder’s prodgeny may not go into the
> > night so meakly however. It still IS our country; we invented it; we
> > created it’s founding by laws, it’s principles…including laizez
> > faire economics.
>
> > No nation has ever simply been ‘taken over’ by internal socially
> > disparate forces such that is taking place in America now. It’s not
> > natural. But there has been a gargantuan ‘campaign’ going on in our
> > institutions, classrooms, media etc, to ‘charm the snake’ so speak; to
> > mesmerize the founder’s prodgeny into believing they have no RIGHT to
> > defend what is theirs [that it is NOT theirs; they it was somehow NOT
> > their forebears who invented the place].
>
> > No one really wants to put a color on it…but REALITY stars us in the
> > face and we look into the eyes or our own doom IF WE DON”T.
>
> > So, one might ask, what does any cornered animal do when the world
> > [Obama's world anyway, ha]…paints that animal into that corner with
> > nowhere else to go? I think hispanics and blacks are betting that the
> > white guy is just going to lay down and die. HA…I see all them
> > white teens with ‘pants on the ground’, and I can see why.
>
> > Ah well…I suppose we can always laugh [after we cry]. It was not
> > right what has been done to us.
>
> > We’ll see; who knows, anything can happen. Obama might actually be
> > ushering in something entirely opposite to what seems apparent. But
> > those tea party’ers…they look awfully old and haggard. I have
> > faith SOMETHING will happen though; something ‘reactionary’…to take
> > what is ours back. This simply is not natural what is happening.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > – Show quoted text -
>
> i hope the indians cut yer f***in’ throats.- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
Maybe they’ll take your bald scalp after they cut your granny’s tit’s
off to be used as tabbaky sacks.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:22 pm
From: retrogrouch
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:50:48 -0700 (PDT), tooly
wrote:
>I have
>faith SOMETHING will happen though; something ‘reactionary’…to take
>what is ours back.
And exactly what do you think has been taken from you and how?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What makes a good scientist?
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:25 pm
From: John Stafford
In article
,
omprem wrote:
> On Mar 29, 9:30�am, “Daniel T.” wrote:
> > John Jones wrote:
> > > There are only two kinds of scientist.
> >
> > > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy and
> > > leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering to
> > > onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of science in
> > > action.
> >
> > > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler is
> > > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are
> > > impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden strengths of
> > > science.
> >
> > There are lots of kinds of scientists, but to the question “What makes a
> > good scientist?” my answer is “objectivity.”
>
> But according to Atheism, all mental content and activity is just
> biochemical reaction and is subjective. There cannot be objectivity.
> Takes for playing. Your turn is over.
Too bi-polar.
Science attempts objectivity through method – the ability to repeat an
experiment and verify (or not) a thesis.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:26 pm
From: John Stafford
In article
,
omprem wrote:
> On Mar 29, 6:25�am, John Jones wrote:
> > Immortalist wrote:
> >
> > > [1] – A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in
> > > a systematic �activity to acquire knowledge
> >
> > That begs the question. It begs the question because the term
> > “systematic” implies what is correct. And what is correct is what is at
> > issue. Hence it begs the question of what a scientist is.
>
> In addition, Atheists are not systematic but rather frightened beings
> howling their despair to the Moon.
That is simply childish innuendo. Doesn’t your god suggest that you make
the best of his gift and use the brain he gave you?
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:34 pm
From: Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:26:45 -0500, John Stafford
wrote:
>In article
>,
> omprem wrote:
>
>> On Mar 29, 6:25�am, John Jones wrote:
>> > Immortalist wrote:
>> >
>> > > [1] – A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in
>> > > a systematic �activity to acquire knowledge
>> >
>> > That begs the question. It begs the question because the term
>> > “systematic” implies what is correct. And what is correct is what is at
>> > issue. Hence it begs the question of what a scientist is.
>>
>> In addition, Atheists are not systematic but rather frightened beings
>> howling their despair to the Moon.
>
>That is simply childish innuendo. Doesn’t your god suggest that you make
>the best of his gift and use the brain he gave you?
Doesn’t it also say something about not bearing false witness?
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:53 pm
From: JohnN
On Mar 29, 12:30 pm, omprem wrote:
> On Mar 29, 9:30 am, “Daniel T.” wrote:
>
> > John Jones wrote:
> > > There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> > > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy and
> > > leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering to
> > > onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of science in action.
>
> > > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler is
> > > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are
> > > impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden strengths of
> > > science.
>
> > There are lots of kinds of scientists, but to the question “What makes a
> > good scientist?” my answer is “objectivity.”
>
> But according to Atheism, all mental content and activity is just
> biochemical reaction and is subjective. There cannot be objectivity.
> Takes for playing. Your turn is over.
Silly person.
JohnN
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why The Supreme Court By 5-4 Will Dump The Democrats Health Legislation
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:36 pm
From: John Stafford
In article
,
Robert Cohen wrote:
> This prediction is based on my fear that the Supreme Court is partisan
> [...]
> The Justices decision-making is ultimately discretionary human
>
> Legalistic jargon is just that in my humble, cynical take of reality,
> and the gifted clerks know
> how to spread wordy fertilizer
>
> I’m attempting to be rational if not paranoiac, while the p word
> cannot be sloughed away
>
> I apologize to Americans offended by this heretical ass-say (which
> should be all)
I am an American and I am certainly not offended by your worried
opinion. Skepticism is good. The SC operates and exists in the rarified
universe of legal scholarship. It would be the rare layperson who has
the intellect, background, and especially the time to be so immersed. It
is not surprising that we do not understand their reasoning.
Legal scholarship, even as good as it might be practiced, has political
consequences, for better or worse, and frankly I do not believe that the
Supremes give a thought to the consequences.
I also believe that they have no business legislating from the bench.
They fucked up.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How ‘A’ is and is not ‘A’
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:39 pm
From: M Purcell
On Mar 29, 11:19 am, “Robakks” wrote:
> “M Purcell” news:a4833f89-d883-4476-a722-3c904a57b88b@y33g2000pre.googlegroups.com…
>
> > On Mar 29, 8:43 am, “Robakks” wrote:
> >> Be and to exist.
> >> The horse to be in the real world.
> >> The image of a horse exists in the psyche.
>
> >> Identity = compliance
> >> what IS and what exists.
> > Certainly if the horse stepped on your foot you would know it exists
> > independent of your imagination but suppose the horse went somewhere
> > else? How would you know it is still in the “real world”, maybe
> > something ate it. Egotists seem to believe all horses will always step
> > on people’s feet because one stepped on their foot.
>
> See:
>
> Awareness
> The horse exists here. Soft (info). Interior.
> |
> transmission \
> = 0 == 1 == 2 == 3 == 4 == 5 == 6 == psyche (mirror)
> transmission /
> |
> The horse is here. Hard (objects). Exterior.
>
> senses:
> 0 = mind (thinking)
> 1 = look (eye)
> 2 = sound (ears)
> etc.
I suspect awareness (beyond the simple registration of sensory
impulses on the brain) has little or no effect on the senses for other
animals although they can be conditioned to expect a future occurance.
I believe such interferance is not generally survival oriented but may
have contributed to our adaptability.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why Liberals Always Remain Soft On Communism?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:53 pm
From: Quadibloc
On Mar 29, 11:58 am, mstem…@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
wrote:
> In article , Quadibloc writes:
>
> >Victims have a *right* that those who commit crimes against them will
> >be punished.
>
> I believe that it was Argus Filch, in _Harry Potter and the Chamber
> of Secrets_, said “I want to see somebody punished!”
>
> (Well, really, I know it was him; I just can’t remember the wording.)
This right, as stated, is against those who actually commited those
crimes. Not innocent scapegoats.
John Savard
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do atheist deny that atheism is a relegion.
> I agree with most of what you say, but I don’t agree with the callow
> polemic language. You have already pretty much crushed him with your
> arguments.
In discussions with atheists it is insufficient to ‘pretty much crush them
with argument’. They must be crushed mercilessly into dust otherwise they
keep coming back with more unthinking illogic.
>> If God is not matter then God can never be known by our senses.
>
> Unless he becomes matter as in the form of Jesus.This is what
> Christians believe.
Rubbish. Logical fallacy of false dichotomy. Your supposition mistkenly
assumes that some omnipotent Metaphysical X is incapable of impinging itself
upon your reality apart from your senses.
Rubbish, logical fallacy, you assume that there is any such thing as a
Metaphysical X, what ever the hell ‘that’ is suppose to mean.
That’s the problem with all this new age double speak, it either means
what ever the speaker wants, or what ever is in vogue at the time, and
to be so slippery in definition renders using the term for any
meaningful exchange of ideas moot.
Definitions of metaphysical on the Web:
pertaining to or of the nature of metaphysics; “metaphysical
philosophy”
without material form or substance; “metaphysical forces”
highly abstract and overly theoretical; “metaphysical reasoning”
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
metaphysics – the philosophical study of being and knowing
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Metaphysics (Greek: t? µet? t? f?s???) is one of the principal works of
Aristotle and the first major work of the branch of …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle)
Metaphysics is the second album by Duncan Avoid.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(album)
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of
reality transcending those of any particular science. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
metaphysics – The branch of philosophy which studies fundamental
principles intended to describe or explain all that is, and which are
not themselves explained by anything more fundamental; the study of
first principles; the study of being insofar as it is being (ens in
quantum ens); The view or theory of a …
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metaphysics
Pertaining to realities which are outside those of science, such as
cosmology and divination.
witchraven.spruz.com/
metaphysics – the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of the
universe as a whole.
www.strongatheism.net/intro/lexicon/
metaphysics – the study of the ultimate and fundamental reality.
www.willdurant.com/glossary.htm
metaphysics – The term meta means “above” and physics refers to the
“physical” in Latin. Therefore, literally translated metaphysics means
…
www.tarotteachings.com/meanings-dictionary-for-tarot-h-p.html
metaphysics – The study of events beyond or outside of man’s
understanding of classical physics.
www.floridaparanormalresearch.com/glossary/
Of or relating to a group of 17th century poets whose verse was
distinguished by an intellectual and philosophical style, with extended
metaphors or conceits comparing very dissimilar things. (Compare
Classicism, Idealism, Imagism, Impressionism, Objectivism, Realism,
Romanticism, Symbolism)
www.poeticbyway.com/gl-m.html
of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable
universe
library.thinkquest.org/C0126184/english/litglossary.htm
==============================================================================
TOPIC: One way of recognising one’s spirituality.
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:29 pm
From: Virgil
In article
,
omprem wrote:
> On Mar 28, 7:16�am, Mike Jones wrote:
> > Responding to bigflet…@gmail.com:
> >
> >
> >
> > > When you can see that atheism, religiosity, and the different shades
> > > between, are valid states of consciousness, that they are ‘group rites
> > > of �passage’, from which individual consciousness and awareness emerges,
> > > then you are looking from a spiritual perspective.
> >
> > > Often confirmed by being ‘accused’ from one side or the other, as
> > > belonging to their particular opposite, as happens with all growth into
> > > ‘individuality’.
> >
> > > A favorite anecdote being Sting’s dad (who was a milkman) told his sone,
> > > even when he was succesful…”yes, but thats not a ‘propper’ job…Just
> > > delightful !
> >
> > > Groups do not take kindly to what they describe as ‘radicals’, and we
> > > all know the power of ‘free radicals’ have over the organism.
> >
> > > Something that the ‘group’ tries to stop at the intellectual level , and
> > > ‘cure’ at the physiological level.
> >
> > > And the beat goes on ….
> >
> > > BOfL
> >
> > > BOfL
> >
> > Except the whole concept of “spirituality” is bullshit designed to create
> > an inner mindset that will be vunerable to “god shaped space” propaganda.
> > Its like a teenager getting to first base on a date. Get her blouse open,
> > distract with romantic lies, then slowly…
> >
> > Get ‘em to accept “spirituality”, then drip feed doubt and fear until…
> >
> > And you just re-promoted that particular toxic meme. Oops!
> >
> > –
> > *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
> > *=( For all your UK news needs.
>
> MJ is the living embodiment of invincible ignorance.
he is easily overshadowed in that respect by “omprem”.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:36 pm
From: Virgil
In article
,
omprem wrote:
> The ‘mental suffering’ suffered by Atheists who attempt to read the
> Bible and understand Christianity is due to their being brought into
> acute awareness of their willful and invincible ignorance.
Most of us non-theists who read the bible suffer nothing more painful
than boredom.
> They are
> torn between wanting to stay addicted to their ignorance and being
> impelled forward and upward by their dim intuitive awareness of
> Divinity.
Actually, that opinion is one held only by theist “true believers” like
“omprem”.
As of yet, such “true beleivers” have produced no cogent reasons for
accepting the actuality of any ‘divinity’.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:37 pm
From: Virgil
In article
,
omprem wrote:
> MJ is the living embodiment of invincible ignorance.
Not while “omprem” is here to outstrip him in that respect.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Which is “greener”?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:33 pm
From: Giga2
On 28 Mar, 18:17, Shrikeback wrote:
> On Mar 28, 9:33 am, John Stafford wrote:
> > > I’m in NC.
>
> > Ah, yes. NC is a beautiful part of the USA, and you don’t need the
> > measures we in Minnesota do. The freeze goes down as much as four feet
> > in my area, and further down farther North.
>
> Clearly the green thing to do is to forcibly relocate
> those folks living too far north to somewhere warm
> enough that they can live in open straw huts, naked
> and classless on the sunny beach of retirementland.
>
> What we need is a government forceful enough to
> force these green decisions down our collective
> throat. And don’t forget to ask about our One Child
> Policy.
And the ‘Flintstones-style peddle-car’ policy.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Which Newsgroups Rightard Wants To Be First To Be Taken Out By SWAT?
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:48 pm
From: Patriot Games
On 28 Mar 2010 23:49:45 GMT, Michael Coburn
wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:17:06 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2010 23:37:58 GMT, Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:08:27 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:18:16 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >> >> >The more time winger dingers spend posting here the less time
>>>>>> >> >> >they have to shoot honest law abiding folk.
>>>>>> >> >> The more time people spend reading Bret Cahill’s LIES the less
>>>>>> >> >> they are inclined to read his posts ever again…
>>>>>> >> >You really think you can beat out David Duke for the GOP Nat’l
>>>>>> >> >Convention cross burning event?
>>>>>> >> It’s not working…..
>>>>>> >That’s why you need to go back to posting Rasmussen polls that show
>>>>>> >Repugliars retaking both houses of congress with veto proof
>>>>>> >majorities.
>>>>>> >It’ll help keep the wingers from spree shooting so much.
>>>>>> It’s still not working…..
>>>>>If you don’t _try_ then it’s 100% certain you won’t get results.
>>>> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
>>>> different results. Albert Einstein, (attributed) US (German-born)
>>>> physicist (1879 – 1955) http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26032.html
>>>So if we run out and elect people that want to destroy government while
>>>expecting good results then we must be total nut cases.
>> Case in point: Buckwheat PresiChimp.
>>>Perhaps the rational people will wake up to the fact that taxing the
>>>rich in order to fund medical care for those who would otherwise be
>>>bankrupted and those who would otherwise not be able to afford insurance
>>>is a lot better solution than passing the costs of this care to the
>>>middle class people who currently pay insurance premiums, deductibles
>>>and co-pays.
>> No, those aren’t “rational” people, they are Communists. Like YOU.
>>>And while it is true that the insurance companies will do well from the
>>>increase in their customer base funded by the rich, the middle class
>>>will not be footing the bill as both the poor and the middle will have
>>>gotten better care.
>> Wrong. The Middle Class IS the Consumer Engine in our Economy and the
>> Middle Class was told their AT&T Rates will be going up $1 BILLION to
>> pay for BuckwheatCare in ONE YEAR.
>> Wrong. The Middle Class was told the fruit, vegetable, dairy and meat
>> prices will be gong up $100 MILLION to pay for BuckwheatCare in ONE
>> YEAR. (Deere.)
>> Wrong. The Middle Class was told virtually everything in America will
>> cost more by another $150 MILLION to pay for BuckwheatCare in ONE YEAR.
>> (Caterpillar.)
>> That’s $1.25 BILLION in JUST THREE DAYS from JUST 3 Companies….
>> Wrong. The Middle Class will NOT be getting “better care.” Initially
>> they will be getting the SAME care at slightly HIGHER rates. As the
>> 30,000,000 new customers enter the healthcare system the Middle Class
>> will be getting WORSE care, waiting LONGER for WORSE care, and paying
>> MORE to wait LONGER to get WORSE care.
>>>Not bad at all.
>> You mean ‘not all bad.’ It has ensured the Total Destruction of the
>> DemocRATs beginning in November…
>The Republican will find as many “nits” as possible and amplify them.
Your bullshit began with a LIE, so that’s where it ends…
Try again, Commie.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:52 pm
From: Patriot Games
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:50:25 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
wrote:
>On Mar 28, 3:25�pm, Patriot Games wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:44:42 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>> wrote:
>> >On Mar 27, 4:08�pm, Patriot Games wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:18:16 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >The more time winger dingers spend posting here the less time they
>> >> >> >> >> >have to shoot honest law abiding folk.
>> >> >> >> >> The more time people spend reading Bret Cahill’s LIES the less they
>> >> >> >> >> are inclined to read his posts ever again…
>> >> >> >> >You really think you can beat out David Duke for the GOP Nat’l
>> >> >> >> >Convention cross burning event?
>> >> >> >> It’s not working…..
>> >> >> >That’s why you need to go back to posting Rasmussen polls that show
>> >> >> >Repugliars retaking both houses of congress with veto proof
>> >> >> >majorities.
>> >> >> >It’ll help keep the wingers from spree shooting so much.
>> >> >> It’s still not working…..
>> >> >If you don’t _try_ then it’s 100% certain you won’t get results.
>> >> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
>> >> different results. Albert Einstein, (attributed)
>> >> US (German-born) physicist (1879 – 1955)http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26032.html
>> > its because einstein wrote a piece called the case for socialism, in
>> >his paper, he said that conservatives keep doing the same thing over
>> >and over again, expecting a different outcome or result. you can
>> >easily see what he was speaking about.
>> Feel free to CITE your claim:
>> Why Socialism? By Albert Einstein
>> New York, May, 1949
>> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm
> gee, he must have believed it, because its his quote, and he wrote
>the piece:)
Then WHY did YOU FAIL to CITE it?
Answer: BECAUSE YOU LIED.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:53 pm
From: Patriot Games
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:00:50 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
wrote:
>> It’s not working…
>Maybe Repugliars should give up lying 24/7.
You’re a Republican! I woulda never guessed……….
Liars are exposed:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:24:14 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
wrote:
>The Gipster… …as crime increased by double digits every year.
Liar: Crime NEVER increased by “double digits” ANY year.
Reagan – January 20, 1981 � January 20, 1989
Year; Total Crime; Change
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:06:55 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
wrote:
>On Jun 2, 10:15�am, Patriot Games wrote:
>> Liar: Crime NEVER increased by “double digits” ANY year.
>But as the figures below show, it’s close enough.
Thanks for admitting YOU INTENTIONALLY LIED.
=============================
Each time I concentrate on exposing your lying the affect is the same:
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:59 pm
From: “Paul Hovnanian P.E.”
GLOBALIST wrote:
>
> I always get a kick out of folks who are ‘still’ hunting down
> communists. Oh well ..they need something to keep them busy, so they
> don’t have to face reality
Some people are defined by their enemies. They don’t know how to
function outside a state of conflict.
So if its not the commies, its our own government, or local law
enforcement.:
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:10 pm
From: “Sue…”
On Mar 29, 5:03 pm, “Paul B. Andersen” wrote:
>
> >>> I can replace the particles with a pole 300 000 km long, and let the
> >>> back be at sensor E at moment U and ask you where is the front at F or
> >>> G.
>
> >> How come someone with an IQ of 178 can make such a basic error? :-)
>
> >> Look up Bell’s paradox.
>
> >> –
> >> Paul
>
> >>http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/-D�lj citerad text -
>
> >> – Visa citerad text -
>
> > There is no error on my part, only ambivalence on SRIANS part.
>
===============
> I see you didn’t look up Bell’s paradox, so you have still
> no clue about what your basic error is.
>
>
Actually he has a post in another thread and
responses from some ether theorists to
indicate he has some familiarity with that
paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Sue…
>
>
>
> > Euclidian restspace AB, have two particle accelerators A and B 300 000
> > m apart.
> > sensor X 300 000 meter in front of B,
> > sensor Y 300 004.2 meter in front of B,
> > sensor Z 600 000 meter in front of B.
>
> > [AB space]
>
> > A———->B———->X->Y———Z
>
> > At moment T0 in AB, A will fire particle C at 0.9999999999c and B will
> > fire particle D.
>
> > ***Now*** at moment T1 in AB, C is aligned next to X, ***where is
> > particle D*** at sensor Y or sensor Z?
>
> > It turns out that PD and Sam who apply SR beleive that particle D
> > actually will be 4.2 meter in front of C(within AB at sensor Y) due to
> > length contraction of the spatial space between C and D bwahahahaha.
>
> > I claim it will be at Z, 300 000 meter ahead of C and so do Inertial
> > the ambivalent and logical bot. However he claim Sam and PD to be
> > right suggesting 4.2 meter bwahahahahah.
>
> > We can not have to much ambivalence within the SR camp, comeon throw
> > some sticks on the fire, we want to know your mojo where in the world
> > is Carmen Diego.
>
> > Notice though inertials claim that it will be at both places at T1
> > within frame AB is disqualified as bullshit. One place will do.
>
> > JT
>
> –
> Paul
>
> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:20 pm
From: spudnik
Bell Epoque d’EPR, seems to be taken with the idee fixe,
that the “quantum of light” has to be a massive point
of no dimensions — just polarities & frequency/period.
thus:
neat idea; how’d it be tested, if possible, or
is it just S & FS?
> Possibly our universe has an event horizon that’s keeping us from
thus:
when I first began doing “thus ****,”
is used “thus quoth” for others and “thus spake”
for myself — for about a day. possibly in part due
to contamination by archimedeanplutonianism.
> thus, thus, thus…?
thus:
what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or,
one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory;
Young et al completely rid us of that theory,
which also had that denser media had faster light).
maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance
that “quantum” means “particle,”
your other Einstein’s rock from the train; gah!… come on:
there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light.
thus:
I think, therefore Eisntein wasn’t as great as he is depicted
in the Department of Einsteinmania/The Musical Dept.
> impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be
–Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:40 pm
From: Edward Green
On Feb 15, 8:11 am, Ste wrote:
> As I say, I don’t think it is wrong. Relativity clearly works – or at
> least to a sufficiently precise approximation. The point is that no
> one seems to be able to explain some of its more esoteric assumptions
> in physical terms – such as the constant speed of light no matter what
> the velocity of the observer.
That’s easy. Sort of. Physical processes propagate at (at most) the
speed of light. This includes the processes which hold matter
together. A given inertial observer watching a second relatively
moving observe measure the “constant” speed of light concludes that
the second observer’s matter has shrunk in the direction of travel and
his clocks have slowed, just so as to cause him to measure a constant
speed of light. In straight SR, with complete Lorentz invariance, the
situation is completely reciprocal.
Mind you I haven’t explained in detail how the dependence of the
cohesion of matter on the speed of light causes this relative
shrinking and slowing, but that’s the gist of the physical argument
why, against all odds, observers in relative inertial motion measure
an invariant speed of light.
I can’t completely explain it, but to each observer the speed of light
looks isotropic and constant because it is the speed of light which
governs the behavior of all matter in his vicinity. That this works
out exactly amounts to the assumption of Lorentz invariance.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:53 pm
From: “Sue…”
On Mar 29, 5:40 pm, Edward Green wrote:
> On Feb 15, 8:11 am, Ste wrote:
>
>
>
> > As I say, I don’t think it is wrong. Relativity clearly works – or at
> > least to a sufficiently precise approximation. The point is that no
> > one seems to be able to explain some of its more esoteric assumptions
> > in physical terms – such as the constant speed of light no matter what
> > the velocity of the observer.
>
> That’s easy. Sort of. Physical processes propagate at (at most) the
> speed of light. This includes the processes which hold matter
> together. A given inertial observer watching a second relatively
> moving observe measure the “constant” speed of light concludes that
> the second observer’s matter has shrunk in the direction of travel and
> his clocks have slowed, just so as to cause him to measure a constant
> speed of light. In straight SR, with complete Lorentz invariance, the
> situation is completely reciprocal.
==============
>
> Mind you I haven’t explained in detail how the dependence of the
> cohesion of matter on the speed of light causes this relative
> shrinking and slowing, but that’s the gist of the physical argument
> why, against all odds, observers in relative inertial motion measure
> an invariant speed of light.
>
> I can’t completely explain it, but to each observer the speed of light
> looks isotropic and constant because it is the speed of light which
> governs the behavior of all matter in his vicinity. That this works
> out exactly amounts to the assumption of Lorentz invariance.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: On Clock Rates (apparently rejected at sci.physics foundations).
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:13 pm
From: Edward Green
On Mar 29, 11:22 am, stevendaryl3…@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
> Edward Green says…
>
> >Very well then. Proper odometers measure proper distance and proper
> >clocks measure proper time. If we synchronize two proper clocks at an
> >event, run them over different courses, and again compare them at a
> >second event, and find a discrepancy, then I find no contradiction in
> >saying that one clock has run more slowly than the other on average
> >over the course: indeed, proper time has run more slowly over that leg
> >of the course, the proof of the pudding being in comparison at the
> >endpoints. What we mean by this statement is precisely what we
> >observe, that one clock shows less elapsed time than the other clock.
>
> I think that everyone agrees on the facts here, it’s just a matter
> of how to “spin” them.
Yes.
> Thinking of it in terms of “velocity makes clocks run slow” is
> viewing proper time tau as a function of coordinate time t. The
> alternative view that I prefer is to think of it the other way
> around: tau is the *independent* variable, and t is a function
> of tau.
>
> In good old Galilean spacetime, if you hop in a rocket and travel
> for 10 days, where you end up in *space* is obviously a function of your
> velocity. If you travel very fast, then you end up very far from
> your starting point. In particular, the value of x you arrive at
> depends on your average velocity dx/dt. It would be unnatural to
> view t as a function of x, and say that increasing velocity causes
> your clock rate, defined as dt/dx, to slow down. Rather than
> saying that velocity slows your clock rate dt/dx, it is much natural
> to say that velocity *increases* your distance rate, dx/dt.
>
> In Minkowsky spacetime, the same thing holds: if you travel for
> 10 days, where you end up in *spacetime* depends on your velocity
> through spacetime. In particular, the value of t you arrive at
> depends on the temporal part of your velocity, dt/dtau. Rather
> than saying that velocity slows your clock rate dtau/dt, it is
> more natural (in Minkowsky spacetime) to say that it increases
> your temporal rate, dt/dtau.
>
> I think part of the intuitive difficulty in making the transition
> from Newtonian/Galilean spacetime to Minkowksy spacetime is that
> in Newtonian physics, the coordinate t does double-duty: It’s a
> coordinate, used to locate events in spacetime, and it’s also a
> distance function on spacetime paths. These two roles are split
> up in Minkowsky spacetime. So when a concept in Newtonian physics
> involves “time”, it’s not clear whether the analogous concept in
> relativistic physics should be coordinate time or proper time.
Well said, as usual, Daryl.
I’m not sure that comparing proper time on two paths at the endpoints,
noticing that less proper time has elapsed on one path than the other,
and describing the situation as “proper time has run more slowly on
the path with the jog in it”, amounts to giving priority to coordinate
time. After all, we are comparing two proper times (one of which
happens to be a coordinate time).
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:21 pm
From: Ste
On 29 Mar, 18:09, kenseto wrote:
> On Mar 29, 4:30 am, PD wrote:
>
> > Don’t be ridiculous, Seto. Two cars take off at 2:36 pm on Tuesday
> > from Xenia, and both cars take arrive in Toledo at 8:37 pm on Tuesday.
> > One goes via Dayton, the other goes via Columbus. The two odometers
> > are working perfectly. They will show different mileages when the
> > compare readings at 8:37 pm on Tuesday.
>
> Hey idiot….if they arrive simultaneously at 8:37 on Tuesday then the
> difference in mileage between the two odometers is due to that they
> were running at different rates and the reason why they are running at
> different rates is because they are in different states of motion
> (absolute motion?) wrt the road.
You seem to have overlooked the possibility here Ken that one car may
indeed have travelled further (and necessarily travelled faster along
its route), because of the different routes they took to the
destination.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:22 pm
From: PD
On Mar 29, 12:09 pm, kenseto wrote:
> On Mar 29, 4:30 am, PD wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 5:18 pm, kenseto wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 26, 8:44 am, PD wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 26, 1:29 am, Ste wrote:
>
> > > > > On 24 Mar, 23:14, Edward Green wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 19, 2:23 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Edward Green wrote:
> > > > > > > > You previously said that time dilation has no effect on the objects in
> > > > > > > > question, and I say this assertion is in bald disagreement with the
> > > > > > > > results of our thought experiment. It does violence to the English
> > > > > > > > language _not_ to view the statement that “Clock B has been running
> > > > > > > > slower than clock A on the average” as a paraphrase of the
> > > > > > > > experimental results.
>
> > > > > > > Car A drives from Chicago to New York, and its odometer shows a given distance.
> > > > > > > Car B drives from Chicago to New Orleans to new York, and its odometer shows a
> > > > > > > different distance. It does NOT “do violence to the English language” to claim
> > > > > > > that neither odometer has been affected by their different trips, and yet they
> > > > > > > display different distances. The “average odometer rate” for both cars is the
> > > > > > > same (insofar as that phrase makes sense), yet they display different distances
> > > > > > > due to their different paths.
>
> > > > > > That’s an interesting analogy, and actually clarifying. Let me see,
> > > > > > just for the sake of argument, how that would map to my statements.
> > > > > > First of all, perhaps we should require the cars to make the trip in
> > > > > > the same time, so that the starting event and the ending event are in
> > > > > > fact two events; that’s not actually crucial — it just makes the
> > > > > > analogy closer.
>
> > > > > > Now it becomes obvious that we were arguing about the meaning of
> > > > > > “affect”. That is how we could both be so dog certain. You say that
> > > > > > the different trips do not affect the odometers. You similarly say
> > > > > > that different trips in spacetime do not affect the clocks. Mapping
> > > > > > these statements onto each other, we see that by “affect” you
> > > > > > apparently mean “make a permanent change in the operation of the
> > > > > > instrument”. I mean “make a change in the reading shown by the
> > > > > > instrument. In my sense the two trips clearly have had a differing
> > > > > > effects on the odometers: one reads 1000 miles, say, the other reads
> > > > > > 2000! Were we agreed that the starting and ending of the trips were
> > > > > > to be at two events, we could then say that the relative effect of the
> > > > > > side trip was to double the “odometer rate”.
>
> > > > > It is a very odd use of English, in this context, to say that the
> > > > > odometer is “affected” by the journey.
>
> > > > > That “the odometer recorded the distance of the trip” is so obviously
> > > > > implied by reference to an “odometer” (as a measuring instrument) that
> > > > > it did not need to be said at all, and the meaning of “affected the
> > > > > odometer” clearly implies something beyond “cause the normal, routine,
> > > > > and expected operation in the odometer”.
>
> > > > That’s exactly right. One would not question, in the case of
> > > > odometers, whether the device is working normally, just because two
> > > > odometers record different amounts on trips taken between the same two
> > > > endpoints.
>
> > > If the two cars start from the same point and arrive at the same time
> > > at the final point than the difference in distance on the odometer is
> > > not due to the different paths taken. This means that the odometers
> > > are not working normally at the same rate…..IOW they accumulated
> > > mileage at different rates.
>
> > Don’t be ridiculous, Seto. Two cars take off at 2:36 pm on Tuesday
> > from Xenia, and both cars take arrive in Toledo at 8:37 pm on Tuesday.
> > One goes via Dayton, the other goes via Columbus. The two odometers
> > are working perfectly. They will show different mileages when the
> > compare readings at 8:37 pm on Tuesday.
>
> Hey idiot….if they arrive simultaneously at 8:37 on Tuesday then the
> difference in mileage between the two odometers is due to that they
> were running at different rates
No they weren’t. The odometers both turned one mile for one mile
covered. That’s the same rate.
> and the reason why they are running at
> different rates is because they are in different states of motion
> (absolute motion?) wrt the road.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
> > Please refrain from further idiocy, just for today.
>
> > > The cause of the difference is due to the
> > > different speeds of the two cars wrt the road. This description is
> > > exactly what happen to the twin clocks.
>
> > > > One then has to wonder why there is such a fuss about why clocks
> > > > record different amounts on trips taken between the same two
> > > > endpoints, to the point where eyebrows are raised if there is not an
> > > > accounting of what was disturbing the normal operation of the clocks.
>
> > > The fuss is that the traveling clock are running at a different rate
> > > dues to different states of absolute motions of the two
> > > clocks…..instead of your bogus assertion that nothing happened to
> > > the rates of the two clocks and that the difference in accumulated
> > > clock time is due to the different paths of the two clocks.
>
> > > Ken Seto
>
> > > > PD- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > – Show quoted text — Hide quoted text -
>
> > – Show quoted text — Hide quoted text -
>
> > – Show quoted text -
>
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Seeking a correct explanation for Stellar Abberation
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:13 pm
From: “Paul B. Andersen”
On 29.03.2010 16:39, Androcles wrote:
[snip]
Shut up, Androcles.
You are making noise. Bad boy.
Didn’t you learn in kindergarten not to shout da-da-da ?
–
Paul
http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:35 pm
From: “Androcles”
“Paul B. Andersen” wrote in message
news:4BB11804.2010802@somewhere.no…
> On 29.03.2010 16:39, Androcles wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Shut up, Androcles.
> You are making noise. Bad boy.
> Didn’t you learn in kindergarten not to shout da-da-da ?
>
” The velocity of the source (star) has no effect on the direction in
which we see the star, it is utterly irrelevant.” — da-da-da Andersen
” If two observers are observing the same source, the aberration
– that is the difference between the directions in which they
see the source – depend _only_ on their relative speed.” .– da-da-da
Andersen
In the frame of the telescope the star moves, which is what is observed
even in the far north of Norway where the Sun goes around the horizon
without setting, da-da-da Tusseladd. It’s only 600 miles for you to get
to the Arctic circle, da-da-da Tusseladd. Di you know the Sun is a star,
Tusseladd?
Gehan don’t see any difference between a moving source and a moving
telescope, ie they are moving relatively to each other. Both Galilean
Relativity and SRT agree on this. Poor confused da-da-da Tusseladd
does not accept the PoR.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:06 pm
From: ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc)
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:45:31 +0200, “Paul B. Andersen”
wrote:
>On 20.03.2010 01:04, Inertial wrote:
>> If light were simple ballistic particles, then if it was coming
>> from a moving (or stationary)source aimed at a stationary telescope,
>> then slowing it down would *not* change its angle.
>>
>> .
>> .
>> . o
>> .
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . / /
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> . o
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . / /
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> . /o/
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . / /
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . /o/
>> .
>> . / /
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . /o/
>>
>>
>> If light were simple ballistic particles, then if it was coming
>> from a stationary source aimed at a moving telescope,
>> then slowing it down *would* change its angle.
>>
>> .
>> .
>> . o
>> .
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . / /
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> . o
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . / /
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> . /o/
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . / /
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> . / /
>> . o
>> . / /
>> .
>> . / /
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . o /
>> .
>> . / /
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . / /
>> . o
>> . / /
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . / /
>> .
>> . o/ /
>
>Hm.
>This is correct as it stands, but it rests on an assumption
>you may not be aware of.
>
>Not to nit-pick, but I asked myself these questions:
>
>What is the difference between the inertial “rest frame”,
>and the inertial “moving telescope frame”?
>
>Why is the trajectory of the particle straight in the former
>but bent in the latter?
>
>Let me illustrate.
>In inertial frame A, a particle is going ‘straight down’,
>and is reducing its speed from v1 to v2.
>
> o
> o v1
> o
> X
> o
> o v2
> o
>The trajectory is a straight line in frame A.
>
>Frame B is moving ‘horizontally’ to the right at some speed v.
>In this frame the trajectory would look something like this this:
>
> o
> o
> o
> X
> o
> o
>o
>
>The trajectory is bent in frame B.
>
>Why?
>The point is that there is no such thing as ‘reducing the speed
>of the particle along its direction of motion’, because the direction
>of motion is frame dependent.
Hahahhahhhahhahhaha!
Let an object accelerate along the centre line of a long straight tube.
Does its increase in speed wrt the tube cause the tube to bend whenever a
moving observer happens to look at it?
………………the mind of the relativist ccertainly operates in very
strange ways….
>So the important question is:
> What is the direction of the force that is acting on the particle?
>In frame A this force must be acting upwards opposite to the velocity
>of the particle.
>In frame B the force will still act vertically upwards, so it has an
>angle to the velocity of the particle, and will change the direction
>of the velocity as well as reducing the speed.
>
>The point is that if the speed of the particle is reduced by
>entering some medium, like a water filled telescope, the speed reducing
>force will act opposite to the velocity _in the telescope frame_,
>so the trajectory of the particle will be straight _in the telescope
>frame_.
>
>Your somewhat questionable assumption was that the speed reducing
>force was acting opposite to the velocity of the particle in
>the (arbitrary?) ‘rest frame’, and thus not in the ‘moving telescope frame’.
>
>The speed of the source is in any case utterly irrelevant.
….to those who still believe in an absolute aether….
Henry Wilson…
…….A person’s IQ = his snipping ability.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:18 pm
From: “Androcles”
“Henry Wilson DSc” wrote in message
news:0882r51d9t6g9occkvrg45thatc87ratv1@4ax.com…
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:45:31 +0200, “Paul B. Andersen”
> wrote:
>>The speed of the source is in any case utterly irrelevant.
>
> ….to those who still believe in an absolute aether….
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:18 pm
From: pulpkrugel
On Mar 28, 11:50 pm, Dennis Markuze wrote:
> Crystal Night, Atheists!
>
> FINALE:
>
> Have I said this before?
>
> http://nostraamerica.atspace.com/
>
> PULLING THE PLUG on atheism
>
> http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/3228845133_3599f8108f.jpg
>
> bye
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20090126/as-indonesia-solar-…
>
> Einstein puts the final nail in the coffin of atheism…
>
> *************************************
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ
>
> *************************************
>
> atheists deny their own life element…
>
> LIGHT OR DEATH, ATHEISTS?
>
> ********************************
> ***************************LIGHT*********
> ************************************
>
> ___________
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmtK-X_MV0k&feature=fvw
>
> DOWN THE TOILET!!!
There used to be a show on TV called Daktari…great show. There was
a character in the show …a lion…called Clarence…he was crossed
eyed. I always wondered how he got this way…but now realize it’s
the same way Dennis got this way. If you’ve been reading about the
priest sex abuse scandal…well…u catch my drift!!
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:45 pm
From: Werewolfy
On 29 Mar, 04:50, Dennis Markuze wrote:
> Crystal Night, Atheists!
>
> FINALE:
For fucks sake, no-one in Nostradamus gives a fuck about your posts.
Send them somewhere fucking else.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can’t be
serious.
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:22 pm
From: Uncle Al
mpc755 wrote:
> Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> Earth’s rotation, westward.
[snip rest of crap]
HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ arxiv
http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2031
http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929
idiot
Everything you post has been empirically demonstrated to be shit to 15
signifciant figures. Haul in your prolapsed rectum and go away.
–
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:37 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
> mpc755 wrote:
> > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
“A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
interactions with matter and radiation.”
“quin·tes·sence
/kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
–noun
1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
known universe is aether as a one something.
Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
Aether is the pure essence of matter.
“quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
interactions with matter”
Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter is gravity.
Thanks for the link.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO SPECIAL RELATIVITY
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:29 pm
From: spudnik
Leibniz, “*vis viva*.”
> > Einstein’s E = mc2 is derived from Newtonian Mechanics.
thus quoth:
So, if we accept Clerselier’s arguments, as almost every
scientifically educated person today would have to admit he does,
Fermat’s Principle of Least Time is an absurdity. And yet it is true,
and stands as one of the foundations of all our knowledge of nature.
From it came the work of Leibniz and the Bernoullis on the cycloid and
the non-algebraic curves, which were the heart of the development of
the calculus. Fresnel’s developments of the wave theory are based on
it, and so everything we know of the electromagnetic spectrum, and so
forth.
thus:
Bell Epoque d’EPR, seems to be taken with the idee fixe,
that the “quantum of light” has to be a massive point
of no dimensions — just polarities & frequency/period.
thus:
neat idea; how’d it be tested, if possible, or
is it just S & FS?
> Possibly our universe has an event horizon that’s keeping us from
thus:
when I first began doing “thus ****,”
is used “thus quoth” for others and “thus spake”
for myself — for about a day. possibly in part due
to contamination by archimedeanplutonianism.
> thus, thus, thus…?
thus:
what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or,
one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory;
Young et al completely rid us of that theory,
which also had that denser media had faster light).
maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance
that “quantum” means “particle,”
your other Einstein’s rock from the train; gah!… come on:
there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light.
thus:
I think, therefore Eisntein wasn’t as great as he is depicted
in the Department of Einsteinmania/The Musical Dept.
> impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be
–Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:39 pm
From: spudnik
what shows is rather strict Einsteinmania,
the complete or deliberate ignorance of plasma
in Universe, per Alfven et al.
antimatter e.g. anyway,
there are no photons, with the sole exception
of at the detection of them by the device/retina,
wherein the wave is absorbed or “collapsed,” and
convereted to some other format. it is the same
with Newton’s silly corpusles, EPR “problem” dysappears
in the wave conception … but, not, if
you consider it a la de Broglie!
> Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created,
> have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have
> detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a
> photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon’s aether
> wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other
> slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon
> ‘particle’ along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit.
> Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating
> along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether
> wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the
> aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create
> interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the
> direction the photon ‘particle’ …
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
thus:
Leibniz, “*vis viva*.”
> > Einstein’s E = mc2 is derived from Newtonian Mechanics.
thus quoth:
So, if we accept Clerselier’s arguments, as almost every
scientifically educated person today would have to admit he does,
Fermat’s Principle of Least Time is an absurdity. And yet it is true,
and stands as one of the foundations of all our knowledge of nature.
From it came the work of Leibniz and the Bernoullis on the cycloid and
the non-algebraic curves, which were the heart of the development of
the calculus. Fresnel’s developments of the wave theory are based on
it, and so everything we know of the electromagnetic spectrum, and so
forth.
thus:
Bell Epoque d’EPR, seems to be taken with the idee fixe,
that the “quantum of light” has to be a massive point
of no dimensions — just polarities & frequency/period.
thus:
neat idea; how’d it be tested, if possible, or
is it just S & FS?
> Possibly our universe has an event horizon that’s keeping us from
thus:
when I first began doing “thus ****,”
is used “thus quoth” for others and “thus spake”
for myself — for about a day. possibly in part due
to contamination by archimedeanplutonianism.
> thus, thus, thus…?
thus:
what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or,
one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory;
Young et al completely rid us of that theory,
which also had that denser media had faster light).
maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance
that “quantum” means “particle,”
your other Einstein’s rock from the train; gah!… come on:
there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light.
thus:
I think, therefore Eisntein wasn’t as great as he is depicted
in the Department of Einsteinmania/The Musical Dept.
> impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be
–Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:48 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 5:39 pm, spudnik wrote:
> what shows is rather strict Einsteinmania,
> the complete or deliberate ignorance of plasma
> in Universe, per Alfven et al.
>
“[Alfven] argued that there could be a magnetic field pervading the
entire galaxy if plasma was spread throughout the galaxy. This plasma
could carry the electrical currents that would then create the
galactic magnetic field.”
Replace ‘plasma’ with ‘aether’ above.
“a magnetic field pervading the entire galaxy if [aether] was spread
throughout the galaxy. This [aether] could carry the electrical
currents that would then create the galactic magnetic field.”
> antimatter e.g. anyway,
> there are no photons, with the sole exception
> of at the detection of them by the device/retina,
> wherein the wave is absorbed or “collapsed,” and
> convereted to some other format. it is the same
> with Newton’s silly corpusles, EPR “problem” dysappears
> in the wave conception … but, not, if
> you consider it a la de Broglie!
>
Consider the very small region of the wave which consists of the
‘particle’ to be the area of the wave which has the capability of
collapsing and being detected as a ‘particle’.
As the photon propagates it is a directed/pointed wave. It is the
directed/pointed area of the wave which allows for the collapse and
detection as a particle. The directed/pointed portion of the wave is a
very small region of the wave.
> > Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created,
> > have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have
> > detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a
> > photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon’s aether
> > wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other
> > slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon
> > ‘particle’ along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit.
> > Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating
> > along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether
> > wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the
> > aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create
> > interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the
> > direction the photon ‘particle’ …
>
> > read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> thus:
> Leibniz, “*vis viva*.”
>
> > > Einstein’s E = mc2 is derived from Newtonian Mechanics.
>
> thus quoth:
> So, if we accept Clerselier’s arguments, as almost every
> scientifically educated person today would have to admit he does,
> Fermat’s Principle of Least Time is an absurdity. And yet it is true,
> and stands as one of the foundations of all our knowledge of nature.
> From it came the work of Leibniz and the Bernoullis on the cycloid and
> the non-algebraic curves, which were the heart of the development of
> the calculus. Fresnel’s developments of the wave theory are based on
> it, and so everything we know of the electromagnetic spectrum, and so
> forth.
>
> thus:
> Bell Epoque d’EPR, seems to be taken with the idee fixe,
> that the “quantum of light” has to be a massive point
> of no dimensions — just polarities & frequency/period.
>
> no rocks o’light, “period.”
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
> > >http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
>
> thus:
> neat idea; how’d it be tested, if possible, or
> is it just S & FS?
>
> > Possibly our universe has an event horizon that’s keeping us from
>
> thus:
> when I first began doing “thus ****,”
> is used “thus quoth” for others and “thus spake”
> for myself — for about a day. possibly in part due
> to contamination by archimedeanplutonianism.
>
> > thus, thus, thus…?
>
> thus:
> what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or,
> one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory;
> Young et al completely rid us of that theory,
> which also had that denser media had faster light).
> maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance
> that “quantum” means “particle,”
> your other Einstein’s rock from the train; gah!… come on:
> there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light.
>
> thus:
> I think, therefore Eisntein wasn’t as great as he is depicted
> in the Department of Einsteinmania/The Musical Dept.
>
> > impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be
>
> –Light: A History!http://wlym.com
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:00 pm
From: spudnik
yeah, *if* you consider the light “a la de Broglie,”
you are always going to be stuck with “un photon
avec un wave,” but that is just sloppy math –
they are conceptual duals, not to be used
at the same time, without very acute reasoning. why
must we assume that the pioneers were totally comprehensive
in their amazing fromulations?
the whole idea of using a particle, in place
of a wave, has very little to recommend it;
it is rather just a linguistic habit,
that pesky & rotten Newtonian rock o’light.
just the same, your silly attempt to “replace plasma
with aether” — why should Alfven do that, or
any one else?…. just give even one reason.
> http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/alfven.html
> Replace ‘plasma’ with ‘aether’ above.
> As the photon propagates it is a directed/pointed wave. It is the
> directed/pointed area of the wave which allows for the collapse and
> detection as a particle. The directed/pointed portion of the wave is a
> very small region of the wave.
thus:
what shows is rather strict Einsteinmania,
the complete or deliberate ignorance of plasma
in Universe, per Alfven et al…. antimatter e.g. anyway,
there are no photons, with the sole exception
of the detection “of” them by the device/retina,
wherein the wave is absorbed or “collapsed,” and
convereted to some other format. like
with Newton’s corpuscles, the EPR “problem” dysappears
in the wave conception … but, not, if
you consider it a la de Broglie!
thus:
Leibniz, “*vis viva*.”
> > Einstein’s E = mc2 is derived from Newtonian Mechanics.
thus quoth:
So, if we accept Clerselier’s arguments, as almost every
scientifically educated person today would have to admit he does,
Fermat’s Principle of Least Time is an absurdity. And yet it is true,
and stands as one of the foundations of all our knowledge of nature.
From it came the work of Leibniz and the Bernoullis on the cycloid and
the non-algebraic curves, which were the heart of the development of
the calculus. Fresnel’s developments of the wave theory are based on
it, and so everything we know of the electromagnetic spectrum, and so
forth.
thus:
Bell Epoque d’EPR, seems to be taken with the idee fixe,
that the “quantum of light” has to be a massive point
of no dimensions — just polarities & frequency/period.
thus:
neat idea; how’d it be tested, if possible, or
is it just S & FS?
> Possibly our universe has an event horizon that’s keeping us from
thus:
when I first began doing “thus ****,”
is used “thus quoth” for others and “thus spake”
for myself — for about a day. possibly in part due
to contamination by archimedeanplutonianism.
> thus, thus, thus…?
thus:
what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or,
one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory;
Young et al completely rid us of that theory,
which also had that denser media had faster light).
maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance
that “quantum” means “particle,”
your other Einstein’s rock from the train; gah!… come on:
there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light.
thus:
I think, therefore Eisntein wasn’t as great as he is depicted
in the Department of Einsteinmania/The Musical Dept.
> impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be
–Light: A History!
http://wlym.com
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:11 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 6:00 pm, spudnik wrote:
> yeah, *if* you consider the light “a la de Broglie,”
> you are always going to be stuck with “un photon
> avec un wave,” but that is just sloppy math –
> they are conceptual duals, not to be used
> at the same time, without very acute reasoning. why
> must we assume that the pioneers were totally comprehensive
> in their amazing fromulations?
>
> the whole idea of using a particle, in place
> of a wave, has very little to recommend it;
> it is rather just a linguistic habit,
> that pesky & rotten Newtonian rock o’light.
>
> just the same, your silly attempt to “replace plasma
> with aether” — why should Alfven do that, or
> any one else?…. just give even one reason.
>
> >http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/alfven.html
> > Replace ‘plasma’ with ‘aether’ above.
> > As the photon propagates it is a directed/pointed wave. It is the
> > directed/pointed area of the wave which allows for the collapse and
> > detection as a particle. The directed/pointed portion of the wave is a
> > very small region of the wave.
>
> thus:
> what shows is rather strict Einsteinmania,
> the complete or deliberate ignorance of plasma
> in Universe, per Alfven et al…. antimatter e.g. anyway,
> there are no photons, with the sole exception
> of the detection “of” them by the device/retina,
> wherein the wave is absorbed or “collapsed,”
The portion of the photon wave which is absorbed or ‘collapses’
occupies a very small region of the photon wave and travels a single
path. This is what is considered the ‘particle’.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sagnac Revisited. Why Paul, Tom and Jerry are Hopelessly Wrong.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:47 pm
From: ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc)
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 06:43:02 -0700 (PDT), “Sue…”
wrote:
>On Feb 21, 7:13�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote:
>> It has been claimed by opponents of the ballistic theory of light that the
>> sagnac effect provide a simple and direrct refutation of that theory.
>> Their traditional argument is that when considered in the rotating frame, there
>> can be no phase shift at the detector.
>>
>> I have now shown why this argument is grossly incorrect. It shows the folly of
>> trying to use rotating frames to analyse physical processes.
>>
>> Sagnac is fully explained by ballistic theory in my upgraded article here:
>>
>> http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.htm
>>
>> Henry Wilson…
>>
>> …….provider of free physics lessons
>
>Hmmm… Not sure how you revisit a place you
>have never been but if someone should mistake
>your particle-light discussion for something
>actually pertaing to the Sagnac effect, they
>might enjoy a little consolation prize for
>stumbling into your thread.
>
>’Sagnac” effect: A century of Earth-rotated interferometers
>http://signallake.com/innovation/andersonNov94.pdf
They were all very confused by their belief in an aether….just as YOU are.
But ring laser gyros are quite amazing.
The simple ballistic explanation of the sagnac effect as applied to fibre optic
gyros is presented here: http://www.scisite.info/ringgyro.htm
Different path lengths contain different numbers of ‘wavelengths’.
‘Photons’ are not simple oscillators.
>Sue…
Henry Wilson…
…….A person’s IQ = his snipping ability.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A simplification of Einstein’s 1905 paper
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:49 pm
From: “Androcles”
“harald” wrote in message
news:f192a04e-6b5e-4b20-9957-e334bed28984@10g2000yqq.googlegroups.com…
On Mar 29, 5:11 pm, Tom Adams wrote:
> In the paragraph 1 “Definition of Simultaneity”
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
>
> He uses 2 clocks that resemble each other “in all respects”.
>
> But you can define simultaneity with a single good oscillator. By
> good, I mean an oscillator that maintains a constant rate in a inertia
> frame.
>
> If you send out the light ray a tick 0 and it gets back at tick 10,
> then tick 5 event is simultaneous with the event of the light ray
> being reflected.
IF (and ONLY IF) you pretend that your reference system is “in rest”;
but perhaps you are for example using a reference system on the
equator. Someone else who is using GPS (based on the ECI “frame”) may
disagree with you, and say that you are “moving” – and you may agree
with him, after giving it a little thought. Then your system is
“moving” so that tick 5 is NOT simultaneous with the event of the
light ray being reflected.
BTW, your simplification isn’t one, this is just the same method that
Einstein presented – and he made sure to emphasize that it is just a
convention, and “relative” to the choice of reference system.
Harald
=============================================
BTW, you are babbling nonsense, nothing is “in rest”.
We establish by definition that Einstein got his knickers in a twist when
he said “we establish by definition that the “time” required by a ray to
travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A”
and claimed
1/2 [ tau(0,0,0,t) + tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))] = tau(x’,0,0, t+
x’/(c-v))
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
It would have been far easier to write
tau(x’,0,0, t+ x’/(c-v)) =tau(0,0,0, t+ x’/(c+v))
and then differentiate that, but then that would make Einstein’s silly spoof
rather too obvious.
And just what is @tau/@x’?
How do the coordinate x’ and the coordinate 0 “be taken
infinitesimally small”?
Einstein makes it rather obvious he’s never studied calculus and didn’t
know the difference between the distance from 0 to x’ and the points
0 and x’.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground
clock.
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:53 pm
From: kenseto
On Mar 29, 5:06 pm, moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> kenseto writes:
> >On Mar 28, 7:10 pm, moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
> >> >No there is no conversion factor between absolute time and observed
> >> >time. The A observer predicts that an interval of absolute time in his
> >> >frame such as his clock second represented by a clock reading of (1/
> >> >gamma_ab second) on the B clock.
>
> >> These two sentences contradict each other. First, you say there is no
> >> conversion factor, then in the very next sentence, you say the conversion
> >> factor is (1/gamma_ab).
> >I said that there is no constant X conversion factor as you asserted.
> >A’s conversion factor is 1/gamma_ab and B’s conversion factor is 1/
> >gamma_ba.
>
> OK so you think they can be different. I don’t see how that could ever
> possibly be true. If A sees B as moving at velocity V, B seeing A as
> moving at any velocity other than -V would throw all physics as we know it
> out the window. Particle accelerators, radar, all kinds of things simply
> wouldn’t work. Anyway, the Michelson-Morley Experiment and all its
> followups should have detected our velocity around the sun relative
> to this “absolute frame”.
No you are putting up bogus arguements. Everything will work as
before. Each observer will measure V with his clock but the V_a is not
the same as V_b because an A second is not equal to a B second.
>
> > Also you seem to think that the conversion factor is
> >converting clock time to absolute time. That is wrong….it is used to
> >predict the clock reading on an observed clock for a specific interval
> >of absolute time (such as a clock second) on the observer’s clock.
>
> Well, if I can find the clock reading by multiplying the absolute time
> by X (or 1/gamma_ab if you prefer, I can find the absolute time by
> dividing the clock reading by the same number. Algebra 101.
No…you already know that the amount of absolute time involved is
represented by 1 of A’s clock second. That same amount of absolute
time is represented by 1/gamma_ab second on the B clock.
>
> >> >> >If B is the observer he will say that his clock second represents a
> >> >> >specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is
> >> >> >predicted to have a clock reading of 1/2 second on the A clock.
> >> >> >The rest of your post is due to your misundertanding of absolute time.
>
> >> >> First, all that makes the “B” frame special, specifically absolute.
> >> >No…that does not make the B frame absolute. It only says that the B
> >> >second will contain a specific amount of absolute time.
>
> >> If the clock time of the A frame is half that of the B frame and the
> >> conversion factor is also derived from the same factor 1/gamma_ab, it
> >> has to be special.
> >Well that’s what SR says….it says that every frame is equivalent
> >including the absolute rest frame
>
> No it doesn’t. In fact, Special RELATIVITY does not allow for any
> absolute rest frame whatsoever. That’s why they used the word
> RELATIVITY! If you are going to modify or disprove SR, you’re going
> to have to understand SR first.
If SR does not allow for any absolute rest frame then how come the SR
observer claims the exclusive properties of the absolute rest frame?
>
> > and that’s why every SR observer
> >assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest.
>
> No he doesn’t. He picks a reference frame for the observer, usually
> one which simplifies the math. Besides, how can one pick the absolute
> frame? Isn’t it, like, ABSOLUTE?
Yes he does…he selects the absolute frame to simplify the math….it
allows the SR observer to claim that all the clocks moving wrt him are
running slow.
>
> > Also that’s why every
> >SR observer asserts that all the clocks moving wrt him are running
> >slow.
>
> No, that’s not true. SR asserts that an observer in any frame will
> see the clocks in objects moving relative to that frame as running
> slow. Back to my example: A sees his own clock as normal, but sees
> B’s clock as running slow. B sees his own clock as normal, but sees
> A’s clock as running slow.
That’s exactly what I said: Every SR observer assumes that he is in a
state of rest and the observed clock is doing the moving.
>
> >In IRT an IRT observer does not assume that he is in a state of
> >absolute rest and that’s why he says that a clock moving wrt him can
> >run slow or fast compare to his clock.
>
> When has any such thing ever been observed?
From the ground clock point of view: The SR effect on the GPS clock is
7 us/day running slow compared to the ground clock. From the GPS clock
point of view: the SR effect on the ground clock is 7 us/day running
fast compared to the GPS clock.
>
> >> > THat’s why every
> >> >SR observer claims the exclusive properties of the absolute rest
> >> >frame….that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all
> >> >th erulers moivng wrt him are contracted.
>
> >> You appear to have confused the phrase “absolute rest frame” and
> >> “reference frame”.
> >No….only the absolute rest observer can claim that all the clocks
> >moving wrt him are running slow. Both SR and LET claims the properties
> >of the absolute rest frame to derive the math.
>
> OK, C is stationary in this absolute frame. C’s clock runs at the same
> rate as absolute time. (correct?)
This statement has no meaning. C’s clock second will contain a
specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is the
least amount of absolute time compared to any clock second that is not
in a state of absolute rest.
> A and B are moving in opposite
> directions at v, according to C. C sees A’s and B’s clocks running slow
> by gamma_ca and gamma_cb, which are equal. (Correct?)
No it depends on the value of gamma_ca and gamma_cb.
>
> What velocity does A see B moving at?
A will have to use his clock second to measure the velocity of B.
>What rate does A see B’s clock
> run? What velocity does A see C moving at? What rate does A see C’s
> clock run?
According to SR A will see B’s clock running at 1/gamma_ab.
according to IRT A will see B’s clock running at 1/gamma_ab or
Gamma_ab
>
> What velocity does B see A moving at? What rate does B see A’s clock
> run? What velocity does B see C moving at? What rate does B see C’s
> clock run?
According to SR B will see A’s clock running at 1/gamma_ba.
according to IRT B will see A’s clock running at 1/gamma_ba or
Gamma_ba
n Seto> >>That’s the only way
> >> for there to be a consistent conversion from absolute time to observed
> >> time in both frames.
> >Sigh…you don’t convert clock time to absolute time. The observer A
> >clock second represents a specific amount of absolute time and this
> >amount of absolute time will have a clock reading of 1/gamma_ab second
> >on the B clock.
>
> Again, if I can convert from absolute time to clock time by multiplying
> by 1/gamma_ab, I can find absolute time from clock time by dividing
> by 1/gamma_ab. Simple algebra.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:56 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 2:06 pm, moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
wrote:
> kenseto writes:
> >On Mar 28, 7:10 pm, moro…@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> >wrote:
> >> >No there is no conversion factor between absolute time and observed
> >> >time. The A observer predicts that an interval of absolute time in his
> >> >frame such as his clock second represented by a clock reading of (1/
> >> >gamma_ab second) on the B clock.
>
> >> These two sentences contradict each other. First, you say there is no
> >> conversion factor, then in the very next sentence, you say the conversion
> >> factor is (1/gamma_ab).
> >I said that there is no constant X conversion factor as you asserted.
> >A’s conversion factor is 1/gamma_ab and B’s conversion factor is 1/
> >gamma_ba.
>
> OK so you think they can be different. I don’t see how that could ever
> possibly be true. If A sees B as moving at velocity V, B seeing A as
> moving at any velocity other than -V would throw all physics as we know it
> out the window. Particle accelerators, radar, all kinds of things simply
> wouldn’t work. Anyway, the Michelson-Morley Experiment and all its
> followups should have detected our velocity around the sun relative
> to this “absolute frame”.
>
> > Also you seem to think that the conversion factor is
> >converting clock time to absolute time. That is wrong….it is used to
> >predict the clock reading on an observed clock for a specific interval
> >of absolute time (such as a clock second) on the observer’s clock.
>
> Well, if I can find the clock reading by multiplying the absolute time
> by X (or 1/gamma_ab if you prefer, I can find the absolute time by
> dividing the clock reading by the same number. Algebra 101.
>
> >> >> >If B is the observer he will say that his clock second represents a
> >> >> >specific amount of absolute time. This amount of absolute time is
> >> >> >predicted to have a clock reading of 1/2 second on the A clock.
> >> >> >The rest of your post is due to your misundertanding of absolute time.
>
> >> >> First, all that makes the “B” frame special, specifically absolute.
> >> >No…that does not make the B frame absolute. It only says that the B
> >> >second will contain a specific amount of absolute time.
>
> >> If the clock time of the A frame is half that of the B frame and the
> >> conversion factor is also derived from the same factor 1/gamma_ab, it
> >> has to be special.
> >Well that’s what SR says….it says that every frame is equivalent
> >including the absolute rest frame
>
> No it doesn’t. In fact, Special RELATIVITY does not allow for any
> absolute rest frame whatsoever. That’s why they used the word
> RELATIVITY! If you are going to modify or disprove SR, you’re going
> to have to understand SR first.
>
> > and that’s why every SR observer
> >assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest.
>
> No he doesn’t. He picks a reference frame for the observer, usually
> one which simplifies the math. Besides, how can one pick the absolute
> frame? Isn’t it, like, ABSOLUTE?
>
> > Also that’s why every
> >SR observer asserts that all the clocks moving wrt him are running
> >slow.
>
> No, that’s not true. SR asserts that an observer in any frame will
> see the clocks in objects moving relative to that frame as running
> slow. Back to my example: A sees his own clock as normal, but sees
> B’s clock as running slow. B sees his own clock as normal, but sees
> A’s clock as running slow.
>
> >In IRT an IRT observer does not assume that he is in a state of
> >absolute rest and that’s why he says that a clock moving wrt him can
> >run slow or fast compare to his clock.
>
> When has any such thing ever been observed?
>
> >> > THat’s why every
> >> >SR observer claims the exclusive properties of the absolute rest
> >> >frame….that all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all
> >> >th erulers moivng wrt him are contracted.
>
> >> You appear to have confused the phrase “absolute rest frame” and
> >> “reference frame”.
> >No….only the absolute rest observer can claim that all the clocks
> >moving wrt him are running slow. Both SR and LET claims the properties
> >of the absolute rest frame to derive the math.
>
> OK, C is stationary in this absolute frame. C’s clock runs at the same
> rate as absolute time. (correct?) A and B are moving in opposite
> directions at v, according to C. C sees A’s and B’s clocks running slow
> by gamma_ca and gamma_cb, which are equal. (Correct?)
>
> What velocity does A see B moving at? What rate does A see B’s clock
> run? What velocity does A see C moving at? What rate does A see C’s
> clock run?
>
> What velocity does B see A moving at? What rate does B see A’s clock
> run? What velocity does B see C moving at? What rate does B see C’s
> clock run?
>
> >>That’s the only way
> >> for there to be a consistent conversion from absolute time to observed
> >> time in both frames.
> >Sigh…you don’t convert clock time to absolute time. The observer A
> >clock second represents a specific amount of absolute time and this
> >amount of absolute time will have a clock reading of 1/gamma_ab second
> >on the B clock.
>
> Again, if I can convert from absolute time to clock time by multiplying
> by 1/gamma_ab, I can find absolute time from clock time by dividing
> by 1/gamma_ab. Simple algebra.
For how long does the stations clock run slow to the passing train? If
the station ages more?
* “jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi
arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in saudi telecom”
“saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ – 1 messages,
1 author
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:05 pm
From: Fred Abse
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:05:55 +0200, Fred Bartoli wrote:
> I don’t know whether LTspice support B
> sources,
Yes, it does.
–
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
(Richard Feynman)
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:38 pm
From: Fred Bartoli
Fred Abse a écrit :
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:05:55 +0200, Fred Bartoli wrote:
>
>> I don’t know whether LTspice support B
>> sources,
>
> Yes, it does.
>
Ah, thanks.
–
Thanks,
Fred.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:31 pm
From: pnachtwey
On Mar 29, 11:53 am, John Larkin
wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:20:31 -0400, Jerry Avins wrote:
> >Tim Wescott wrote:
> >> Fred Bartoli wrote:
> >>> Tim Wescott a écrit :
> >>>> Fred Bartoli wrote:
> >>>>> John Larkin a écrit :
> >>>>>> I’m designing a gadget that uses an ARM uP, with 12-bit mux’d ADC and
> >>>>>> a 10-bit DAC, to essentially make a current and voltage regulated
> >>>>>> power supply. The ADC will measure voltage and current and the DAC
> >>>>>> will control a fairly soft source-follower series-pass mosfet. The
> >>>>>> customer load could be most anything.
>
> >>>>>> I think it would be time-effective to simulate the control loop while
> >>>>>> the PC board is being fabbed, so we don’t have to play with dynamics
> >>>>>> as much in the critical delivery path.
> >>>>>> I can simulate it as an analog loop using LT Spice, as I’m familiar
> >>>>>> with that and could get it done quickly. It would be handy if I could
> >>>>>> also use the same model in digital mode, which would add sampling
> >>>>>> delays and maybe even quantization.
>
> >>>>>> Any thoughts on how to do this?
>
> >>>>>> I note here that more and more formerly-analog control loops, things
> >>>>>> like switching power supplies, motor drivers, power amps, will be
> >>>>>> going digital in the future. Some of the ARM chips are selling for
> >>>>>> under a dollar. Analog parts will, I think, increasingly be used for
> >>>>>> things like amplification, and less for computation.
>
> >>>>>> John
>
> >>>>> It can easily done with spice.
>
> >>>>> The software delay can be modeled as a TLINE provided it is constant
> >>>>> in your system.
> >>>>> For switchers you model the switch as an averaged one (continuous
> >>>>> model). The sampling action is modeled by a 2 poles TF (look at
> >>>>> Ridley’s paper “Accurate and practical small signal model for
> >>>>> current mode control”, or I can try to dig in one of my previous HDs).
>
> >>>>> With good modeling you can have average transient and AC (loop
> >>>>> gain,…) simulations which are real close to the actual circuit.
>
> >>>>> That won’t give you quantization though, and I guess this can’t be
> >>>>> modeled as with sigma delta since you have a first order loop and
> >>>>> probably an almost constant signal.
>
> >>>>> Maybe, but I never tried this, you can discretize the loop (only for
> >>>>> transient analysis) with use of B “arbitrary sources” within which
> >>>>> you use some integer part function. I don’t know whether LTspice
> >>>>> support B sources, but you should find something equivalent…
>
> >>>> Quantization looks like infinite gain, though, so unless it is
> >>>> wrapped inside of a sampled-time section it’ll really slow down — or
> >>>> completely crash — the simulation.
>
> >>>> You can analyze fairly well for quantization by treating it as noise
> >>>> at the magnitude of the quantization, and the worst possible
> >>>> frequency. Just inject a signal at the quantization point, do a
> >>>> frequency sweep to figure out the sensitivity of the output to the
> >>>> quantization, and take the worst spot.
>
> >>>> Quantization always seems to seek to do the most damage possible, so
> >>>> treating it as worst case isn’t paranoid. In this case, it really is
> >>>> out to get you!
>
> >>> It’s been a while I’ve looked at this but IIRC it’s only one bit
> >>> quantizer that have infinite gain. Multibit quantizers, as I guess
> >>> John will use since he has plentiful bits ADC/DAC, have unit gain.
> >>> I once used an ARM with 12b ADC/DACs to build a low OSR SD converter
> >>> with real high resolution at almost no cost (the ARM was mandated for
> >>> other things). Of course it wasn’t more linear than the DAC on large
> >>> signals, but the app was OK with that…
>
> >> At the point of the quantization step the input moves an infinitesimal
> >> amount, and the output moves a finite amount. That’s an infinite gain.
> >> With a 12-bit device, it happens 4095 times, instead of once.
>
> >It really plays havoc when computing a simple “derivative”.
>
> >Jerry
>
> Derivatives usually cause more trouble than they do good. My “PID”
> controller will almost certainly have D=0.
>
> John
Many systems don’t require a derivative gain. It depends on the
number of poles in your plant and we have no idea what you are trying
to do.
I am a big believer in derivative gains since I must tune under damped
systems. The trick is a have very fine resolution feed back that is
almost noise free or a good model. I would use 16 bit analog feedback
devices to get the finer resolution. I was just at a site where I
used the second derivative gain and it was necessary.
Sometime a low pass filter on the output helps too. If you are clever
you can calculate the gains and take the low pass filter into
consideration. This is better than trying to tweak each gain one a
time along with the output filter.
Do you have excess CPU time?
Peter Nachtwey
==============================================================================
TOPIC: “jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in saudi
telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:08 pm
From: saima81
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cloning the ca3080
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:15 pm
From: osr@uakron.edu
Any suggestions before I start to clone the ca3080 in discretes? I
have a legacy design I may need to make thousands of…
What I mean by suggestions is if any of the IC designers here could
see any hidden process gotchas in the drawing in the datasheet. Ie
emitter width, hidden structures, etc…
And yes, I know about the 13700 series…
Steve
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:20 pm
From: “Tim Williams”
You’ll have terrible thermal compensation ( = drifty offset and gain, plus
thermal time constants) without monolithic construction. The representative
circuit seems to be current mirrors and a diff amp, which will work fine.
Doesn’t seem to be anything remarkable about it, no bandgaps or Widlar-esque
craziness.
Tim
–
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
wrote in message
news:9db11a06-1382-48e5-85dc-d794e8c5859d@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com…
> Any suggestions before I start to clone the ca3080 in discretes? I
> have a legacy design I may need to make thousands of…
>
> What I mean by suggestions is if any of the IC designers here could
> see any hidden process gotchas in the drawing in the datasheet. Ie
> emitter width, hidden structures, etc…
>
> And yes, I know about the 13700 series…
>
> Steve
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:55 pm
From: Jim Thompson
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:15:39 -0700 (PDT), osr@uakron.edu wrote:
>Any suggestions before I start to clone the ca3080 in discretes? I
>have a legacy design I may need to make thousands of…
>
>What I mean by suggestions is if any of the IC designers here could
>see any hidden process gotchas in the drawing in the datasheet. Ie
>emitter width, hidden structures, etc…
>
> And yes, I know about the 13700 series…
>
>Steve
We could make a copy
…Jim Thompson
–
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC’s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Through Hole vs. Surface Mount
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:34 pm
From: Fred Bartoli
Fred Abse a écrit :
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:12:47 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote:
>
>> Thats exactly the wrong way. Fine pitch is best soldered using a think
>> flat soldering tip and flux. Its faster and it works better.
>
> Chacun à son goût!
>
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:36 pm
From: Spehro Pefhany
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:57:17 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:
>I used to love the way US newscasters drifted between ghoulish green and
>purple in the days before they were clamped to pale orange leather. I
>always believed it was a limitation of NTSC broadcast signals until I
>lived in Japan where they manage to do it correctly.
NTSC = No True Skin Colors?
>Regards,
>Martin Brown
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lower operating temperature specs for single-board computers
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:40 pm
From: Joerg
Paul Keinanen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:21:07 -0700, “Joel Koltner”
> wrote:
>
>> I’m curious… what’s the difference between your run-of-the-mill single-board
>> computer (e.g., those based on Atoms or ARMs or whatever that people are so
>> fond of running Linux on) when they’re spec’d to operate down to -20C (or
>> even -40C) vs. the far-more-common 0C?
>
> At least you should check that the oscillators start up reliably at
> low temperatures.
>
> When you get the oscillators running, it may need some failed restart
> attempts, until the heat produced by the logic gates running at the
> clock frequency has heated sufficiently some marginal components.
>
Crystals can have a hard time, just like engines do. Russian truckers
sometimes solve it but gathering some wood, making a little fire
underneath and having a cigarette in the meantime.
> However, if the main clock does not start reliably, you are out of
> luck.
>
May need a lower value “kicker resistor”, or a real kicker circuit.
> With non-coated PCB’s you may end up with various condensation
> problems.
>
That problem can also hit well above 0C. There were days in Puerto Rico
where it was nice and warm but condensation was so bad that water was
running down the windows and making puddles on the ground.
–
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
“gmail” domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:29 pm
From: Tim Wescott
Joel Koltner wrote:
> I’m curious… what’s the difference between your run-of-the-mill
> single-board computer (e.g., those based on Atoms or ARMs or whatever
> that people are so fond of running Linux on) when they’re spec’d to
> operate down to -20C (or even -40C) vs. the far-more-common 0C? It’s
> obvious that you need to add additional cooling so that nothing fries as
> you want a higher and higher ambient temperature operating range, but
> what happens at -20C that isn’t already happening at 0C?
>
And after you get things so that your oscillators start, and your power
supplies regulate correctly, and the socketed parts don’t pull out (or
off) of their designated spot, all of the digital electronics will go
faster — by different amounts.
So latent race conditions that weren’t a problem at all at 0C will
suddenly _be_ a problem.
(Note: this is much more likely to be an issue at high temperatures when
CMOS gets slow, but hey — it can happen at cold, too).
–
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:34 pm
From: Joerg
Tim Wescott wrote:
> Joel Koltner wrote:
>> I’m curious… what’s the difference between your run-of-the-mill
>> single-board computer (e.g., those based on Atoms or ARMs or whatever
>> that people are so fond of running Linux on) when they’re spec’d to
>> operate down to -20C (or even -40C) vs. the far-more-common 0C? It’s
>> obvious that you need to add additional cooling so that nothing fries
>> as you want a higher and higher ambient temperature operating range,
>> but what happens at -20C that isn’t already happening at 0C?
>>
>
> And after you get things so that your oscillators start, and your power
> supplies regulate correctly, and the socketed parts don’t pull out (or
> off) of their designated spot, all of the digital electronics will go
> faster — by different amounts.
>
> So latent race conditions that weren’t a problem at all at 0C will
> suddenly _be_ a problem.
>
> (Note: this is much more likely to be an issue at high temperatures when
> CMOS gets slow, but hey — it can happen at cold, too).
>
In medieval Europe the digital designer would have been dunked into a
moat three times, in front of all the villagers
–
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
“gmail” domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:48 pm
From: Spehro Pefhany
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:40:26 -0700, Joerg
wrote:
>Paul Keinanen wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:21:07 -0700, “Joel Koltner”
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I’m curious… what’s the difference between your run-of-the-mill single-board
>>> computer (e.g., those based on Atoms or ARMs or whatever that people are so
>>> fond of running Linux on) when they’re spec’d to operate down to -20C (or
>>> even -40C) vs. the far-more-common 0C?
>>
>> At least you should check that the oscillators start up reliably at
>> low temperatures.
>>
>> When you get the oscillators running, it may need some failed restart
>> attempts, until the heat produced by the logic gates running at the
>> clock frequency has heated sufficiently some marginal components.
>>
>
>Crystals can have a hard time, just like engines do. Russian truckers
>sometimes solve it but gathering some wood, making a little fire
>underneath and having a cigarette in the meantime.
Now that’s an OCXO…
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:03 pm
From: Tim Wescott
Joerg wrote:
> Tim Wescott wrote:
>> Joel Koltner wrote:
>>> I’m curious… what’s the difference between your run-of-the-mill
>>> single-board computer (e.g., those based on Atoms or ARMs or whatever
>>> that people are so fond of running Linux on) when they’re spec’d to
>>> operate down to -20C (or even -40C) vs. the far-more-common 0C? It’s
>>> obvious that you need to add additional cooling so that nothing fries
>>> as you want a higher and higher ambient temperature operating range,
>>> but what happens at -20C that isn’t already happening at 0C?
>>>
>>
>> And after you get things so that your oscillators start, and your
>> power supplies regulate correctly, and the socketed parts don’t pull
>> out (or off) of their designated spot, all of the digital electronics
>> will go faster — by different amounts.
>>
>> So latent race conditions that weren’t a problem at all at 0C will
>> suddenly _be_ a problem.
>>
>> (Note: this is much more likely to be an issue at high temperatures
>> when CMOS gets slow, but hey — it can happen at cold, too).
>>
>
> In medieval Europe the digital designer would have been dunked into a
> moat three times, in front of all the villagers
>
And if he died then he wasn’t a witch, and if he lived then he was a
witch and needed killing?
–
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:07 pm
From: Joerg
Tim Wescott wrote:
> Joerg wrote:
>> Tim Wescott wrote:
>>> Joel Koltner wrote:
>>>> I’m curious… what’s the difference between your run-of-the-mill
>>>> single-board computer (e.g., those based on Atoms or ARMs or
>>>> whatever that people are so fond of running Linux on) when they’re
>>>> spec’d to operate down to -20C (or even -40C) vs. the
>>>> far-more-common 0C? It’s obvious that you need to add additional
>>>> cooling so that nothing fries as you want a higher and higher
>>>> ambient temperature operating range, but what happens at -20C that
>>>> isn’t already happening at 0C?
>>>>
>>>
>>> And after you get things so that your oscillators start, and your
>>> power supplies regulate correctly, and the socketed parts don’t pull
>>> out (or off) of their designated spot, all of the digital electronics
>>> will go faster — by different amounts.
>>>
>>> So latent race conditions that weren’t a problem at all at 0C will
>>> suddenly _be_ a problem.
>>>
>>> (Note: this is much more likely to be an issue at high temperatures
>>> when CMOS gets slow, but hey — it can happen at cold, too).
>>>
>>
>> In medieval Europe the digital designer would have been dunked into a
>> moat three times, in front of all the villagers
>>
> And if he died then he wasn’t a witch, and if he lived then he was a
> witch and needed killing?
>
No, this was meant as an “ethics enhancement” process. They used it on
bakers who made undersized rolls but sold them at full price. They
usually tried that sort of business practice only once …
–
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
“gmail” domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:35 pm
From: messianic light
I am just starting with idea to design a digitally controlled analogue
synthesizer
does anyone have basic analogue synthesizer circuits to get me going
with breadboard design?
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:26 pm
From: “J.A. Legris”
On Mar 29, 5:35 pm, messianic light
wrote:
> I am just starting with idea to design a digitally controlled analogue
> synthesizer
>
> does anyone have basic analogue synthesizer circuits to get me going
> with breadboard design?
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:35 pm
From: “Joel Koltner”
“messianic light” wrote in message
news:90e5ab9d-3cfa-4834-a4d5-cfbaf5bbca3a@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com…
>I am just starting with idea to design a digitally controlled analogue
> synthesizer
>
> does anyone have basic analogue synthesizer circuits to get me going
> with breadboard design?
Tell us what kind of frequency ranges you’d like to cover, if you just need a
sine wave output or modulation or other waveforms, etc…
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Aluminium Foil around Mobile Phone… what will happen ?
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:24 pm
From: Colin Howarth
Hi,
I’m designing an external computer audio interface (192 kHz, 24 bit,
stereo using the Cirrus CS5381 ADC) and, I’d like to connect it using
firewire.
I’d thought of using an Oxford Semi OXFW… chip, but they got taken
over by some outfit called PLX last year and all I can find is NAS/DAS
storage chips (SATA) and PCI(e) bridges…
What I was looking for was the simplest sort of serial to FW bridge.
I suppose a TI TSB41AB1 transceiver and TSB12LV01B link layer controller
(plus serdes used the wrong way round?) would do it, but (as an amateur)
I’m wondering whether I’ll be able to get this going without the IEEE
standard since the datasheet for the TSB12LV01B does fairly warn
“This document is not intended to serve as a tutorial on 1394; users are
referred to the IEEE 1394-1995 serial bus standard for detailed
information regarding the 1394 high-speed serial bus.”
I guess I’ll end up using the FT2232H USB Hi-Speed UART …
Thanks,
colin
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:46 pm
From: Tim Wescott
Colin Howarth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’m designing an external computer audio interface (192 kHz, 24 bit,
> stereo using the Cirrus CS5381 ADC) and, I’d like to connect it using
> firewire.
>
> I’d thought of using an Oxford Semi OXFW… chip, but they got taken
> over by some outfit called PLX last year and all I can find is NAS/DAS
> storage chips (SATA) and PCI(e) bridges…
>
> What I was looking for was the simplest sort of serial to FW bridge.
>
> I suppose a TI TSB41AB1 transceiver and TSB12LV01B link layer controller
> (plus serdes used the wrong way round?) would do it, but (as an amateur)
> I’m wondering whether I’ll be able to get this going without the IEEE
> standard since the datasheet for the TSB12LV01B does fairly warn
>
> “This document is not intended to serve as a tutorial on 1394; users are
> referred to the IEEE 1394-1995 serial bus standard for detailed
> information regarding the 1394 high-speed serial bus.”
>
>
> I guess I’ll end up using the FT2232H USB Hi-Speed UART …
I was on a team that implemented an infra red imager that talked on IEEE
1394, back before it was apparent that FireWire was going to go down in
flames in the marketplace (of course, that was back when Microsoft was
still pretending to support it — I actually went to a FireWire user’s
conference in Redmond).
We got it working, and working quite well. It met every single dang one
of our needs except for “works on a popular consumer-oriented bus”.
If you want to go the FireWire route, get a copy of “FireWire System
Architecture” by Don Anderson of MindShare. It is a near-perfect book
for this — we got copies for every developer, and each one of us was
practically able to prop the book up next to our monitor to figure out
what needed to get done.
But:
Why?!?!?
Why go with FireWire when USB* will do what you want, and far easier?
FireWire is a peer-peer bus, which really, really, really made a lot of
sense for the product I was working on (the other end of the digital
link was a board that turned the video into RS-170 analog, with no PC in
sight). But the fact that it’s peer-peer means that — with a few
exceptions — every node has to have all the capabilities of any other
node, which makes the peripheral design much more complex than a
master/slave bus like USB.
You, on the other hand, are talking about something that’s well within
the capabilities of even fairly slow USB hardware — and you can hardly
walk by a computer these days without tripping over a USB cable, while
at the same time it’s hard to find a computer equipped with FireWire.
For a lot less effort than equipping a peripheral with FireWire you can
get a USB-capable microprocessor and do whatever you want.
I’d recommend that you find a chip that’ll handle USB isochronous mode
(to get you guaranteed bandwidth for that audio that you don’t want to
hiccup), and get to it. It’ll be a _lot_ easier than messing with
FireWire, and when you’re done you’ll be able to plug it into any new
computer on earth.
* Several of my colleagues from that period of time would be rolling on
the floor, pointing at me and laughing, just for making that statement.
–
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Coming soon to the USA…
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:36 pm
From: “amdx”
“ian field” wrote in message
news:RG5sn.124236$1j3.111888@newsfe10.ams2…
>
> “Jim Thompson” wrote
> in message news:aul1r5dcnv27nkv095klm69d7dhgad70it@4ax.com…
>> Coming soon to the USA… the ultimate nanny state…
>
> It’ll never be as bad as in the UK.
>
> Kids not allowed to play conkers – or climb trees to get them, no chasing
> a round cheese down a hill contests, no jumble sales in case the village
> hall burns down.
>
> The list is inexhaustible.
>
Ian, a Massachusetts school stopped using jump ropes!
They still jump, they just don’t use the rope, you see if little Mary or
Billy catch
the rope with a foot as it goes round it could hurt there self esteem.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:44 pm
From: Hans-Bernhard Bröker
Didi wrote:
> I tried today to figure out a simple way to give users of our
> new netmca ( http://tgi-sci.com/tgi/nmcatb.htm ) to locate its
> IP address once it gets one via dhcp when there is no internet
> at the moment
I believe that, strictly speaking, that can’t happen. If you have no
internet at the moment, you don’t have DHCP either. Remember that DHCP
itself is a UDP service. UDP in turn works on top of IP, and that, for
better or for worse, is “internet”.
> Turned out there is nothing like an easy way to do that!
Well, the problem is nowhere near as easy as it appears at first sight.
It’s called a “network” because it’s _work_ to set up a properly
functioning net.
> How on Earth is that possible?!
You’ll want to look up “zero config networking”. That’s what the big
guys came up with to address this very same issue. You’ll see Apple
mentioned rather a lot, for their “Rendezvouz”/”Bonjour” project.
And let me point out I’m completely flabbergasted that nobody mentioned
this before me — not over here in c.a.embedded, anyway. I mean, come
on guys: not a single owner of an Apple Airport base station speaking
up, wondering what all these people keep talking about for days, when a
“normal” WLAN box just does the job???
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:52 pm
From: “krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz”
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 03:39:34 -0400, “Michael A. Terrell”
wrote:
>
>”krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz” wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:05:26 -0400, The King
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:46:43 -0500, “krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz”
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:21:31 -0400, The King
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:34:35 -0700, Jim Thompson
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>>>Oh? Voluntarily coming to the weenie roast and pick-em-up truck
>> >>>>>>drag-behind ?:-)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> …Jim Thompson
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>If you promise to wear your hood.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>You weenies sure are tiresome. It’s more likely that _you_ would be
>> >>>>the kind to wear a hood. In my own personal family I have a wide mix
>> >>>>of races, religions, and yes, even politics…. though none believe in
>> >>>>taking from the productive and giving to the bums.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Likewise my neighborhood… albeit only a 12 house upper class
>> >>>>cul-de-sac neighborhood… multi-racial, and we block-party all the
>> >>>>time.
>> >>>
>> >>>A multi racial tow behind block party. Let me guess, the white guys
>> >>>do the driving.
>> >>
>> >>You don’t read any better than you think.
>> >
>> >I think you’re a bunch of cross posting fuck heads. Do us a favor and
>> >trim alt.hvac from your hate fest.
>>
>> No, but thank you anyway. Hint: I didn’t add the silly HVAC group and if it
>> were really that important to YOU, you would have trimmed your group already,
>> dummy.
>
>
> That group has more idiots & trolls than alt.usenet.kooks.
Indeed it does have that reputation, across the Usenet.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:53 pm
From: “krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz”
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:40:03 -0500, “Steve” wrote:
>
>”Don Ocean” wrote in message
>news:81anasFk5tU1@mid.individual.net…
>> The King wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:04:53 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:00:11 -0400, The King
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:58:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In reality, we right-wingers _will_ eventually tip over the edge. If
>>>>>> this socialism goes too far we’re going to round up all you leftist
>>>>>> weenies and have a big weenie roast
>>>>>>
>>>>>> …Jim Thompson
>>>>> You have been tipped over the edge and were coming to get you.
>>>> Oh? Voluntarily coming to the weenie roast and pick-em-up truck
>>>> drag-behind ?:-)
>>>>
>>>> …Jim Thompson
>>>
>>> If you promise to wear your hood.
>>
>> I thought only Union members were allowed to wear hoods?
>
>Guys, thats not something to even joke about…. they are alive and well in
>the *real* south. I was invited to attend another “headlight party” a week
>or so ago. Yes, I politely declined (again).
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 4:27 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 4:48 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > nonsense.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > lets hope they succeed. every cult dies once they enter the drive for
> > purity phase:)
>
> True although they often stack up a lot of bodies on the way.
>
> Bret Cahill
correct.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 4:29 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 4:59 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2:50 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 2:14 pm, The PHANTOM wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 11:08 am, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > > nonsense.
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > Fuck McBeaner. We’re tired of linguini spined RINOS that think they
> > > need to “cross party lines” to get along with progressives. We want
> > > conservative candidates that are willing to use the same slash and
> > > burn tactics as progressives. Kill em’ all and let GOD sort em’ out !!
>
> > BREAKING NEWS:9 conservatives charged with conspiracy to kill police
> > officers in hopes of triggering a violent uprising against the
> > democratically elected government of the unites states of america:to
> > levy war against the United States
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_re_us/us_fbi_raids
>
> > 9 militia members charged in police-killing plot
>
> > By COREY WILLIAMS and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers –
> > 1 hr 1 min ago
> > DETROIT – Nine suspects tied to a Midwest Christian militia that was
> > preparing for the Antichrist were charged with conspiring to kill
> > police officers, then attack a funeral using homemade bombs in the
> > hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors
> > said Monday.
> > The Michigan-based group, called Hutaree, planned to use the attack on
> > police as a catalyst for a larger uprising against the government,
>
> Fortunately it was a blue state. Red state politicians won’t stop
> spree shooters and rightard terror bombers until the blood is already
> flowing.
>
> Bret Cahill
we can only hope the southern poverty law center can keep tabs on
them and warn us.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:10 pm
From: Shrikeback
On Mar 29, 4:29 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Mar 29, 4:59 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 2:50 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 2:14 pm, The PHANTOM wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 11:08 am, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > > > nonsense.
>
> > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > Fuck McBeaner. We’re tired of linguini spined RINOS that think they
> > > > need to “cross party lines” to get along with progressives. We want
> > > > conservative candidates that are willing to use the same slash and
> > > > burn tactics as progressives. Kill em’ all and let GOD sort em’ out !!
>
> > > BREAKING NEWS:9 conservatives charged with conspiracy to kill police
> > > officers in hopes of triggering a violent uprising against the
> > > democratically elected government of the unites states of america:to
> > > levy war against the United States
>
> > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_re_us/us_fbi_raids
>
> > > 9 militia members charged in police-killing plot
>
> > > By COREY WILLIAMS and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers –
> > > 1 hr 1 min ago
> > > DETROIT – Nine suspects tied to a Midwest Christian militia that was
> > > preparing for the Antichrist were charged with conspiring to kill
> > > police officers, then attack a funeral using homemade bombs in the
> > > hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors
> > > said Monday.
> > > The Michigan-based group, called Hutaree, planned to use the attack on
> > > police as a catalyst for a larger uprising against the government,
>
> > Fortunately it was a blue state. Red state politicians won’t stop
> > spree shooters and rightard terror bombers until the blood is already
> > flowing.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> we can only hope the southern poverty law center can keep tabs on
> them and warn us.
If nothing else, they can point out to the right-
wing extremists who are hiding under your bed
at night.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: more ridiculous hysteria
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 4:41 pm
From: Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking head
> “Nobody gives a shit about your lame
> insults you silly lib homo. [Now go die from your AIDS] ”
>
> laughing,
That’s all you can do when faced with the truth.
>
> wow you have some serious problems
With Aids infested lying lib homos like you. [Who doesn't?]
>
> Greenland Ice Sheet Losing Ice Mass
Another 500 years and it should be completely melted, right? Or is it
a thousand? Two thousand? Ten thousand? Hundred thousand? [FYI, in the
next ten years you guys are going to have to doctor some more data to
explain why there is still ice]
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 4:47 pm
From: Freestyle
On Mar 29, 7:41 pm, Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking
head wrote:
> > “Nobody gives a shit about your lame
> > insults you silly lib homo. [Now go die from your AIDS] ”
>
> > laughing,
>
> That’s all you can do when faced with the truth.
>
> > wow you have some serious problems
>
> With Aids infested lying lib homos like you. [Who doesn't?]
>
> > Greenland Ice Sheet Losing Ice Mass
>
> Another 500 years and it should be completely melted, right? Or is it
> a thousand? Two thousand? Ten thousand? Hundred thousand? [FYI, in the
> next ten years you guys are going to have to doctor some more data to
> explain why there is still ice]
http://tinyurl.com/yc7mwl8
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:10 pm
From: Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking head
On Mar 29, 4:47 pm, Freestyle wrote:
> On Mar 29, 7:41 pm, Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking
>
>
>
> head wrote:
> > > “Nobody gives a shit about your lame
> > > insults you silly lib homo. [Now go die from your AIDS] ”
>
> > > laughing,
>
> > That’s all you can do when faced with the truth.
>
> > > wow you have some serious problems
>
> > With Aids infested lying lib homos like you. [Who doesn't?]
>
> > > Greenland Ice Sheet Losing Ice Mass
>
> > Another 500 years and it should be completely melted, right? Or is it
> > a thousand? Two thousand? Ten thousand? Hundred thousand? [FYI, in the
> > next ten years you guys are going to have to doctor some more data to
> > explain why there is still ice]
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yc7mwl8
Yeah, we all know it’s still not completely melted, da. [Al Gore's
last prediction, like so many others, didn't pan out]
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:14 pm
From: Freestyle
On Mar 29, 8:10 pm, Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking
head wrote:
>
> Yeah, we all know it’s still not completely melted, da. [Al Gore's
> last prediction, like so many others, didn't pan out]
>
I bet if you were around when Noah was setting up shop in the Ark you
would have been at the front of the crowd telling him what an idiot he
was.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:28 pm
From: Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking head
> > Yeah, we all know it’s still not completely melted, da. [Al Gore's
> > last prediction, like so many others, didn't pan out]
>
> I bet if you were around when Noah was setting up shop in the Ark you
> would have been at the front of the crowd telling him what an idiot he
> was.
Noah is a fictional character, da.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Life does not evolve
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 4:42 pm
From: Immortalist
On Mar 28, 2:25 pm, Peter G Kinnon
wrote:
> On Mar 26, 9:04 pm, Immortalist wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 5:22 pm, John Jones wrote:
>
> > > All life is identical in purpose and intelligence. We only have to
> > > witness the intelligence at work at the waterhole between the species
> > > that congregate there, to see that an equal intelligence operates among
> > > them all – plants included.
>
> > > What WE, as humans, consider to be advanced, human intelligence is no
> > > more than a unique description of objects that identify us as “human”.
> > > But then all animals can be defined through a description of their own,
> > > uniquely different, set of objects that populate their world.
>
> > > Life, then, does not evolve. Forms evolve, but life-forms are vacuous
> > > and have no attributes nor intelligence. Life-forms, like the human
> > > form, are only markers for object possibilities. Intelligence, purpose,
> > > raison d’etre, remain the same for all life-forms.
>
> Life is perhaps more usefully considered as a process.
>
> This theme is developed in my recent book “Unusual Perspectives”
>
> You are welcome to download the electronic edition at no cost from the
> eponymous website.
Dude, I was mocking him and trying to make him seem like a “Platonist”
or one who adapts “one” thing as opposed to Heraclitus and the
philosophy of change which your promoting; therefore I agree with you:
Homeostasis is the property of an open system, especially living
organisms, to regulate its internal environment to maintain a stable,
constant condition, by means of multiple dynamic equilibrium
adjustments, controlled by interrelated regulation mechanisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis
Heraclitus thought that the contents of things change, but their form
remains the same. He wondered under what conditions do objects persist
through time as one and the same object. In ancient times, this
problem came to be associated with the Ship of Theseus;
The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned had thirty
oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of
Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they
decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch
that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for
the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the
ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the
same. –Plutarch (c. 46- 127).
The original puzzle is this: over the years, the Athenians replaced
each plank in the original ship of Theseus as it decayed, thereby
keeping it in good repair. Eventually, there was not a single plank
left of the original ship. So, did the Athenians still have one and
the same ship that used to belong to Theseus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
Theseus is famous in Greek mythology as the slayer of the Minotaur, a
half-man, half-bull monster who lived in the Labyrinth in the island
of Crete. According to Plutarch, the ship in which Theseus sailed back
to Athens was preserved for many generations, its old planks being
replaced by new ones as they decayed.
Now suppose that a few hundred years later,
all the original parts of the ship had been
replaced, one by one, so that none of
the original ship remained.
Is the preserved ship still Theseus’ ship?
Or is it a copy? And if the latter, then at what point did it cease
to be Theseus’ ship?
It seems that if just one plank were replaced, it would still be
Theseus’ ship. And if it was still his ship, and another plank were
replaced, then it should still be Theseus’ ship. By this reasoning
(which is the same as in the sorites paradox), it would be Theseus’
ship even after all planks are replaced.
————————
1. Two or three grains of sand
do not make a heap.
2. A million grains do make
a heap.
3. If n grains of sand do not
make a heap, neither do
(n+1) grains.
4. If n grains of sand make a
heap, so do (n-1) grains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
——————————
This problem is not merely another version of the sorites, however. It
involves the notion of identity, of what we mean by something being
the “same” object.
Suppose that we regard the final
ship as Theseus’ ship.
What if all the old planks, nails,
etc., had_been_stored in a warehouse
and someone put them back together
again. Would there then be
two Theseus’ ships?
Similar paradoxes of identity arise in certain science fiction
scenarios and in connection with the philosophy of mind. Suppose you
are teleported by having your body disintegrated in one place and
reassembled in another from new materials. Are you still “you”? Your
body is made of different atoms, but it is still you as far as your
mind is concerned, right? But what if instead of having your original
body disintegrated you merely have a copy made? Then is the copy still
you?
http://members.aol.com/kiekeben/para.html
Theseus was a legendary king of Athens, son of Aegeus (or of Poseidon)
and of Aethra. Theseus was a founder-hero, like Perseus, Cadmus or
Heracles, all of whom battled and overcame foes that were identified
with an archaic religious and social order. As Heracles was the Dorian
hero, Theseus was the Ionian founding hero, considered by Athenians as
their own great reformer. His name comes from the same root as ?esµo?
(“thesmos”), Greek for institution. In The Frogs Aristophanes credited
him with inventing many everyday Athenian traditions. He may have
originated in, or been based upon, a historical person or persons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus
http://images.google.com/images?q=Theseus
All known objects are processes. Consciousness is as much an object as
other processes that re-present a present moment through changing
stuff, everything is constantly changing and opposite things are
identical, so that everything is and is not at the same time. In other
words, Universal Flux and the Identity of Opposites may entail a
denial of the Law of Non-Contradiction, since all things go and
nothing stays, and comparing existents to the flow of a river which
you cannot step twice into. On those stepping into rivers staying the
same other and other waters flow. There is an antithesis between
‘same’ and ‘other,’ different waters flow in rivers staying the same,
though the waters are always changing, the rivers stay the same.
Indeed, it must be precisely because the waters are always changing
that there are rivers at all, rather than lakes or ponds. The message
is that rivers can stay the same over time even though, or indeed
because, the waters change. The point, then, is not that everything is
changing, but that the fact that some things change makes possible the
continued existence of other things. Perhaps more generally, the
change in elements or constituents supports the constancy of higher-
level structures.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/heraclit.htm
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:21 pm
From: All-Seeing-I
On Mar 26, 7:22 pm, John Jones wrote:
> All life is identical in purpose and intelligence. We only have to
> witness the intelligence at work at the waterhole between the species
> that congregate there, to see that an equal intelligence operates among
> them all – plants included.
>
> What WE, as humans, consider to be advanced, human intelligence is no
> more than a unique description of objects that identify us as “human”.
> But then all animals can be defined through a description of their own,
> uniquely different, set of objects that populate their world.
>
> Life, then, does not evolve. Forms evolve, but life-forms are vacuous
> and have no attributes nor intelligence. Life-forms, like the human
> form, are only markers for object possibilities. Intelligence, purpose,
> raison d’etre, remain the same for all life-forms.
The animals are smarter then humans. They also have a keener sense of
perception. Hell. I have met some people that I know for sure are not
as smart as a plant.
Man uses science to explain the world around him. But the science is
only going to be as accurate as the human sense of perception.
Which puts science dead last compared to the capabilities we find in
nature.
Our fastest computer is not as capable as a Dog’s brain.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Unrelenting Time
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 4:51 pm
From: John Stafford
In article
,
“What you are reading is Philosophy and P Versus NP.”
wrote:
> Our units of temporal measurement, from seconds on up to months, are
> so complicated, assymetrical and disjunctive so as to make coherent
> mental reckoning in time all but impossible.
I find the metric of $47.23 an hour for my work to be stabilizing enough.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How ‘A’ is and is not ‘A’
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 4:54 pm
From: John Stafford
My particular take on this non-conundrum is to ignore the confusions of
language. I am. I know that to be so. People whose relationship to the
everyday (and ain’t usenet everyday?) is so confused are not worth
considering.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:05 pm
From: Shrikeback
On Mar 29, 4:54 pm, John Stafford wrote:
> My particular take on this non-conundrum is to ignore the confusions of
> language. I am. I know that to be so. People whose relationship to the
> everyday (and ain’t usenet everyday?) is so confused are not worth
> considering.
Ah, but that isn’t really the point. You are probably
right that you exist. I am inclined not to question that.
The point was though that pain is not the proof you are
looking for. Once, I had a virus that kids don’t get
anymore. Measles or something. And during my
more deliroius states, my mouth seemed to be overly
full of my teeth which seemed to have mutated into
enormous cutting tools. My tongue seemed to
be swollen as well, forcing its surface up against
these blades, my teeth.
Pain is not the guarantee of reality that
was claimed.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:08 pm
From: Immortalist
On Mar 29, 7:26 am, Zerkon wrote:
> The phrase ‘A is A’ apparently sums up Aristotle’s Law of Identity or
> “Everything that exists has a specific nature”. Everything is self
> defining therefore any assigned attributes (eg: “A is Round”) violates
> the specificity or identity of A.
>
> “A is A” therefore is a dumbed down version of the more accurate “A is”
> or the still more accurate definition of A as being “A”, finally reaching
> the most accurate unspoken A as existing without need for any definition.
> However since neither “A is” or “A” nor a silent A conveys clear meaning,
> “A is A” is commonly used among Objectivists and those who want to
> impress others with their deep wit. Deep in what exactly remains
> uncertain.
>
> Tragically, sadly and most horribly this becomes self-defeating if it is
> used to affirm a pure objective reality because an abstract precondition
> must immediately be met.
>
> ‘A’ is forced, whipped and enslaved into represent some thing it is not.
> Or, first let ‘A’ represent any idea of any object. After this A is A.
>
> ‘A’, the written or typed physical entity, can not define itself and
> remain “A is A” true. A, the first ‘A’ typed, can not be also ‘A’ since
> it is the second ‘A’ typed. It is only a by a leap in logic, disguised as
> coherent reason of course, the two ‘A’s become as one. Only a small step
> away from a trinity “A is A is A” which opens to the infinity “Rose is a
> rose is a rose is a rose.”
>
> I, for one, prefer “Everything that exists has a specific nature” and be
> done with it. Until, of course, the topic of existence itself arises,
> arises, arises, arises.
If A represents “that thing pointed at” as translated into an embedded
predicate logic grammar and syntax, then it is the case that A=A for
the purposes of representationalism with language.
If the ancient Greek atomists thought that there were many things -
atoms – but they were all of the same kind, and apparent differences
between kinds of thing were reducible to differences between
combinations of things of the same kind, i.e. atoms and Empedocles, by
contrast, thought that there were four (or possibly six) kinds of
thing to which other apparent kinds of thing were reducible – earth,
fire, air and water, plus, in a certain sort of way, love and strife
but Anaxagoras thought that it was impossible to reduce apparent
differences of kind to so few underlying differences of kind; and he
may have thought, although this is not so clear, that there was an
infinity of kinds of thing, and certainly an infinity of things, are
you therefore, be a thing- or substance-pluralist and either a kind-
monist or a kind-pluralist, seeing how it is difficult to see how a
philosopher who thinks that there is only one substance could also
think that there are many kinds of substance, although he may believe,
as did Spinoza, that his one substance has attributes of more than one
kind and that there are many kinds of thing in that sense, then what
would “nothingness” mean to these differing metaphysical viewpoints?
But to make a simple matter of talking about rerepresentations of
presentations we could get a little bit more complex mumbo jumbio
here;
Hylomorphism in General In De Anima, Aristotle makes extensive use of
technical terminology introduced and explained elsewhere in his
writings. He claims, for example, using vocabulary derived from his
physical and metaphysical theories, that the soul is a first actuality
of a natural organic body (De Anima ii 1, 412b5-6), that it is a
substance as form of a natural body which has life in potentiality (De
Anima ii 1, 412a20-1) and, similarly, that it is a first actuality of
a natural body which has life in potentiality (De Anima ii 1,
412a27-8), all claims which apply to plants, animals and humans alike.
In characterizing the soul and body in these ways, Aristotle applies
concepts drawn from his broader hylomorphism, a conceptual framework
which underlies virtually all of his mature theorizing. It is
accordingly necessary to begin with a brief overview of that
framework. Thereafter it will be possible to recount Aristotle’s
general approach to soul-body relations, and then, finally, to
consider his analyses of the individual faculties of soul.
`Hylomorphism’ is simply a compound word composed of the Greek terms
for matter (hulê) and form or shape (morphê); thus one could equally
describe Aristotle’s view of soul and body as an instance of his
matter-formism. That is, when he introduces the soul as the form of
the body, which in turn is said to be the matter of the soul,
Aristotle treats soul-body relations as a special case of a more
general relationship which obtains between the components of all
generated compounds, natural or artifactual. The notions of form and
matter are themselves, however, developed within the context of a
general theory of causation and explanation which appears in one guise
or another in all of Aristotle’s mature works.
According to this theory, when we wish to explain what there is to
know, for example, about a bronze statue, a complete account
necessarily alludes to at least the following four factors: the
statue’s matter, its form or structure, the agent responsible for that
matter’s manifesting its form or structure, and the purpose for which
the matter was made to realize that form or structure. These four
factors he terms the four causes (aitiai): The material cause: that
from which something is generated and out of which it is made, e.g.
the bronze of a statue. The formal cause: the structure which the
matter realizes and in terms of which the matter comes to be something
determinate, e.g. the Hermes shape in virtue of which this quantity of
bronze is said to be a statue of Hermes. The efficient cause: the
agent responsible for a quantity of matter’s coming to be informed,
e.g. the sculptor who shaped the quantity of bronze into its current
Hermes shape. The final cause: the purpose or goal of the compound of
form and matter, e.g. the statue was created for the purpose of
honoring Hermes. For a broad range of cases, Aristotle implicitly
makes twin claims about these four causes: (i) a complete explanation
requires reference to all four; and (ii) once such reference is made,
no further explanation is required. Thus, when appropriate, appeal to
the four causes is both necessary and sufficient for complete and
adequate explanation. Although not all things which admit of
explanation have all four causes, e.g. geometrical figures are not
efficiently caused, even a brief overview of his psychological
writings reveals that Aristotle regards all four causes as in play in
the explanation of living beings. A monkey, for example, has matter,
its body; form, its soul; an efficient cause, its parent; and a final
cause, its function. Moreover, he holds that the form is the actuality
of the body which is its matter: an indeterminate lump of bronze
becomes a statue only when it realizes some particular statue-shape.
So, Aristotle suggests, that matter is potentially some F until it
acquires an actualizing form, when it becomes actually F. Given his
overarching explanatory schema, it is hardly surprising that Aristotle
should advance a hylomorphic account of soul and body; this is, for
him, standard explanatory procedure. Still, it is noteworthy that this
four-causal framework of explanation is developed initially in
response to some puzzles about change and generation. Aristotle argues
with some justification that all change and generation require the
existence of something complex: when a statue comes to be from a lump
of bronze, there is some continuing subject, the bronze, and something
it comes to acquire, its new form. Thus the statue is, and must be, a
certain kind of compound, one of form and matter. Without this type of
complexity, generation would be impossible; since generation in fact
occurs, form and matter must be genuine features of generated
compounds. Similarly, but less obviously, qualitative change requires
much the same apparatus: when a statue is painted, there is some
continuing subject, the statue, and a new feature acquired, its new
color. Here too there is complexity, and complexity which is readily
articulated in terms of form and matter, but now of form which is
evidently inessential to the continued existence of the entity whose
form it is. The statue continues to exist, but receives a form which
is accidental to it; it might lose that form without going out of
existence. By contrast, should the statue lose its essential form, as
would happen for example if the bronze which constitutes it were
melted, divided, and recast as twelve dozen letter openers, it would
cease to exist altogether. For the purposes of understanding
Aristotle’s psychology, the origin of Aristotle’s hylomorphism is
significant for two reasons. First, from its inception, Aristotle’s
hylomorphism exploits two distinct but related notions of form, one of
which is essential to the compound whose form it is, and the other of
which is accidental to its subject. In advancing his view of the soul
and its capacities, Aristotle employs both of these notions: the soul
is an essential form, whereas perception involves the acquisition of
accidental forms. Second, because Aristotle’s hylomorphism was
initially developed to handle puzzles of change and generation, its
deployment in philosophical psychology is sometimes strained, insofar
as Aristotle is not immediately willing to treat every instance of
perception and thought as a straightforward instance of change in some
continuing subject. Hylomorphic Soul-Body Relations In applying his
general hylomorphism to soul-body relations, Aristotle contends that
the following general analogy obtains: soul : body : : form :
matter : : Hermes-shape : bronze If the soul bears the same relation
to the body which the shape of a statue bears to its material basis,
then we should expect some general features to be common to both; and
we should be able to draw some immediate consequences regarding the
relationship between soul and body. To begin, some questions about the
unity of soul and body, an issue of concern to substance dualists and
materialists alike, receive a ready response. Materialists hold that
all mental states are also physical states; substance dualists deny
this, because they hold that the soul is a subject of mental states
which can exist alone, when separated from the body. In a certain way,
the questions which give rise to this dispute simply fall by the
wayside. If we do not think there is an interesting or important
question concerning whether the Hermes-shape and its material basis
are one, we should not suppose there is a special or pressing question
about whether the soul and body are one. So Aristotle contends: It is
not necessary to ask whether soul and body are one, just as it is not
necessary to ask whether the wax and its shape are one, nor generally
whether the matter of each thing and that of which it is the matter
are one. For even if one and being are spoken of in several ways, what
is properly so spoken of is the actuality (De Anima ii 1, 412b6-9).
Aristotle does not here eschew questions concerning the unity of soul
and body as meaningless; rather, he seems, in a deflationary vein, to
suggest that they are readily answered or somehow unimportant. If we
do not spend time worrying about whether the wax of a candle and its
shape are one, then we should not exercise ourselves over the question
of whether the soul and body are one. The effect, then, is to fit soul-
body relations into a larger pattern of explanation, hylomorphism, in
terms of which questions of unity do not normally arise. It should be
emphasized, however, that Aristotle does not here decide the question
by insisting that the soul and body are identical, or even that they
are one in some weaker sense; indeed, this is something he evidently
denies (De Anima ii 1, 412a17; ii 2, 414a1-20). Instead, just as one
might well insist that the wax of a candle and its shape are distinct,
on the grounds that the wax could easily exist when the particular
shape is no more, or, less obviously, that the particular shape could
survive the replenishment of its material basis, so one might equally
deny that the soul and body are identical. In a fairly direct way,
though, the question of whether soul and body are one loses its force
when it is allowed that it contains no implications beyond those we
establish for any other hylomorphic compound, including houses and
other ordinary artifacts. One way of appreciating this is to consider
a second general moral Aristotle derives from hylomorphism. This
concerns the question of the separability of the soul from the body, a
possibility embraced by substance dualists from the time of Plato
onward. Aristotle’s hylomorphism commends the following attitude: if
we do not think that the Hermes-shape persists after the bronze is
melted and recast, we should not think that the soul survives the
demise of the body. So, Aristotle claims, It is not unclear that the
soulor certain parts of it, if it naturally has partsis not
separable from the body (De Anima ii 1, 413a3-5). So, unless we are
prepared to treat forms in general as capable of existing without
their material bases, we should not be inclined to treat souls as
exceptional cases. Hylomorphism, by itself, gives us no reason to
treat souls as separable from bodies, even if we think of them as
distinct from their material bases. At the same time, Aristotle does
not appear to think that his hylomorphism somehow refutes all possible
forms of dualism. For he appends to his denial of the soul’s
separability the observation that some parts of the soul may in the
end be separable after all, since they are not the actualities of any
part of the body (De Anima ii 1, 413a6-7). Aristotle here prefigures
his complex attitude toward mind (nous), a faculty he repeatedly
describes as exceptional among capacities of the soul. Still, in
general, the soul is the form of the body in much the same way the
form of a house structures the bricks and mortar from which it is
built. When the bricks and mortar realize a certain shape, they
manifest the function definitive of houses, namely that of providing
shelter. Thus, the presence of the form makes those bricks and that
mortar a house, as opposed, e.g., to a wall or an oven. As we have
seen, Aristotle will say that the bricks and mortar, as matter, are
potentially a house, until they realize the form appropriate to
houses, in which case the form and matter together make an actual
house. So, in Aristotle’s terms, the form is the actuality of the
house, since its presence explains why this particular quantity of
matter comes to be a house as opposed to some other kind of artifact.
In the same way, then, the presence of the soul explains why this
matter is the matter of a human being, as opposed to some other kind
of thing. Now, this way of looking at soul-body relations as a special
case of form-matter relations treats reference to the soul as an
integral part of any complete explanation of a living being, of any
kind. To this degree, Aristotle thinks that Plato and other dualists
are right to stress the importance of the soul in explanations of
living beings. At the same time, he sees their commitment to the
separability of the soul from the body as unmotivated by a mere appeal
to formal causation: he will allow that the soul is distinct from the
body, and is indeed the actuality of the body, but he sees that these
concessions by themselves provide no grounds for supposing that the
soul can exist without the body. His hylomorphism, then, embraces
neither reductive materialism nor Platonic dualism. Instead, it seeks
to steer a middle course between these alternatives by pointing out,
implicitly, and rightly, that these are not exhaustive options.
The term “hylemorphism” is made up of two Greek words, hyle “matter”
and morphe “form,” and refers to the theory on the ultimate
constitution of bodies as proposed by the Perennial Philosophy, that
is, those who are within the tradition of Aristotle, Aquinas, and
other commonsense philosophical realists. This theory holds that a
body is composed of primal matter and substantial form. It is the
theory first explained by Aristotle, four centuries before the birth
of Christ, and it can be said that it stands miles above any
alternative theory proposed since. For it meets the full problem it
seeks to solve, and it offers a full solution.
The theory of hylemorphism is not revealed truth; it is not a theory
that can claim divine authority. But it is a theory which, despite
difficulties, has weathered the intellectual and experimental storms
of nearly twenty-five hundred years, and is still the only rounded
explanation of the nature of bodies that we possess. It has thus a
sound claim upon the attention of our minds. It has a very strong
case.
Yet there has been, among those not in the philosophical tradition of
Aristotle, a marked tendency to condemn this theory without
investigating it, and even some of those in the Aristotelian tradition
have learned to speak of it with something of a cold and aloof manner.
Even men who, in most of their philosophical work, merit our respect,
stoop to the indecency and the dishonesty of condemning or ridiculing
hylemorphism without having the slightest conception of what the
theory actually teaches, or rather, with a totally wrong conception of
what it teaches.
Now, there are two facts about any actual bodily substance that a
philosophy of bodies must face and explain:
First: the bodily substance is a body. But it is more than that, for
it is quite impossible for a body to exist without a specific
determinant. We cannot say that a bodily substance actually exists as
a body and nothing more; that it is no kind of bodily substance, but
just pure body.
Second: it must be said about an actual body that it is a determinate
specific or essential kind of body. In a word, some substantial
principle must explain the bodiliness of a body; and some substantial
principle, fused into substantial unity with the first, must explain
the existing specific character of a body.
Hylemorphism calls the first of these principles primal matter or
prime matter and the second of these principles substantial form.
Let us envision the favorite figure of of the old-fashioned novelist.
Let us contemplate “the solitary horseman” riding between rows of
trees along a rocky road. We shall not pause upon the romantic
suggestions of the picture. We shall coldly reduce it to its elements
for purposes of philosophical illustration. We shall consider these
four things: the man, the horse, the trees, the rocks. Here we have
four examples of bodily substance. And the first truth about them is
that they are all bodies, one as much as another, one as truly and
completely as another.
Yet, since we are not monists, we face the further fact that, although
all these bodies are bodies, they are essentially or specifically
different kinds of bodies. Each is a bodily substance; there is no
mere accidental in their true bodiliness. Nor is there any mere
accidental in their difference as bodily substances. For a substance
that is living, like the tree, is substantially different from the
substance which lacks life, like the rock. And a substance that has
sentiency, like the horse, is substantially different from a non-
sentient substance, like the tree. And, finally, a substance which has
understanding and will (that is, rational life), is substantially
different from a substance which lacks these perfections; so that the
man and the horse are different by no mere accidental difference, but
by a substantial difference.
The four bodies are all bodily substance, yet the four bodies differ
from one another as substances. There must be, therefore, a dual
substantial principle, or, more accurately, two substantially fused
substantial principles in each of these bodies. For the four things
are in agreement, they are at one as bodily substances, and, at the
same time, they are not the same substance at all, but are
substantially different.
There must be a substantial principle in each of the four which is the
basis of its bodiliness; and,
There must be a substantial principle in each of the four which is the
substantial determinant of the kind of substance that it is.
The first of these principles is prime matter; the second is
substantial form.
Prime matter is the substantial principle found in all bodies. It is
common to all bodies. It is the common substrate of all bodies. In
point of prime matter, all bodies are at one. So far, monism is right;
but monism goes calamitously wrong when it stops here. Prime matter is
wholly without determinateness in itself. It cannot exist itself, for,
as we have noticed, it is impossible for an existing body to be just a
body and no more, that is, just a body, and not any kind of body.
Prime matter is substantial, but it is an incomplete substance; it
requires another substantial thing to exist with it, or rather to give
it existence in a determinate body. And this other substantial
principle (unless it be a spiritual principle) requires prime matter
to determine and make exist as a body; this other substantial is also
an incomplete substance. Each leans on each, although the one (prime
matter) is the determinable element, and the other (the substantial
form) is the determining element.
Prime matter is called pure potentiality, that is, pure capacity for
existence as a body. It is a capacity which must be filled up,
determined, made into the only existible body (that is a specific kind
of existing body) by a substantial principle other than itself. And,
since the result of the union of this determining principle with prime
matter is a single bodily substance, the union itself must be a
substantial union, the substantial fusing of two substantial
principles into an actuality which is a third thing, and not prime
matter alone, not substantial form alone, but an existing body of a
specific kind. This, of course, is perfectly in accord with our common
sense, critically examined and expanded.
Prime matter then cannot exist itself, unformed. It does exist, but
not alone. It exists as the common substrate of all existing bodies.
It is that which makes any body a body; not actively, but by passively
receiving the impress and union of the substantial form. For the whole
character of prime matter is its passivity, its inertness, its
indifference (or lack of tendency) to become this kind of body rather
than another, in a word, its potentiality.
Substantial form, however, is active, determining. It makes the body
actual (that is, an existing body) in a definite specific kind of
actual bodiliness. The result of the substantial union of substantial
form with prime matter is called second matter; and, of course, second
matter means an existing bodily substance. Substantial form is the
root and source of bodily actuality, of substantial determinateness,
of activity. Prime matter is wholly potential, indeterminate, inactive
or inert.
The theory of hylemorphism is not a mere clever invention. It is an
explanation based upon the facts of a case. And the test of its value
is the fact that it stands up. It has faced many difficulties. There
are cases that seem to upset it. But careful investigation has always
justified it.
The progress of experimental science, the splitting of the atom, the
place and apparent power of one electron more or less in the
constitution of a definite substance, — each of these facts, and
others of like character, have seemed to some philosophers and to many
scientists to be in conflict with the theory of hylemorphism. But it
is not so.
There is no value in an argument of this sort: “If I knock out an
electron of an atom of substance-A and find that I now have substance-
B, it seems that these were basically one substance to start with.”
The answer is that it seems nothing of the sort.
The difference is not a mere difference of accidental character
because a number of like particles is an accidental thing in itself.
For, although substances act upon one another through powers which are
in themselves accidental, the activity is truly of substance upon
substance. And if an electron more, or an electron less, should induce
change, this may well be a substantial change. It may well be a change
of structure unsuited to the enduring of a certain substantial form,
which disappears in consequence; and the new structure receives
simultaneously that substantial which it is suited to support. You
change the substance of coal into a variety of substances loosely
called “ashes and smoke” by applying the substance of fire. Yet this
substantial change is affected by powers and capacities of the
substances concerned, and these capacities and powers are, in
themselves, as accidental as a mere numerical sum or numerical
arrangement of electrons. The splitting of the atom, or the discovery
of the character and function of electrons, is no more a new
difficulty to the philosopher of bodily actuality than is the
shoveling of coal on the furnace fire.
Indeed, if we shortsightedly declare that true substantial change does
not occur, that all substances are the same determinate substance, we
still must identify that substance as bodily (that is, as having prime
matter) and as determinate in its kind of bodiliness (that is, as
having substantial form). So hylemorphism stands in any case.
But to make all substances one substance is to fall into a self-
contradictory theory called monism. It is to destroy the value of the
theory itself which is proposed as true and certain, for if monism
were true, human certitude would be bankrupt. By their fruits you
shall know them; a theory which leads logically to skepticism or to
monism or to both, is a theory that bears the evil fruits of falsity.
The fact that there is an apparent difficulty on the side of sanity is
surely no excuse for going insane. It is rather a strong challenge to
the champions of sanity to study its resources more completely and
apply its powers more thoroughly and astutely.
For, argue as you will, experiment as you choose, the fact remains and
will ever remain that any bodily substance is bodily and is a certain
specific kind. Any body has, of plain necessity, matter and form. If
you consider the terms old-fashioned, you are privileged to invent
more pleasing ones. But you cannot change facts by changing names.
There are persons indeed who say that there is no substantial change.
Yet these persons would have a hard time proving their assertion, and
the proof lies with them because they make the claim in the face of
common human experience and of common human certitude. They have to
prove a universal negative experimentally; any logician will be
pleased to point out to them the difficulties of their situation.
The change from a living body to a corpse is indubitably a substantial
change. For everything by which we identify the organic unity and the
substantial character of the living body is not only changed by the
thing called death, but all the processes once in possession and in
operation are actually reversed. Instead of organic unity, we have
(immediately upon death) a strong tendency to disunity and diversity;
instead of a unified drive or tendency to vital function, we have the
tendency to rest and equilibrium. In a word, by all the tests which
distinguish one kind of body from another, the corpse is a radically
different kind of thing from the living body. Substantial change is a
fact. Another interesting example of substantial change is the change
of bread and butter into the living flesh of the diner.
Now, if substantial change is a fact, it is an inexplicable fact
unless two things are acknowledged:
The substances concerned (the substance changed, and the substance
which is the result of change); and
Some substantial actuality which supports the change.
When food is digested, it is not a mere preliminary process which
annihilates the food, a meaningless process which is unaccountably
accompanied by the creation of blood cells. The ceasing of the food to
be food is the emerging of the blood cells which came from the change
of food. There is no annihilation (an abrupt and complete cessation of
being) and a simultaneous creation (an abrupt and entire production
out of nothing of a new being wholly unrelated to the other).
No, there is a substantial change of food into blood. Now, a change is
a transit, a going-over. And a going-over requires a support which
does not go over, but which is determined in bodily being first by one
determinant, and, this giving way, by a new determinant which
instantly takes the place of that which gives away. The support of
substantial change is itself a substantial thing, and a substantial
element of each of the two substantial bodily beings in turn. This
support of substantial change is called prime matter; the substantial
determinant which makes it one kind of body, and then the new
substantial determinant which makes it another substantial body, is
called, each in its turn, substantial form. Again, you may not like
the terms matter and form, but you cannot deny the facts for which
they stand. Substantial change is inexplicable without hylemorphism,
although, as we say, you might like it under a more modern name, such
as precipitation, or galvanization, or the etiology of substantial
emergence.
We have said that there are four theories which propose themselves as
fundamental philosophies of bodies, although three of them are not
fundamental at all. All philosophies of bodies must, in last analysis,
be resolved into one or other of these four forms. Now, we have found
that three of these four theories are unacceptable, for they conflict
with experience and are in themselves self-contradictory. Therefore,
by exclusion, we prove the one acceptable theory to be the true
theory. This is the theory of hylemorphism.
We stand, therefore, by the theory of hylemorphism. We defend it, not
as partisans “taking sides,” but as philosophers, lovers of wisdom,
seekers of truth. We refuse to leave what is manifestly reasonable,
although sometimes difficult of application, in favor of what is
manifestly unreasonable and often impossible of application. Hence our
acceptance of hylemorphism is right and reasonable; it is worlds away
from the stubborn business of taking sides in a free debate. In a
word, we accept hylemorphism on evidence. Most of those who reject it
do so by reason of mood, or temperament, or prejudice, or the desire
to keep pace with the current scientistic fashion. It is not difficult
to decide which of the parties stands on the more solid ground.
Summary of the Section
In this Section we have defined body, and have learned that a bodily
substance is, by its nature, composed, changeable, contingent, and
limited.
We have investigated the proper accident of bodily substance known as
quantity or extension.
We have described internal extension and external extension, and have
noticed that external extension is a secondary effect of true
quantity.
We have noticed the effects of quantity on a natural body: external
extension, impenetrability, divisibility, measurability.
We have defined a continuum, a contiguum, and discrete quantity, and
have found that the basis of quantity in bodies is perfectly
continuous matter.
We have investigated briefly the quantities known as space and time.
We have seen that natural bodies are truly the source of activity, and
we have distinguished activity or action as immanent (or “vital”) and
transient.
We have noticed the essential flaw in the cosmologies of “matter and
motion” as an explanation of the bodily world.
We have studied the ultimate constitution of bodies, listing the four
types of doctrine (monism, atomism, dynamism, hylemorphism) and have
found that hylemorphism alone is without self-contradiction, without
conflict with experience, and is in itself a doctrine that squares
with the facts it purports to explain.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:16 pm
From: Immortalist
On Mar 29, 3:08 pm, Shrikeback wrote:
> On Mar 29, 7:26 am, Zerkon wrote:
>
>
>
> > The phrase ‘A is A’ apparently sums up Aristotle’s Law of Identity or
> > “Everything that exists has a specific nature”. Everything is self
> > defining therefore any assigned attributes (eg: “A is Round”) violates
> > the specificity or identity of A.
>
> > “A is A” therefore is a dumbed down version of the more accurate “A is”
> > or the still more accurate definition of A as being “A”, finally reaching
> > the most accurate unspoken A as existing without need for any definition.
> > However since neither “A is” or “A” nor a silent A conveys clear meaning,
> > “A is A” is commonly used among Objectivists and those who want to
> > impress others with their deep wit. Deep in what exactly remains
> > uncertain.
>
> > Tragically, sadly and most horribly this becomes self-defeating if it is
> > used to affirm a pure objective reality because an abstract precondition
> > must immediately be met.
>
> > ‘A’ is forced, whipped and enslaved into represent some thing it is not.
> > Or, first let ‘A’ represent any idea of any object. After this A is A.
>
> > ‘A’, the written or typed physical entity, can not define itself and
> > remain “A is A” true. A, the first ‘A’ typed, can not be also ‘A’ since
> > it is the second ‘A’ typed. It is only a by a leap in logic, disguised as
> > coherent reason of course, the two ‘A’s become as one. Only a small step
> > away from a trinity “A is A is A” which opens to the infinity “Rose is a
> > rose is a rose is a rose.”
>
> > I, for one, prefer “Everything that exists has a specific nature” and be
> > done with it. Until, of course, the topic of existence itself arises,
> > arises, arises, arises.
>
> I always took it as a logical law, a part of the definition
> of the equivalence operator. A = A, because that’s a
> assumed part of the definition of what it means for two
> things to be equivalent.
So you just assume that the theory of “equivalence” is true? What
would support such a theory? What would constitute evidence outside of
inductive probability and the frequency of observations that such were
true by necessity as many maths assume wrongly?
———————————-
MATHEMATICS: A PEEK INTO THE MIND OF GOD?
Roseanne Benn and Rob Burton
University of Exeter, UK
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~PErnest/pome/pompart2.htm
- Certainty and neutrality
- Mathematics as a Social Construct
- A Eurocentric Bias
- Teaching and Learning
- An alternative approach
- Conclusion
——————————-
I wanted certainty in the kind of way in which people want religious
faith. I thought that certainty was more likely to be found in
mathematics than elsewhere. But I discovered that many mathematical
demonstrations, which my teachers expected me to accept, were full of
fallacies…. Having constructed an elephant upon which the
mathematical world could rest, I found the elephant tottering, and
proceeded to construct a tortoise to keep the elephant from falling.
But the tortoise was no more secure than the elephant, and after some
twenty years of very arduous toil, I came to the conclusion that there
was nothing more that I could do… (Russell 1956 pp.54-55)
- Certainty and neutrality
For over two thousand years, mathematics has been dominated by the
belief that it is a body of infallible and objective truth, far
removed from the affairs and values of humanity (Ernest 1991 p.xi).
This body of truth is seen as existing in its own right independently
of whether anyone believes or even knows about it. Bloor (1973 p.43)
argues that this belief in the independent existence of mathematical
truth implies that mathematics is a realm, a bounded territory.
Knowledge and the use of mathematics then requires two stages, access
to the realm and then activity within it. The first stage is fallible.
Hence discussion of the process of selection and education and the
influences which promote or inhibit access to mathematical skills is
possible. However what happens within mathematics itself is regarded
as closed to discussion. This is seen as predetermined and certain.
Therefore a mathematical calculation is the tracing out of what is
already there, the calculation exists ‘in advance’. It was this belief
in the certainty of mathematics which allowed Kant to write:
We can say with confidence that certain pure a priori synthetical
cognitions, pure mathematics and pure physics, are actual and given;
for both contain propositions which are thoroughly recognised as
absolutely certain…and yet as independent of experience. (Kant,
1783)
In more recent times there have been serious critiques of this belief
in the certainty of mathematics, the belief that fundamentally
mathematics exists apart from the human beings that do mathematics and
that Pi is in the sky. However, as argued by Davis (1986 p.164), the
reception given to opponents of this belief still ranges from coolness
to indifference. We argue that this belief is not only deep in the
psyche of mathematicians but also of learners and teachers and its
influence still distorts mathematics education.
- Mathematics as a Social Construct
The certainty of mathematics has been under question. A growing number
of mathematicians and philosophers are arguing that mathematics is
fallible, changing and the product of human inventiveness (Ernest
1991). Others (Bloor 1973;Wittgenstein 1956) argue that rather than a
calculation corresponding to an absolute truth , this truth is located
in utility and the enduring character of social practice.
And of course there is such a thing as right and wrong…but what is
the reality that ‘right’ accords with here? Presumably a convention,
or a use, and perhaps our practical requirements (Wittgenstein 1956).
They argue that mathematics is not a body of truth existing outside
human experience. It is a construct or an invention rather than a
discovery, a collection of norms and hence social in nature.
Sociologists and mathematicians such as Ashley and Betebenner (1993)
argue that philosophers have tried but failed to show how modern
mathematics and science either pictured the world as it was or used a
perfectly consistent, neutral meta-language. They suggest that
mathematics did not develop in a cultural or social vacuum but rather
that it reflects and magnifies cultural transformations. Hersh (1986 p.
25) echoes Russell’s regret at the loss of certainty but still argues
against the attempt to root mathematics in some non-human reality and
for the acceptance of the nature of mathematics as a certain kind of
human mental activity. He suggests that the result would be a loss of
some age-old hopes but a clearer understanding of what we are doing
and why.
This attack on the certainty of mathematics led to the questioning of
its neutrality. If mathematics is certain, if it reflects the God-like
power of innate, transcendent human reason, if it is a body of
absolute truth, and if the answers are already written, then it is
independent. It must be neutral. However if mathematics is a social
construct, an invention not a discovery, then it carries a social
responsibility.
- A Eurocentric Bias
A proponent of this view, Joseph (1987 pp.22-23) suggests that the
present structure of mathematics education is Eurocentric, being based
upon four histographic pillars:-
the general disinclination to locate mathematics in a materialistic
base and thus to link its development with economic, political, and
cultural changes;
the confinement of mathematical pursuits to an elite few who are
believed to possess the requisite qualities or gifts denied the vast
majority of humanity;
the widespread acceptance of the view that mathematical discovery can
only follow from a rigorous application of a form of deductive
axiomatic logic believed to be a unique product of Greek mathematics;
hence, intuitive or empirical methods are dismissed as having little
mathematical relevance;
the belief that the presentation of mathematical results must con form
to the formal and didactic style devised by the Greeks over 2,000
years ago and that, as a corollary, the validations of new additions
to mathematical knowledge can only be taken by a small, self selecting
coterie whose control over the acquisition and dissemination of such
knowledge has a highly Eurocentric character.
Many writers (Joseph 1987; Anderson 1990; Bishop 1990) argue that the
Eurocentric bias of mathematics infuses the subject with an elitist,
racist and sexist bias. They argue that the belief in the certainty
and neutrality of mathematics and science deprives these subjects of
any cultural or social context. Hence mathematics and the natural
sciences place no value upon the historical, cultural or political
milieu within which they are located. Indeed mathematicians such as
Pythagoras, Euclid, Cauchy-Riemann, Fourier, and Newton are cited as
the source of western mathematics without any further reference to the
times within which they lived or to the influences upon their work.
They are abstracted from time and space and presented as if they and
their work are timeless, complete and the absolute truth. This
separation from culture and relevance makes mathematics inaccessible
to those already alienated from society by educational disadvantage
and by gender, race and class.
So we have outlined two incompatible views of mathematics. One is
premised on certainty, neutrality, the peek into the mind of God. The
other sees mathematics as a social construct and hence open to change,
progress and development and as an unfinished project. These differing
views lead to a fundamentally different approach to mathematics
teaching and learning and hence different attitudes of students to
learning mathematics.
- Teaching and Learning
The British education system still fails to provide a substantial
proportion of the population with even basic mathematical skills
(Cockcroft 1982). Even worse, it leaves many with an abiding dislike
of the subject. We will now examine mathematics education in the
context of the belief in the certainty and neutrality of mathematics
for part of the explanation of this failure.
The concept of mathematics as a body of infallible and objective
truth, whilst questioned by many mathematicians and philosophers,
appears to be still widely held by society, teachers and students. An
analysis of both the Cockcroft Report (1982) and a report by Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate which looked into the nature of mathematics
teaching in Britain (1985), concludes that the mathematical approach
taken in schools in Britain :
“….is that an absolutist view of mathematics is assumed.” (Ernest
1991 p.223)
This perception that mathematics is a certain and neutral subject
clearly has a number of consequences for the teaching of the subject.
Abstracted from any socio-political context, mathematics can be taught
within the strictures of its own boundaries thus retaining for the
pupils its mysticism and ritualistic nature. Certainly much work has
been done since the introduction of mathematics into the mass
education system to increase understanding of mathematics. However,
just as certainly the history of mathematics is one of failure on a
large scale for the students of mathematics. The Cockcroft Report
notes that at the time the report was written ‘about…one-third of
the year group, leave school without any mathematical qualifications
in ‘O’level or ‘CSE’(1982 p.56.)
It seems that despite calls for over one hundred years for an approach
to mathematics that interests and stimulates children at school,
mathematics is still a subject that confuses and alienates. A school
inspector wrote in 1989 that she was horrified to find that at both
primary and secondary level “nobody seemed to enjoy mathematics; not
even the teachers” (Cross 1990 p.4)
Writers such as Rogers (1969), Dewey (1964) and Knowles (1980) argue
that learners are self-directed beings who learn best when they
perceive the relevance of knowledge to their lives, and when learning
is related to problem solving. If mathematics is perceived as a fixed
and unvarying body of truth independent of social concerns, then it is
difficult to see any room for negotiation or where life experiences
can be used in the learning process. If mathematics is neutral it has
little to contribute to the learner’s knowledge of themselves or their
immediate world. All this contributes to a lack of motivation and
hence a tendency to failure. As Thom writes:
In practice a mathematician’s thought is never a formalised one…one
accedes to absolute rigour only by eliminating meaning; absolute
rigour is only possible in, and by, such destitution of meaning. But
if one must choose between rigour and meaning, I shall unhesitatingly
choose the latter. (Thom, 1973, pp202-203)
- An alternative approach
The Cockcroft Report (1982 p.71) suggested that there are three
elements in mathematics teaching – facts and skills, conceptual
structures, and general strategies and appreciation. The last is of
interest to this paper. General strategies are defined as procedures
which guide the choice of which skills to use and which knowledge to
draw on. Crucially they enable a problem to be approached with
confidence and with the expectation that a solution will be possible.
With these strategies is associated an awareness of the nature of
mathematics and attitudes towards it. An alternative approach to
mathematics teaching can be developed by adopting an alternative view
of the nature of mathematics. What follows are two examples of viewing
mathematics, not as a certain, abstract, neutral discipline but as a
human invention, a world of ideas created not by God but by human
beings.
Anderson, horrified at the high failure rate at all levels of
mathematics by non-whites in the United States (Commission on
Professionals in Science and Technology 1986), developed a non-
Eurocentric approach to mathematics teaching that by jettisoning the
absolutist approach endeavours to ensure the relevance of mathematics
and hence make it accessible to all (1990). Anderson has employed this
approach with a full spectrum of college students, but principally
Black and Latino adults (young and old). The early sessions are
discussions on the historical, cultural, and socio-political
implications of mathematics. At all stages an emphasis is placed on
the role of other races and cultures in the development of the
subject. The importance of mathematics to real people in real life is
drawn out by regular class discussions of current issues in the social
and natural sciences, the development of technology and job market
skills. The emphasis is on the quality of mathematics knowledge rather
than the quantity, thus reducing the time pressure. Anderson claims
that this approach leads to students having a more positive, self-
assured attitude about themselves successfully doing mathematics.
The Department of Adult and Continuing Education at the University of
Exeter has completed a year long research project to see if
mathematics acts as a barrier to access to higher education to adult
returners. On the basis of data gathered from a national survey of
Access courses (Benn and Burton 1993), it became clear that, as with
Anderson’s work, Access mathematics tutors were succeeding with groups
who had low levels of general education and very low levels of earlier
achievement and confidence in mathematics. Access courses are targeted
at those groups traditionally under-represented in higher education
namely women, ethnic minorities, unemployed and those from working
class backgrounds. For these groups to succeed, their attitudes and
approaches to mathematics have to be fundamentally changed. They need
to see the subject not as one more absolute, unyielding barrier but as
social construct, a tool pliable to their bidding. This is done by
breaking down the concept of mathematics as a body of infallible and
objective truth and giving ownership and control of the subject to the
students. Access mathematics tutors reported that the main elements of
their teaching is encouragement and understanding; that tutors need to
be patient and remove the often difficult and disabling pressures of
time and that Access mathematics needs to be taught in context and
have a relevancy to real life and other parts of the course. They note
that the involvement of students and tutors in free discussion and
dialogue in a supportive atmosphere helps students develop
confidence.
Initial contact with mathematics staff was seen as important, with
clear and friendly pre-course counselling essential. If possible pre-
course assistance and\or workshops should be available. Students
should be given an honest indication of the work involved. It is
reassuring for students if maths phobia and the reasons for it are
discussed early in the course. The methodological approaches
recommended are open access workshops, flexible learning tutorial
packs, self-help groups and a modular approach with one-to-one support
most frequently mentioned even in these financially constrained days.
There is an urgent need to build confidence by showing that it is
acceptable to be wrong and by placing the emphasis on methods rather
than answers; to develop a positive attitude to mathematics by
encouraging students to take ownership of mathematics by messing
around with, exploring and enjoying numbers. The survey showed that
students were coming onto the Access courses very worried by the
mathematics component but the techniques outlined gave them a sense of
confidence and control.
- Conclusion
This paper has discussed two incompatible views of mathematics, that
of a body of infallible and objective truth rooted in the belief in
the essential certainty and neutrality of the subject and that of
mathematics as a social construct.
The danger of regarding mathematics as a God-given, absolute subject
is that it may, and arguably has, lead to an absolutist pedagogy which
ensures that mathematics remains a collection of rules and facts to be
remembered, a subject that has a mystique which makes it accessible
only to a chosen few. It remains a subject that seems to have very
little relevance to life outside of the classroom, but where success
or failure has implications for a persons self or moral worth (see
Buxton 1981).
This pedagogical approach has had limited success when the whole body
of students in Britain is considered. Its failure is even more marked
with groups that consistently underachieve in our education system,
groups such as ethnic minorities, the working class and girls or
women. As has been illustrated earlier, practitioners in the field who
are teaching these groups have developed alternative approaches. They
set mathematics in a historical, cultural and socio-political
environment and they ensure a more relevant syllabus set in the
context of every-day life. They ensure mathematics is seen like other
disciplines as a negotiated journey, a quest and a voyage of
discovery.
The main result is an increase in student motivation with subsequent
increase in success. This practice, though perhaps pragmatic rather
than theoretical in origin, reflects the view of philosophers such as
Wittgenstein that mathematics far from being a body of truth is in
fact a collection of norms. Far from a peek into the mind of God, it
is not even supported by a tortoise. And, most interestingly, this
practice appears to work.
References
Anderson, S E (1990), Worldmath Curriculum: Fighting Eurocentrism in
Mathematics, jOURNAL OF nEGRO eDUCATION, 59:3.
Ashley, D and Betebenner, D (1993), Mathematics, Post-Modernism, and
the Loss of Certainty, Paper presented to the British Sociological
Association Annual Conference, University of Essex.
Benn, R and Burton, R. (1994) Access Mathematics: A Bridge over
Troubled Waters, Journal of Access Studies, 9:1.
Bishop, A J (1990), Western mathematics: The Secret Weapon of Cultural
Imperialism, Race and Class, 32:2.
Bloor, D (1973), Wittgenstein and Mannheim on the Sociology of
Mathematics, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 4:2, pp.
173 – 191.
Buxton, L (1981), Do You Panic About Maths:Coping with Maths Anxiety,
London: Heinemann
Cockcroft, W H (Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry into the Teaching
of Mathematics in Schools) (1982) Mathematics Counts, London: HMSO.
Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology (1986),
Scientific Manpower, 1987 and Beyond: Today’s Budget – Tomorrow’s
Workforce, Washington, DC.
Cross, K (1990), Sharing Perspectives: People Learning Mathematics,
Mathematics Teaching, 130.
Davis, P J (1986), Fidelity in Mathematical Discourse: Is One and One
Really Two?, in Tymoczko, T(ed) New Directions in the Philosophy of
Mathematics, Boston: Birkhauser.
Dewey, J (1964), Democracy and Education, London: Macmillan.
Ernest, P (1991), The Philosophy of Mathematics Education, London:
Falmer Press.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (1985), Mathematics from 5 to 16,
London:HMSO
Hersh, R(1986), Some Proposals for Reviving the Philosophy of
Mathematics, in Tymoczko, T (ed) New Directions in the Philosophy of
Mathematics, Boston: Birkhauser
Joseph, G G (1987), Foundations of Eurocentrism in Mathematics, Race
and Class XXVIII:3.
Kant, I (1783), Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics
Knowles, M S (1980), (2nd Ed) The Modern Practice of Adult Education
from Pedagogy to Andragogy, Chicago: Association Press.
Rogers, C R (1969), Freedom to Learn, Ohio:Merrill Publishing Company.
Russell, B (1956), Portraits From Memory and Other Essays, New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Thom, R (1973), Modern Mathematics: Does it Exist? in Howson, A G (ed)
Developments in Mathematical Education, Cambridge.
Wittgenstein, L (1956), Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics,
Oxford:Blackwell
——————————————————————————–
Maintained by Pam Rosenthall
email comments and suggestions
Last Modified: 18th October 1996
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~PErnest/pome/pompart2.htm
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~PErnest/pome/pome9.htm
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lead me not to temptation?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:00 pm
From: Sir Frederick
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:03:37 +0100, “White bird” wrote:
>The BORG are imaginary beings,
So is everyone else. They(‘we’) are virtually real.
In fact in a spooky way, the whole situation
is virtual, a kind of story. ‘Local’ meaning to us,
but nothing more. Filthy putative gods.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Media ignores democrat violence, as usual
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:03 pm
From: “Killing, Inc.”
On Mar 29, 5:09 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > Looks like the meia is ignoring sick democrats commiting violence and
> > making threats. Tea Patriots demonstrate peacefully while the left
> > throws eggs…..
>
> It’s very difficult to compete against rightard violence:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> Next question?
>
> Bret Cahill
Oh, you mean that “rightard” violence that never happened?
For all you know they could have been framed, and considering how
Democrats have no shortage of made-up stories and lies about the right
and tea party protesters, a frame-up is more likely than not.
Next question.
Democrats and other “progressive” fascists are still the dumbest
creatures on the planet.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: the Death of Ath*ism… FINISHED!
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:14 pm
From: Arindam Banerjee
On Mar 30, 5:21 am, “Rod Speed” wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 4:49 am, Anarcissie wrote:
> >> In article
> >> >> egroups.com>,
> >> M Purcell wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 27, 2:55 pm, *Anarcissie* wrote:
> >>>> M Purcell:
> >>>>> On Mar 26, 8:03 am, Anarcissie wrote:
> >>>>>> M Purcell wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mar 26, 6:36 am, Anarcissie wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Zerkon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:36:26 -0700, *Anarcissie* wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> My view is that “doublethink”, as George Orwell called it in
> >>>>>>>>>> 1984 — the ability to maintain two or more contradictory
> >>>>>>>>>> models of the world more or less continuously — is of
> >>>>>>>>>> considerable advantage to life and reproduction. Our faculty
> >>>>>>>>>> for this behavior is derived from evolutionary pressures.
>
> >>>>>>>>> de-evolutionary, I’d say.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Double-think was made possible by Newspeak. Newspeak was an
> >>>>>>>>> eradication of existing concepts. Opposition to the CorpState
> >>>>>>>>> became impossible because the concept ‘opposition to state’
> >>>>>>>>> was removed so thought about this was impossible.
>
> >>>>>>>> Doublethink appeared in nature long, long before _1984_. A
> >>>>>>>> medium-sized carnivore prowling through the brush hears
> >>>>>>>> something rustling. Is it lunch or a larger-sized carnivore?
> >>>>>>>> The m.s.c.
> >>>>>>>> must simultaneously entertain both contradictory possibilities
> >>>>>>>> until something happens to fill out one pattern or the other
> >>>>>>>> and then will have only a fraction of a second to act. It will
> >>>>>>>> not have time to construct a new model of the world because
> >>>>>>>> the previous one failed. Hence it constructs two (or more)
> >>>>>>>> provisional models and keeps them both in mind, however
> >>>>>>>> contradictory they may be.
>
> >>>>>>> You seem to have a contradictory equivocation of doublethink
> >>>>>>> with the fight or flee responce (resulting from ignorance of
> >>>>>>> the enviornment) and cognative dissonance (an internal
> >>>>>>> conflict). From what I understand, doublethink is a willful
> >>>>>>> contradiction.
>
> >>>>>> A necessary contradiction, although in the case of Big Brother
> >>>>>> (a many modern politicians) much of the difficulty is
> >>>>>> self-caused, such as simultaneously creating libertarian and
> >>>>>> authoritarian rhetoric which the public is expected to consume.
> >>>>>> So what is contradictory in my equivocation, if that’s what it
> >>>>>> is? I said that animals (including humans) are ignorant, so that
> >>>>>> they need the ability to maintain contradictory views of the
> >>>>>> world. Our small predator is in exactly this situation. If the
> >>>>>> s.p. took the time to work out things logically, it would
> >>>>>> probably wind up missing lunch or being lunch.
>
> >>>>> There are different types of contradictions, doublethink is not
> >>>>> the same as cognitive dissonance and neither are the same as an
> >>>>> adrenaline rush.
>
> >>>> I suppose one could get an adrenaline rush
> >>>> from either. But you are certainly correct that
> >>>> doublethink and cognitive dissonance are not the
> >>>> same. Cognitive dissonance is a sort of mental
> >>>> excitement which doublethinkers experience, or are
> >>>> suppose to experience, when their contradictory
> >>>> ideas rub up against one another. It’s probably
> >>>> a sort of intellectual taste — as I said, most
> >>>> people have no trouble entertaining contradictory
> >>>> ideas about the world.
>
> >>> You seem to find it exciting. I suppose there is an excitement in
> >>> discovering a contradiction which can lead to new knowledge but I
> >>> don’t believe that is considered cognitive dissonance while
> >>> “doublethink” is deliberate.
>
> >> To my observation, the practice of holding two or more
> >> contradictory ideas of the world with no apparent
> >> evidence of discomfort is the default case (and this is
> >> borne out by polls on political issues, as I have
> >> mentioned). This is what I’m calling “doublethink”.
> >> It doesn’t need to be practiced intentionally if it’s
> >> naturally the default. People just do it.
> > Criminals and madmen do doublethink naturally.
>
> Almost everyone does, most obviously with religion.
No. Only the literates are capable of doublethink. Does not mean all
literates are doublethinkers.
> At the most fundamental level that if there is just one
> ‘true’ god, how come there are so many of them ?
The illiterates I know would not agree to the if statement. They
have a highly advanced metaphysics.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:21 pm
From: Immortalist
On Mar 26, 5:42 am, “bigflet…@gmail.com”
wrote:
> On Mar 26, 8:46 am, Immortalist wrote:
>
> > Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>
> More a case of ‘know thyselve’s.
>
That would be more like “relax and know thyself and get eaten alive”
theory. Being disturbed/aroused by inconsistency is probably a
survival instinct. You don’t want to forget the cave man.
Error Management Theory
Humans live in an uncertain world. We rely on our senses to pick up
information from the world, and then use our information processing
capacities to make inferences about the true state of the world. Real
threats to our survival and relationships are not always readily
apparent, given the ambiguity and uncertainty of the information.
Consider a relatively simple problem of walking through the woods and
fleetingly sensing a slithering object scurry underneath some leaves
in the path directly in front of you. There are two possible states of
reality: either there is a dangerous snake in your path or there is
not a dangerous snake in your path. Given the incomplete and uncertain
information that you have percieved, there are also two inferences you
could make. There is indeed a dangerous snake, and you act to avoid
it. Or you could conclude that there is no snake and continue walking
down the path.
There are also two possible ways that you could be wrong. You could
believe that there is a snake when in fact no snake exists. Or you
could believe that no snake when in fact a venomous rattler is lurking
right in your path. The costs of these two types of errors, however,
are vastly different. In the first case, your belief causes you to
incur the trivial metabolic cost of taking an unnecessary evasive
action. By giving a wide birth to the area that you believe harbors a
snake, you have merely gone out of your way a little, incurring a
minor delay in your walk. In the second case, however, failing to
detect a snake that is in fact lurking in your path can cost you your
life. THe two ways of being wrong carry substantially different costs.
Now imagine that this scenario not only repeats itself thousands and
thousands of times in your liftime, but billions and billions of times
over human evolutionary history. Those who made the first kind of
mistake tended to survive, whereas those who made the second kind of
mistake tended to die. As a result, modern humans have descended from
a line of ancestors whose inferences about the uncertain world erred
in the direction of believing that snakes existed more than they do.
These can be called adaptive errors.
Consider uncertainty about whether your romantic partner is having an
affair or is likely to have an affair…. Continued on page 76 The
Dangerous Passion – Why jealousy is necessary as love and sex – David
M Buss
The Dangerous Passion:
Why Jealousy Is As Necessary As Love and Sex
by David M. Buss
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684850818/
> The part of the brain that responds to actions resulting in well being
> is often countered by the part that wants inactivity and laziness.
>
> We use a common term to ‘tame’ such contradictions, but most do not
> really grasp what they are saying. The term is ‘self discipline’ ,
> more accurately ‘selfs disciplined.
>
> Either aspects can dominate, which leads to inbalance. The ‘bits of
> the brain’ do not negotiate. “You” officiate.The ‘self’ is not being
> disciplined, but disciplining.
>
> Of course there are also ‘parts of the brain’ that, not understanding
> such basic principles, come up with all sorts of weird and wonderful
> theories.Not ‘full proof’ he states….Id never have guessed!!! (that
> comes from the sarcastic part of my brain, but ‘I’ decided to use it
> to emphasise a useful insight.)
>
> BOfL
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:23 pm
From: Immortalist
On Mar 26, 4:36 am, Zerkon wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:46:55 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
> > Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>
> > “Inconsistency among related beliefs . . .produces motivation to do
> > whatever is easiest in order to regain cognitive consistency or
> > consonance among beliefs.” –Jones and Gerard
>
> > Basically, cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs
> > whenever an individual simualtaniiously holds two cognitions (ideas,
> > attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent.
>
> Is this an example?
>
> A person likes pornography. This same person thinks pornography is bad.
> .. insert some resolve here ….
>
Not a very good example, you need one where it seems believable if two
contradictory thoughts happen simultaneously, like this trying to quit
smoking example;
Suppose a person smokes cigarettes and then reads a report of the
medical evidence linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer and other
respiratory diseases. The smoker experiences dissonance. The cognition
“I smoke cigarettes” is dissonant with the cognition “cigarette
smoking produces cancer.” Clearly, the most efficient way for this
person to reduce dissonance in such a situation is to give up smoking.
The cognition “cigarette smoking produces cancer” is consonant with
the cognition “I do not smoke.”
But, for most people, it is not easy to give up smoking. Imagine
Sally, a young woman who tried to stop smoking but failed. What will
she do to reduce dissonance? In all probability, she will try to work
on the other cognition: “cigarette smoking produces cancer.” Sally
might attempt to make light of evidence linking cigarette smoking to
cancer. For example, she might try to convince herself that the
experimental evidence is inconclusive. In addition, she might seek out
intelligent people who smoke and, by so doing, convince herself that
if Debbie, Nicole, and Larry smoke, it can’t be all that dangerous.
Sally might switch to a filter-tipped brand and delude herself into
believing that the filter traps the cancer-producing materials.
Finally, she might add cognitions that are consonant with smoking in
an attempt to make the behavior less absurd in spite of its danger.
Thus, Sally might enhance the value placed on smoking; that is, she
might come to believe smoking is an important and highly enjoyable
activity that is essential for relaxation: “I may lead a shorter life,
but it will be a more enjoyable one.” Similarly, she might try to make
a virtue out of smoking by developing a romantic, devil-may-care self-
image, flouting danger by smoking cigarettes. All such behavior
reduces dissonance by reducing the absurdity of the notion of going
out of one’s way to contract cancer. Sally has justified her behavior
by cognitively minimizing the danger or by exaggerating the importance
of the action. In effect, she has succeeded either in constructing a
new attitude or in changing an existing attitude.
Indeed, shortly after the publicity surrounding the original surgeon
general’s report in 1964, a survey was conducted to assess people’s
reactions to the new evidence that smoking helps cause cancer.
Nonsmokers overwhelmingly believed the health report, only 10 percent
of those queried saying that the link between smoking and cancer had
not been proven to exist; these respondents had no motivation to
disbelieve the report. The smokers faced a more difficult quandary.
Smoking is a difficult habit to break; only 9 percent of the smokers
had been able to quit. To justify continuing the activity, smokers
tended to debunk the report. They were more likely to deny the
evidence: 40 percent of the heavy smokers said a link had not been
proven to exist. They were also more apt to employ rationalizations:
Over twice as many smokers as nonsmokers agreed that there are many
hazards in life and that both smokers and nonsmokers get cancer.
Smokers who are painfully aware of the health hazards associated with
smoking may reduce dissonance in yet another way—by minimizing the
extent of their habit. One study found that of 155 smokers who smoked
between one and two packs of cigarettes a day, 60 percent considered
themselves moderate smokers; the remaining 40 percent considered
themselves heavy smokers. How can we explain these different self-
perceptions? Not surprisingly, those who labeled themselves as
moderates were more aware of the pathological long-term effects of
smoking than were those who labeled themselves as heavy smokers. That
is, these particular smokers apparently reduced dissonance by
convincing themselves that smoking one or two packs a day isn’t really
all that much. Moderate and heavy are, after all, subjective terms.
Imagine a teenage girl who has not yet begun to smoke. After reading
the surgeon general’s report, is she apt to believe it? Like most of
the nonsmokers in the survey, she should. The evidence is objectively
sound, the source is expert and trustworthy, and there is no reason
not to believe the report. And this is the crux of the matter. Earlier
in this book, I made the point that people strive to be right, and
that values and beliefs become internalized when they appear to be
correct. It is this striving to be right that motivates people to pay
close attention to what other people are doing and to heed the advice
of expert, trustworthy communicators. This is extremely rational
behavior. There are forces, however, that can work against this
rational behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance does not picture
people as rational beings; rather, it pictures them as rationalizing
beings. According to the underlying assumptions of the theory, we
humans are motivated not so much to be right as to believe-we are
right (and wise, and decent, and good).
Sometimes, our motivation to be right and our motivation to believe we
are right work in the same direction. This is what is happening with
the young woman who doesn’t smoke and therefore finds it easy to
accept the notion that smoking causes lung cancer. This would also be
true for a smoker who encounters the evidence linking cigarette
smoking to lung cancer and does succeed in giving up cigarettes.
Occasionally, however, the need to reduce dissonance (the need to
convince oneself that one is right or good) leads to behavior that is
maladaptive and therefore irrational. For example, many people have
tried to quit smoking and failed. What do these people do? It would be
erroneous to assume that they simply swallow hard and prepare to die.
They don’t. Instead, they try to reduce their dissonance in a
different way: namely, by convincing themselves that smoking isn’t as
bad as they thought. Thus, Rick Gibbons and his colleagues recently
found that heavy smokers who attended a smoking cessation clinic, quit
smoking for a while and then relapsed into heavy smoking again,
subsequently succeeded in lowering their perception of the dangers of
smoking.
Why might this change of heart occur? If a person makes a serious
commitment to a course of action, such as quitting smoking, and then
fails to keep that commitment, his or her self-concept as a strong,
self-controlled individual is threatened. This, of course, arouses
dissonance. One way to reduce this dissonance and regain a healthy
sense of self—if not a healthy set of lungs—is to trivialize the
commitment by perceiving smoking as less dangerous. A more general
study that tracked the progress of 135 students who made New Year’s
resolutions supports this observation. Individuals who broke their
resolutions—such as to quit smoking, lose weight, or exercise more—
initially felt bad about themselves for failing but, after a short
time, succeeded in downplaying the importance of the resolution.
Ironically, making light of a commitment they failed to keep serves to
restore their self-esteem but it also makes self-defeat a near
certainty in the future. In the short run, they are able to feel
better about themselves; in the long run, however, they have
drastically reduced the chances that they’ll ever succeed in achieving
their goals.
Is this the only way to reduce the dissonance associated with failing
to achieve a goal? No. An alternative response—and perhaps a less
maladaptive one—would be to lower one’s expectations for success. For
example, a person who has been unable to give up smoking completely,
but who has cut down on the number of cigarettes smoked daily, could
interpret this outcome as a partial success rather than as a complete
failure. This course of action would soften the blow to his or her
self-esteem for having failed while still holding out the possibility
of achieving success in future efforts to quit smoking altogether.
Let’s stay with the topic of cigarette smoking for a moment and
consider an extreme example: Suppose you are one of the top executives
of a major cigarette company—and therefore in a situation of maximum
commitment to the idea of cigarette smoking. Your job consists of
producing, advertising, and selling cigarettes to millions of people.
If it is true that cigarette smoking causes cancer, then, in a sense,
you are partially responsible for the illness and death of a great
many people. This would produce a painful degree of dissonance: Your
cognition “I am a decent, kind human being” would be dissonant with
your cognition “I am contributing to the early death of a great many
people.” In order to reduce this dissonance, you must try to convince
yourself that cigarette smoking is not harmful; this would involve a
refutation of the mountain of evidence suggesting a causal link
between cigarettes and cancer. Moreover, in order to convince yourself
further that you are a good, moral person, you might go so far as to
demonstrate how much you disbelieve the evidence by smoking a great
deal yourself. If your need is great enough, you might even succeed in
convincing yourself that cigarettes are good for people. Thus, in
order to see yourself as wise, good, and right, you take action that
is stupid and detrimental to your health.
This analysis is so fantastic that it’s almost beyond belief—almost.
In 1994, under the chairmanship of Henry Waxman, the U.S. Congress
conducted hearings on the dangers of smoking. At these hearings, the
top executives of most of the major tobacco companies admitted they
were smokers and actually argued that cigarettes are no more harmful
or addictive than playing video games or eating Twinkies! In a
subsequent hearing, in 1997, James J. Morgan, president and chief
executive officer of the leading U.S. cigarette maker, said that
cigarettes are not pharmacologically addictive. “Look, I like gummy
bears, and I eat gummy bears. And I don’t like it when I don’t eat
gummy bears,” Morgan said. “But I’m certainly not addicted to them.”
This kind of public denial is nothing new, of course. Over a quarter
of a century ago, the following news item was released by the
Washington Post’s News Service:
Jack Landry pulls what must be his 30th Marlboro of the day out of one
of the two packs on his desk, lights a match to it and tells how he
doesn’t believe all those reports about smoking and cancer and
emphysema. He has just begun to market yet another cigarette for
Philip Morris U.S.A. and is brimming over with satisfaction over its
prospects. But how does he square with his conscience the spending of
$10 million in these United States over the next year to lure people
into smoking his new brand? “It’s not a matter of that,” says Landry,
Philip Morris’vice president for marketing. “Nearly half the adults in
this country smoke. It’s a basic commodity for them. I’m serving a
need. . . . There are studies by pretty eminent medical and scientific
authorities, one on a theory of stress, on how a heck of a lot of
people, if they didn’t have cigarette smoking to relieve stress, would
be one hell of a lot worse off. And there are plenty of valid studies
that indicate cigarette smoking and all those diseases are not
related.” His satisfaction, says Landry, comes from being very good at
his job in a very competitive business, and he will point out that
Philip Morris and its big-selling Marlboro has just passed American
Tobacco as the No. 2 cigarette seller in America (R. J. Reynolds is
still No. 1). Why a new cigarette now? Because it is there to be sold,
says Landry. And therein lies the inspiration of the marketing of a
new American cigarette, which Landry confidently predicts will have a
1 percent share of the American market within 12 months. That 1
percent will equal about five billion cigarettes and a healthy profit
for Philip Morris U.S.A.
It is possible that James Morgan and Jack Landry are simply lying. But
it may be a bit more complicated than that; my guess is that, over the
years, they may have succeeded in deceiving themselves. Near the close
of Chapter 3,I discussed the fact that information campaigns are
relatively ineffective when they attempt to change deep-seated
attitudes. We can now see precisely why. If people are committed to an
attitude, the information the communicator presents arouses
dissonance; frequently, the best way to reduce the dissonance is to
reject or distort the evidence. The deeper a person’s commitment to an
attitude, the greater his or her tendency to reject dissonant
evidence. You may recall that in Chapter 1,I described an incident in
which, shortly before their suicide, the members of the Heaven’s Gate
cult demanded their money back because the telescope they had just
purchased didn’t reveal the spaceship they believed was following in
the wake of the Hale-Bopp comet. Needless to say, there was no
spaceship. But if you are deeply committed to believing in the
existence of a spaceship and your telescope doesn’t reveal it, then
obviously there must be something wrong with the telescope!
Juicy anecdotes are suggestive. But they do not constitute scientific
evidence and are, therefore, not convincing in themselves. Again,
taking the cigarette example, it is always possible that Mr. Morgan
and Mr. Landry know that cigarettes are harmful and are simply being
cynical. Likewise, it is possible that Landry always believed
cigarettes were good for people even before he began to peddle them.
Obviously, if either of these possibilities were true, his excitement
about the benefits of cigarette smoking could hardly be attributed to
dissonance. Much more convincing would be a demonstration of a clear
case of attitudinal distortion in a unique event. Such a demonstration
was provided back in the 1950s by (of all things) a football game in
the Ivy League. An important game between Princeton and Dartmouth, the
contest was billed as a grudge match, and this soon became evident on
the field: The game is remembered as the roughest and dirtiest in the
history of either school. On the Princeton team was an All-American
named Dick Kazmaier; as the game progressed, it became increasingly
clear that the Dartmouth players were out to get him. Whenever he
carried the ball, he was gang-tackled, piled on, and mauled. He was
finally forced to leave the game with a broken nose. Meanwhile, the
Princeton team was not exactly inactive: Soon after Kazmaier’s injury,
a Dartmouth player was carried off the field with a broken leg.
Several fistfights broke out on the field in the course of the game,
and many injuries were suffered on both sides.
Sometime after the game, a couple of psychologists—Albert Hastorf of
Dartmouth and Hadley Cantril of Princeton—visited both campuses and
showed films of the game to a number of students on each campus. The
students were instructed to be completely objective and, while
watching the film, to take notes of each infraction of the rules, how
it started, and who was responsible. As you might imagine, there was a
huge difference in the way this game was viewed by the students at
each university. There was a strong tendency for the students to see
their own fellow students as victims of illegal infractions rather
than as perpetrators of such acts of aggression. Moreover, this was no
minor distortion: It was found that Princeton students saw fully twice
as many violations on the part of the Dartmouth players as the
Dartmouth students saw. Again, people are not passive receptacles for
the deposition of information. The manner in which they view and
interpret information depends on how deeply they are committed to a
particular belief or course of action. Individuals will distort the
objective world in order to reduce their dissonance. The manner in
which they will distort and the intensity of their distortion are
highly predictable.
A few years later, Lenny Bruce, a perceptive comedian and social
commentator (who almost certainly never read about cognitive
dissonance theory), had the following insight into the 1960
presidential election campaign between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy:
I would be with a bunch of Kennedy fans watching the debate and their
comment would be, “He’s really slaughtering Nixon.” Then we would all
go to another apartment, and the Nixon fans would say, “How do you
like the shellacking he gave Kennedy?” And then I realized that each
group loved their candidate so that a guy would have to be this blatant
—he would have to look into the camera and say: “I am a thief, a
crook, do you hear me, I am the worst choice you could ever make for
the Presidency!” And even then his following would say, “Now there’s
an honest man for you. It takes a big guy to admit that. There’s the
kind of guy we need for President.”
People don’t like to see or hear things that conflict with their
deeply held beliefs or wishes. An ancient response to such bad news
was literally to kill the messenger. A modern-day figurative version
of killing the messenger is to blame the media for the presentation of
material that produces the pain of dissonance. For example, when
Ronald Reagan was running for president in 1980, Time published an
analysis of his campaign. Subsequent angry letters to the editor
vividly illustrated the widely divergent responses of his supporters,
on the one hand, and his detractors, on the other. Consider the
following two letters:
Lawrence Barrett’s pre-election piece on Candidate Ronald Reagan
[October 20] was a slick hatchet job, and you know it. You ought to be
ashamed of yourselves for printing it disguised as an objective look
at the man.
Your story on “The Real Ronald Reagan” did it. Why didn’t you just
editorially endorse him? Barrett glosses over Reagan’s fatal flaws so
handily that the “real” Ronald Reagan came across as the answer to all
our problems.
Needless to say, the diversity of perception reflected in these
letters is not unique to the 1980 campaign. It happens every 4 years.
During the next presidential election, check out the letters to the
editor of your favorite news magazine following a piece on one of the
leading candidates, and you will find a similar array of divergent
perceptions.
The Social Animal – Elliot Aronson – 8th Edition 1999
> I do not think this is an example of ‘two’ opposite ideas or beliefs.
> The pornography is object while the response or attraction is a
> complexity composed of many things. The feeling of bad also is not just
> one thought but one word which sums up complexity.
>
> The concept of double bind better captures this same basic condition, I
> think, in that it centers on communication or the process that results in
> the person ‘holding’ the conflict. It also does not make it seem as if
> the contradiction/conflict is made of two equally weighed ideas, each
> equally approachable by reason.
>
> It also suggests that if this is a given condition inside of the
> environment it can have distinct negative consequences.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:33 pm
From: Immortalist
On Mar 26, 1:56 am, jillaront…@webtv.net wrote:
> From: Immortalist
>
> QUOTE…
> ..snip…
> Basically, cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs
> whenever an individual simualtaniiously holds two cognitions (ideas,
> attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent.
> Stated differently, two cognitions are dissonant if, considering these
> two cognitions alone, the opposite of one follows from the other.
> ..snip…
> ====================
> Response
>
> Mort,
>
> This text is an ad hoc proposition about memory.
>
> One quickly can dismiss it when one considers dreams are layered
> contradictory memories which the latest brain science confirms that the
> term ‘cognitive dissonance’ is actually bio-physical ‘adrenaline’ which
> comes from a location in the brain and not from any unpublic term called
> ‘simualtaniously holds’. Adrenaline shots will repeat throughout the day
> b/c there is a physical mechanism in our memory function triggered in
> the sleep cycle.
>
> Sweet dreams are made in another locaction of the brain; a different
> bio-chem effect. As you know ‘location’ has been a scienctific term
> since Aristotle. And though Whitehead tried to dispell it, his Lowell
> Lectures of 1925 were flawed by accepting ‘idealism’ as a part of
> philosophy. Root philosophy was never about ‘mind’. Psychology is a
> European progressive corruption of naturalism. Brain science is using an
> ancient naturalist approach without a progression into unpublic
> terminology.
>
> regards,
> Vjillaris
Cognitive dissonance is the state of tension one feels after making a
decision, taking an action, or being exposed to some information that
is contrary to a prior attitude (Zimbardo et al., 1999, p. 752). The
state of tension is psychologically unpleasant, so something must
change to reduce the dissonance — usually the prior attitude.
When we experience two conflicting ideas we might adjust one or other
belief to fit with the other. Then “next time” these cognitions arise
we will have “adapted them” by lengthening nerve fibers and raising or
lowering resistences to chemo/electical flows across synapses.
Cognitive consistency
The tendency to seek consistency in one’s cognitions.
// REM COMMENT
But with dreaming you raise another case. I was talking about wide
awake thought processes. Researchers in the past have claimed that
memorable dreams are mainly about waking because outside noises are
intruding into the dream during rem or sensitive to the external sleep
opposed to deep and vulnerable sleep. Rem sleep for 20 minutes about
every hour and a half. But the dissonance of dreams has been claim to
be the attempt to integrate repetitive short term memories; memories
of the last days or week, trying to be integrated with life long
memories. This is where nightmares come from; noisy environments of
the transfer of short term into long term memories. I would say that
you are creating a straw man argument of the general argument about
wakeful cognitive dissonance, a noted empirical theory with much
evidence of cause and effect support man.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Abortion improves and increases the value of life!
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:14 pm
From: The Chief Instigator
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:12:45 -0700 (PDT), yarrido@aol.com wrote:
> On Mar 28, 1:06?pm, elizabeth wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 12:38?pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 26, 2:16?pm, elizabeth wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 26, 8:52?am, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Mar 25, 11:25?am, elizabeth wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Mar 24, 12:00?pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Mar 23, 12:26?pm, elizabeth wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Mar 22, 3:48?pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 1:03?pm, SkyEyes wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 10:35?am, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 7:34?pm, Rob Par wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:42:06 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes
>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > > > > > – Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > So, you aren’t animal, mineral or vegetable, and thus, you claim you
>> > > > > do not exist.
>>
>> > > > ? ? ?I exist, you just don’t believe it. You think that my body
>> > > > exists, ?not me.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > – Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > YOu exist, it’s just you don’t believe no one wants you to.
>>
>> > How do you know that I exist?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > – Show quoted text -
>>
>> It’s too bad you don’t. ?I’m sure everyone in the world aware of your
>> miserable existance agrees with me.
>
> You have no evidence that I exist. These letters you see here have
> just randomly appeared from nowhere and assembled themselves in this
> arrangement by themselves because it is the substance from which they
> are made that makes them do so. Your pattern seeking mind then
> interpreted them into words and sentences and meanings and information
> to fool you into thinking that there is a mind behind them. But the
> reality is that cannot possibly be the case since you cannot see me,
> touch me or in any way empirically verify my existence. So, I don’t
> actually exist. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. You
> believe in a myth.
You’re doing an execrable job of proving you exist. Thank the wipeout that
you paid to post your self-worship, anonymous coward.
–
Patrick L. “The Chief Instigator” Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI’s 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Peoria 5, Houston 4 (SO, March 28)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, March 31 vs. Chicago, 7:05
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:31 pm
From: “bigfletch8@gmail.com”
On Mar 30, 5:23 am, “White bird” wrote:
> If you have imaginary friends as a child, it is considered
> quite normal and healthy.
>
> If you have imaginary friends as an adult, it is considered
> schizophrenia.
* CERN, LHC. Tomorrow, the 30-th of March, despite to our protests, CERN plans
to perform the first collisions of protons with the energy 3.5 TeV per proton (
7 TeV per collision). – 1 messages, 1 author
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:05 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 28, 10:11 pm, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Mar 28, 11:47 pm, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 4:08 am, Don Stockbauer wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 23, 5:29 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 17, 6:37 am, “Inertial” wrote:
>
> > > > > “Y.Porat” wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:179c6e78-3047-41f6-b04e-653c5fee202d@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com…
>
> > > > > > On Mar 15, 11:26 pm, glird wrote:
> > > > > >> On Mar 15, 3:12 pm, “Ken S. Tucker” wrote:
>
> > > > > >> > On Mar 15, 11:06 am, Bob_for_short
> > > > > >> > wrote:
>
> > > > > >> > > No, quantum transitions are not instantaneous.
> > > > > >> > If we use the definition of energy as the ‘rate of action’, then a
> > > > > >> > photon such as E=hf == (h/t), should have 2 actions to establish that
> > > > > >> > rate? >
>
> > > > > >> If you invent definitions that fit whatever you want to prove, then
> > > > > >> you will always be right, even if you are wrong.
> > > > > >> In this case you are both right even if the proof is not.
> > > > > >> (It will take 2pir/c’ = 1.5791584 x 10^-16 seconds per emission per
> > > > > >> photon.)
>
> > > > > >> glird
>
> > > > > > ——————–
> > > > > > no !!
> > > > > > have a look to my much deeper insight
> > > > > > inmy thread:
>
> > > > > You have no insights
>
> > > > > > ‘a better new definition for the real single
> > > > > > photon energy emission’
> > > > > > i used there for the first time
> > > > > > the **Plank time**and the samallest possible
> > > > > > time duration for photonenergy!!
>
> > > > > You took those arbitrary numeric values, stipped them of their units and
> > > > > multiplied them to get a small value. This has nothing to do with anything
> > > > > in nature
>
> > > > > > it is
> > > > > > 5.38 exp-44 seconds !!!!
> > > > > > and than i derived form it
> > > > > > the smallest possoble
> > > > > > PHOTON ENERGY !!!
>
> > > > > No .. you didn’t “derive” anything, by ANY use of that word. You just
> > > > > performed an arbitrary operation on arbitrary numbers and claimed that was
> > > > > photon energy.
>
> > > > > EXPERIMENT shows that energy of a single photon is related to the frequency
> > > > > of the EMR by E = hf.
>
> > > > > > if we will divide it by c^2
>
> > > > > You get a smaller arbitrary number
>
> > > > > > we wil get the revolutionary finding:
> > > > > > The mass of the smallest photon !!!
>
> > > > > There is no ‘smallest’ photon. Just a photon.
>
> > > > > The mass is zero
>
> > > > > > it will be in the order of magnitude
> > > > > > smallest photon mass:
> > > > > > ie
> > > > > > exp-90 Kilograms !!
> > > > > > alter i will bring the exact figure
> > > > > > in my above thread
>
> > > > > > and only now you start to understand
> > > > > > why the mass of the photon was considered as zero
> > > > > > it is close to zero
> > > > > > but in PRINCIPLE ** not zero** !!!
>
> > > > > There is no ‘principle’ that says it is nonzero. There is no experimental
> > > > > evidence to support it being non-zero.
>
> > > > > > btw
> > > > > > since you involved here the math nG
> > > > > > i can tell all the mathematicians :
> > > > > > THAT IS EXACTLY THE DIFERENCE
> > > > > > BETWEEN A MATHEMATICIAN
> > > > > > AND A REAL PHYSICIST
> > > > > > physics is not leaded by mathematician !!
> > > > > > ie
> > > > > > people that heir mathematics understanding
> > > > > > is bigger than their physics understandings
>
> > > > > I’ll tell you what math and physics have in common.: You understand neither.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Light comes out of matter that is in two times. Light since first
> > > > formed is in one time flow.
>
> > > Light is two times or maybe one time comes out in two times babble
> > > flow medicines formed in one time flow matter in two times drool
> > > masturbate general chilton cheyenne mountin angerstein pribyl
> > > bethlehem nuner oak boom boom all die why? they deserved to die hic-
> > > cup fart ants covering body orgasm extinction.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > What size does a light wave begin at when first radiated by an
> > electric particle?
> > Does it appear nonlocally all at once across space or does it expand
> > to full wavelength spatially?
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> As the nuns say, Mitchsky, “These are mysteries that you’ll learn when
> you die.”- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
It can easily be addressed right now if light formation is a local
phenomenon.
Mitch Raemsch
==============================================================================
TOPIC: the Death of Ath*ism… FINISHED!
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:16 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
> Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> environment, with time constants and so forth.
>
> But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
>
> Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
>
> –
> Rich
What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
“co·her·ence
4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
“co·her·ent
4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
the particle when the particle is detected.
The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
bow wave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
“This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
by the double solution theory
Louis de BROGLIE’
“I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
of an external field acting on the particle.”
“This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
located.”
de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
the wave.
In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
the available slits.
In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
interference.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:39 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 5:16 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
>
> > Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> > the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> > the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> > interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> > function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> > environment, with time constants and so forth.
>
> > But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> > which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> > the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
>
> > Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
>
> > –
> > Rich
>
> What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
>
> “co·her·ence
> 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
>
> “co·her·ent
> 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
> phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
>
> Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
>
> You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
> correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
> the particle when the particle is detected.
>
> The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
> detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
> the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
> bow wave.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
>
> “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
>
> ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> by the double solution theory
> Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
> “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
> wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
> of an external field acting on the particle.”
>
> “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> located.”
>
> de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave.
>
> In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
> double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
> the available slits.
>
> In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> interference.
Continuity is the backbone of Unification.
Mitch Raemsch
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:49 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 8:16 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
>
> > Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> > the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> > the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> > interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> > function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> > environment, with time constants and so forth.
>
> > But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> > which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> > the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
>
> > Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
>
> > –
> > Rich
>
> What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
>
> “co·her·ence
> 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
>
> “co·her·ent
> 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
> phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
>
> Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
>
> You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
> correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
> the particle when the particle is detected.
>
> The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
> detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
> the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
> bow wave.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
>
> “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
>
> ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> by the double solution theory
> Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
> “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
> wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
> of an external field acting on the particle.”
>
> “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> located.”
>
> de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave.
>
> In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
> double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
> the available slits.
>
> In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> interference.
The way I understand the nonsense of Feynman is knowing ‘which way’
the particle travels causes decoherence. This is what is meant by the
role the Observer plays. If the ‘which way’ information is known, then
there will not be interference.
However, that is complete nonsense. In order to know ‘which way’ the
particle travels the particle must be detected. Detecting the particle
physically turns the associated wave into chop. Physically destroying
the coherence of the associated wave (decoherence) does not allow the
waves to create interference upon exiting the slits. If there is no
interference created by the waves then the direction the particle
travels is not altered and there will not be an interference pattern
formed.
It gets even more absurd than that. If the ‘which way’ information is
detected far enough before the particle interacts with the slits then
an interference pattern will still be formed.
Obviously, if the boat is detected by the buoys and continues on,
given enough time the coherence of the bow wave will once again exist.
All the nonsense of ‘which way’ and the role of the Observer is not
understanding there is a physical particle and a physical wave in wave-
particle duality.
But, again, what I referred to in the previous post is de Broglie Wave
Mechanics where the associated wave is an aether wave and the
generally accepted ‘understanding’ is of ‘which way’ and the role of
the Observer and the other ridiculous nonsense Feynman arrived at
based upon the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:57 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 5:49 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 29, 8:16 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
>
> > > Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> > > the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> > > the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> > > interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> > > function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> > > environment, with time constants and so forth.
>
> > > But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> > > which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> > > the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
It requires light at the holes not an observer to see.
Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
>
> > > –
> > > Rich
>
> > What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
>
> > “co·her·ence
> > 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
>
> > “co·her·ent
> > 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
> > phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
>
> > Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
>
> > You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
> > correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
> > the particle when the particle is detected.
>
> > The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
> > detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
> > the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
> > bow wave.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
>
> > “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> > any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
>
> > ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> > by the double solution theory
> > Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
> > “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
> > wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
> > of an external field acting on the particle.”
>
> > “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> > theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> > where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> > natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> > be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> > located.”
>
> > de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> > and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> > the wave.
>
> > In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
> > double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
> > the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
> > the available slits.
>
> > In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> > The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> > associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> > slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> > slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> > the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> > displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> > interference.
>
> The way I understand the nonsense of Feynman is knowing ‘which way’
> the particle travels causes decoherence. This is what is meant by the
> role the Observer plays. If the ‘which way’ information is known, then
> there will not be interference.
>
> However, that is complete nonsense. In order to know ‘which way’ the
> particle travels the particle must be detected. Detecting the particle
> physically turns the associated wave into chop. Physically destroying
> the coherence of the associated wave (decoherence) does not allow the
> waves to create interference upon exiting the slits. If there is no
> interference created by the waves then the direction the particle
> travels is not altered and there will not be an interference pattern
> formed.
>
> It gets even more absurd than that. If the ‘which way’ information is
> detected far enough before the particle interacts with the slits then
> an interference pattern will still be formed.
>
> Obviously, if the boat is detected by the buoys and continues on,
> given enough time the coherence of the bow wave will once again exist.
>
> All the nonsense of ‘which way’ and the role of the Observer is not
> understanding there is a physical particle and a physical wave in wave-
> particle duality.
>
> But, again, what I referred to in the previous post is de Broglie Wave
> Mechanics where the associated wave is an aether wave and the
> generally accepted ‘understanding’ is of ‘which way’ and the role of
> the Observer and the other ridiculous nonsense Feynman arrived at
> based upon the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.-
Light collapsing the wave is why there is no Observer Created Reality
of the Copenhagen interpretation.
Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
There is no decoherence if there is no togetherness. Things cannot
come apart if the do not come together.
Mitch Raemsch
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:59 pm
From: YBM
mpc755 a �crit :
> On Mar 29, 8:16 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
>>
>>> Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
>>> the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
>>> the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
>>> interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
>>> function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
>>> environment, with time constants and so forth.
>>> But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
>>> which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
>>> the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
>>> Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
>>> –
>>> Rich
>> What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
>>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
>>
>> “co�her�ence
>> 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
>>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
>>
>> “co�her�ent
>> 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
>> phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
>>
>> Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
>>
>> You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
>> correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
>> the particle when the particle is detected.
>>
>> The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
>> detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
>> the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
>> bow wave.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
>>
>> “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
>> any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
>>
>> ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
>> by the double solution theory
>> Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>>
>> “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
>> wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
>> of an external field acting on the particle.”
>>
>> “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
>> theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
>> where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
>> natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
>> be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
>> located.”
>>
>> de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
>> and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
>> the wave.
>>
>> In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
>> double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
>> the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
>> the available slits.
>>
>> In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
>> The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
>> associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
>> slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
>> slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
>> the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
>> displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
>> interference.
>
> The way I understand
Stop lying. You don’t understand anything.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:05 pm
From: YBM
mpc755 a �crit :
> n Mar 29, 8:16 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> – Hide quoted text -
> – Show quoted text -
>> On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
>
>>> Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
>>> the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
>>> the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
>>> interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
>>> function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
>>> environment, with time constants and so forth.
>
>>> But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
>>> which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
>>> the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
>
>>> Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
>
>>> –
>>> Rich
>
>> What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
>
>> “co�her�ence
>> 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
>
>> “co�her�ent
>> 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
>> phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
>
>> Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
>
>> You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
>> correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
>> the particle when the particle is detected.
>
>> The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
>> detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
>> the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
>> bow wave.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
>
>> “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
>> any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
>
>> ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
>> by the double solution theory
>> Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
>> “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
>> wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
>> of an external field acting on the particle.”
>
>> “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
>> theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
>> where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
>> natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
>> be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
>> located.”
>
>> de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
>> and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
>> the wave.
>
>> In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
>> double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
>> the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
>> the available slits.
>
>> In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
>> The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
>> associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
>> slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
>> slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
>> the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
>> displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
>> interference.
>
> The way I understand the nonsense of Feynman is knowing ‘which way’
> the particle travels causes decoherence. This is what is meant by the
> role the Observer plays. If the ‘which way’ information is known, then
> there will not be interference.
>
> However, that is complete nonsense. In order to know ‘which way’ the
> particle travels the particle must be detected. Detecting the particle
> physically turns the associated wave into chop. Physically destroying
> the coherence of the associated wave (decoherence) does not allow the
> waves to create interference upon exiting the slits. If there is no
> interference created by the waves then the direction the particle
> travels is not altered and there will not be an interference pattern
> formed.
>
> It gets even more absurd than that. If the ‘which way’ information is
> detected far enough before the particle interacts with the slits then
> an interference pattern will still be formed.
>
> Obviously, if the boat is detected by the buoys and continues on,
> given enough time the coherence of the bow wave will once again exist.
>
> All the nonsense of ‘which way’ and the role of the Observer is not
> understanding there is a physical particle and a physical wave in
> wave-
> particle duality.
>
> But, again, what I referred to in the previous post is de Broglie Wave
> Mechanics where the associated wave is an aether wave and the
> generally accepted ‘understanding’ is of ‘which way’ and the role of
> the Observer and the other ridiculous nonsense Feynman arrived at
> based upon the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
Multiposting again, mpc ? Abuse reports sent.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:06 pm
From: mpc755
> On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
> > Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> > the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> > the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> > interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> > function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> > environment, with time constants and so forth.
> > But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> > which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> > the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
> > Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
> > –
> > Rich
> What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
> “co·her·ence
> 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
> “co·her·ent
> 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
> phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
> Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
> You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
> correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
> the particle when the particle is detected.
> The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
> detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
> the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
> bow wave.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
> “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
> ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> by the double solution theory
> Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
> “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
> wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
> of an external field acting on the particle.”
> “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> located.”
> de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave.
> In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
> double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
> the available slits.
> In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> interference.
The way I understand the nonsense of Feynman is knowing ‘which way’
the particle travels causes decoherence. This is what is meant by the
role the Observer plays. If the ‘which way’ information is known, then
there will not be interference.
However, that is complete nonsense. In order to know ‘which way’ the
particle travels the particle must be detected. Detecting the particle
physically turns the associated wave into chop. Physically destroying
the coherence of the associated wave (decoherence) does not allow the
waves to create interference upon exiting the slits. If there is no
interference created by the waves then the direction the particle
travels is not altered and there will not be an interference pattern
formed.
It gets even more absurd than that. If the ‘which way’ information is
detected far enough before the particle interacts with the slits then
an interference pattern will still be formed.
Obviously, if the boat is detected by the buoys and continues on,
given enough time the coherence of the bow wave will once again exist.
All the nonsense of ‘which way’ and the role of the Observer is not
understanding there is a physical particle and a physical wave in
wave-
particle duality.
But, again, what I referred to in the previous post is de Broglie Wave
Mechanics where the associated wave is an aether wave and the
generally accepted ‘understanding’ is of ‘which way’ and the role of
the Observer and the other ridiculous nonsense Feynman arrived at
based upon the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: ABOUT THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:21 pm
From: “Sue…”
On Mar 29, 8:04 pm, Stamenin wrote:
> On Mar 28, 9:40 pm, “Sue…” wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 12:08 am, Stamenin wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 27, 1:42 pm, “Sue…” wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 27, 3:05 pm, Stamenin wrote:
>
> > > > > NOT THE CONSEQUENCES BUT THE ASSUMPTIONS
> > > > > This is an article that has been published in group science-physics-
> > > > > relativity, but having a big importance about the determination of the
> > > > > ways in which we can determine that Einstein theory of relativity is
> > > > > errant or not, consider that must be published again and uploaded in
> > > > > galilei-newton-group. It must be read in correlation with mine
> > > > > article: The relativity as method of asking the truth.
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/galilei-newton-group
> > > > < > > > theory as being the only correct theory in physics
> > > > about the description of motion of material bodies.>>
>
> > > > Have you found a way to express this with
> > > > Newoton’s mechanics?
>
> > > About this question I have published in a lot of articles in my group
> > > galilei-nevton-group. If you like one example it is the the false math
> > > relation the LT.
>
> > I was not asking about the LT.
> > Please visit the web page so you know
> > what it conveys.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
>
> > If you are really serious about the subject
> > of your group you might find some help in
> > a recent post to this group.
>
> I do not need any help Sir.
>
>
>
> > Timo Nieminen:
> > ”The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic
> > theory by Aepinus is a superb example of the progress
> > that can be made by being willing to work
> > with “enough”, and being prepared to ignore
> > Cartesian would-be-burdens. There’s a nice
> > discussion in the English translation of his book.”
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/51ddd073eab…
>
> > > compare it with Galilei transformation and will see
> > > which of them is valid and which is errant. And a second example
> > > compare the Principle of the equivalence with the four mathematical
> > > relation, the three laws of the mechanics and the law of the universal
> > > attraction and say who is right, Galilei and Newton or Einstein. For
> > > any physical phenomenon these two theories can’t correct simultaneouly
> > > both of them.
>
> > =====================
>
> > > So if you like Einstein to be correct you have to
> > > demonstrate that Galilei and Newton are errant. Please do that.
>
> > What if I show that none are errant?
>
> You will not be accused, but first you have to do that.
>
> > <
> > All inertial frames are totally equivalent
> > for the performance of all physical experiments.
>
===============
> No, it is not true. All inertial coordinate systems are equivalent
> only for the description of the motion of material bodies.
For the the immaterial stuff, you might
find some interest here:
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:33 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 5:21 pm, “Sue…” wrote:
> On Mar 29, 8:04 pm, Stamenin wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 9:40 pm, “Sue…” wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 12:08 am, Stamenin wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 27, 1:42 pm, “Sue…” wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 27, 3:05 pm, Stamenin wrote:
>
> > > > > > NOT THE CONSEQUENCES BUT THE ASSUMPTIONS
> > > > > > This is an article that has been published in group science-physics-
> > > > > > relativity, but having a big importance about the determination of the
> > > > > > ways in which we can determine that Einstein theory of relativity is
> > > > > > errant or not, consider that must be published again and uploaded in
> > > > > > galilei-newton-group. It must be read in correlation with mine
> > > > > > article: The relativity as method of asking the truth.
>
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/galilei-newton-group
> > > > > < > > > > theory as being the only correct theory in physics
> > > > > about the description of motion of material bodies.>>
>
> > > > > Have you found a way to express this with
> > > > > Newoton’s mechanics?
>
> > > > About this question I have published in a lot of articles in my group
> > > > galilei-nevton-group. If you like one example it is the the false math
> > > > relation the LT.
>
> > > I was not asking about the LT.
> > > Please visit the web page so you know
> > > what it conveys.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
>
> > > If you are really serious about the subject
> > > of your group you might find some help in
> > > a recent post to this group.
>
> > I do not need any help Sir.
>
> > > Timo Nieminen:
> > > ”The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic
> > > theory by Aepinus is a superb example of the progress
> > > that can be made by being willing to work
> > > with “enough”, and being prepared to ignore
> > > Cartesian would-be-burdens. There’s a nice
> > > discussion in the English translation of his book.”
>
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/51ddd073eab…
>
> > > > compare it with Galilei transformation and will see
> > > > which of them is valid and which is errant. And a second example
> > > > compare the Principle of the equivalence with the four mathematical
> > > > relation, the three laws of the mechanics and the law of the universal
> > > > attraction and say who is right, Galilei and Newton or Einstein. For
> > > > any physical phenomenon these two theories can’t correct simultaneouly
> > > > both of them.
>
> > > =====================
>
> > > > So if you like Einstein to be correct you have to
> > > > demonstrate that Galilei and Newton are errant. Please do that.
>
> > > What if I show that none are errant?
>
> > You will not be accused, but first you have to do that.
>
> > > <
> > > All inertial frames are totally equivalent
> > > for the performance of all physical experiments.
>
> ===============
>
> > No, it is not true. All inertial coordinate systems are equivalent
> > only for the description of the motion of material bodies.
>
> For the the immaterial stuff, you might
> find some interest here:http://www.psychicwaves.com/freespiritualadvice.html
>
> Sue…- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
Motion is detecfable when it is created through acceleration which
has weight. A test mass fluctuatiuon in weight can be measured giving
the end speed of an acceleration. Acceleration and its new motion are
detectable.
Mitch Raemsch
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:35 pm
From: “Inertial”
“Stamenin” wrote in message
news:ef08a067-5898-41da-90d2-eaa2715a5df3@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com…
> On Mar 28, 9:40 pm, “Sue…” wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 12:08 am, Stamenin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 27, 1:42 pm, “Sue…” wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 27, 3:05 pm, Stamenin wrote:
>>
>> > > > NOT THE CONSEQUENCES BUT THE ASSUMPTIONS
>> > > > This is an article that has been published in group
>> > > > science-physics-
>> > > > relativity, but having a big importance about the determination of
>> > > > the
>> > > > ways in which we can determine that Einstein theory of relativity
>> > > > is
>> > > > errant or not, consider that must be published again and uploaded
>> > > > in
>> > > > galilei-newton-group. It must be read in correlation with mine
>> > > > article: The relativity as method of asking the truth.
>>
>> > >http://groups.google.com/group/galilei-newton-group
>> > > <> > > theory as being the only correct theory in physics
>> > > about the description of motion of material bodies.>>
>>
>> > > Have you found a way to express this with
>> > > Newoton’s mechanics?
>>
>> > About this question I have published in a lot of articles in my group
>> > galilei-nevton-group. If you like one example it is the the false math
>> > relation the LT.
>>
>> I was not asking about the LT.
>> Please visit the web page so you know
>> what it conveys.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
>>
>> If you are really serious about the subject
>> of your group you might find some help in
>> a recent post to this group.
>
> I do not need any help Sir.
It seems that you do
>> Timo Nieminen:
>> “The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic
>> theory by Aepinus is a superb example of the progress
>> that can be made by being willing to work
>> with “enough”, and being prepared to ignore
>> Cartesian would-be-burdens. There’s a nice
>> discussion in the English translation of his book.”
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/51ddd073eab…
>>
>> > compare it with Galilei transformation and will see
>> > which of them is valid and which is errant. And a second example
>> > compare the Principle of the equivalence with the four mathematical
>> > relation, the three laws of the mechanics and the law of the universal
>> > attraction and say who is right, Galilei and Newton or Einstein. For
>> > any physical phenomenon these two theories can’t correct simultaneouly
>> > both of them.
>>
>> =====================
>>
>> > So if you like Einstein to be correct you have to
>> > demonstrate that Galilei and Newton are errant. Please do that.
>>
>> What if I show that none are errant?
>
> You will not be accused, but first you have to do that.
>
>> <>
>> All inertial frames are totally equivalent
>> for the performance of all physical experiments.
>
> No, it is not true. All inertial coordinate systems are equivalent
> only for the description of the motion of material bodies.
Please provide an example of an experiment where the principle of
equivalence doe not apply
>> In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
>> experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
>> between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton’s
>> laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
>> Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of
>> relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
>> same form in all inertial frames.
>
> It is not true.
Refute it then
> the principle of the equivalence is complete mistaken
Why .. what is your grounds for that claim
> and because of that he concluded that all laws of physics take same
> form in all inertial coordinate systems. I use the term coordinate
> system because it allows to use analytical geometry.
You’ve still not shown why it is wrong
>>>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
>>
>> [1]<> theory of relativity, in its most essential formal
>> properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the
>> three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space.
>> In order to give due prominence to this relationship,
>> however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by
>> an imaginary magnitude
>>
>> sqrt(-1)
>
> And this assumption is totally mistaken. There is wrong used
> Pithagoras theorem.
And wrong spelled
>> ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the
>> natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special)
>> theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which
>> the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same r�le as
>> the three space co-ordinates. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
>
> Unfortunately it is not an evidence, and this affirmation is errant.
Do YOU have any evidence. So far all experimental evidence confirms SR
>> <> can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
>> which involve measuring the force of attraction between
>> two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying
>> wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments
>> must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all
>> inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the
>> same in all inertial frames.
>> >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
>>
>> Would you care to point out a problem with
>> the above statements?
>>
>> Sue…
>>
>>
>>
>> > > Sue…
>>
>> > > > Stamenin
>>
>>
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: DARK ENERGY AND DARK MINDS
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:21 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 28, 11:21 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The journal Nature exercising itself in crimestop in 1979:
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5698/abs/277633a0.html
> Nature 277, 633 – 635 (22 February 1979)
> Photon decay in curved space-time
> D. F. CRAWFORD
> School of Physics, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006,
> Australia
> “RECENT astrophysical observations have raised doubts as to whether
> the large redshifts of distant galaxies (the Hubble redshift) are due
> entirely to cosmological expansion. The strongest argument in favour
> of cosmological expansion is that there is no known hypothesis
> consistent with the laws of physics (other than the Doppler shift
> hypothesis) that can explain the observed redshifts. An alternative
> explanation – a gradual energy loss of photons due to their
> interaction with curved space-time – is considered here.”
>
> http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
> George Orwell: “Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
> though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
> includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
> logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
> inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
> thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
> Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”
>
> The dangerous thought at the threshold of which the journal Nature
> will always stop short: It is reasonable to assume that “energy loss
> of photons” can be explained in terms of “speed loss of photons”.
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> The only reason behind Dark Energy:
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
> “More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
> under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
> of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage.”
>
> Sometimes the correct solution to the problem (the speed of light
> decreases with distance and this causes Hubble’s redshift) is hinted
> at in Einsteiniana but then billions may not come and Einsteinians
> promise not to hint anymore:
>
> http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
> “Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
> stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
> ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
> universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
> not constant?…..Couldn’t it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
> acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
> cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn’t a stick plunged into the pool
> appear bent as the light is refracted and won’t that affect all our
> observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
> Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
> Books to explain this apparent anomaly…..”You are entirely right,”
> he told me, “there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
> light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
> of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
> correct for them.” “In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,”
> adds Susskind, “An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
> gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
> ‘spurious’ effects so that people like me can just say ‘light travels
> with the speed of light.’ So, there you have it. My concern about
> cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
> physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
> physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
> can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe.”
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.pdf
> Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
> Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci
> “Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate
> for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally
> thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is
> more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an
> expanding spacetime geometry (…) …any photon gradually loses its
> energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the
> universe.”
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757145,00.html
> Monday, Dec. 14, 1936: “Other causes for the redshift were suggested,
> such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great
> stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the
> expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a
> cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had
> shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation
> of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more
> improbable than a non-expanding one.”
>
> In the end dark minds enter the stage and things get irreversible
> (billions are guaranteed):
>
> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/87150187.html
> “Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (…) “We have a
> complete inventory of the universe,” Sean Carroll, a California
> Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, “and it makes no
> sense.”
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedo…
> Martin Rees: “Over the past week, two stories in the press have
> suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
> issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
> mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
> pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist.”
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7522026/Hubble-telesc…
> “And the astronomers found that the universe was growing faster and
> faster with time, as predicted by Einstein in his theory of general
> relativity. Scientists claim that the universe is made up of three
> different components – normal matter, which is the physical objects in
> the universe such as the planets – dark matter, which is invisible
> matter that creates the gravitational pull that causes galaxies to
> form – and an unknown energy referred to as “dark energy”, the force
> which causes the universe to expand. Einstein’s theory of general
> relativity claims that space and time are a geometrical structure
> which can be changed by the behaviour of the matter inside it. So
> proof that the expansion of the universe is speeding up shows that the
> contents of the universe, such as the “dark energy” causing it to
> inflate, are influencing its structure. Ludovic Van Waerbeke, of the
> Department of Physics and Astronomy at Leiden University in the
> Netherlands, said: “Our results confirmed that there is an unknown
> source of energy in the universe which is causing the cosmic expansion
> to speed up, stretching the dark matter further apart exactly as
> predicted by Einstein’s theory.”
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva…@yahoo.com
Intelligent design?
You have to be intelligent to see it.
Mitch Raemsch
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can’t be
serious.
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:24 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 5:12 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > > >
>
> > > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > > “quin·tes·sence
> > > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > > –noun
> > > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > interactions with matter”
>
> > > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > > gravity.
>
> > > Thanks for the link.
>
> > Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> > and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> > substance.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> The matter which is the Earth is displaced far beyond the Moon. This
> aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the aether
> displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the Earth
> equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the distance
> the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
You are avoiding my point. If rotation goes for and against aether
creating different pressures of gravity then gravity is not a constant
for the Earth. How do you address that?
Mitch Raemsch
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:25 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
> On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > >
>
> > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > “quin·tes·sence
> > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > –noun
> > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > interactions with matter”
>
> > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > gravity.
>
> > Thanks for the link.
>
> Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> substance.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
The matter which is the Earth displaces the aether far beyond the
Moon. This aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the
aether displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the
Earth equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the
distance the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of
the Earth. The Earth’s momentum in orbit around the Sun is negligible
in terms of the pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the Earth.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:32 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 8:24 pm, BURT wrote:
> On Mar 29, 5:12 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > > > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > > > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > > > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > > > “quin·tes·sence
> > > > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > > > –noun
> > > > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > > > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > > > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > > > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > > > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > > > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > > > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > interactions with matter”
>
> > > > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > > > gravity.
>
> > > > Thanks for the link.
>
> > > Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> > > and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> > > substance.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > The matter which is the Earth is displaced far beyond the Moon. This
> > aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the aether
> > displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the Earth
> > equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the distance
> > the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > – Show quoted text -
>
> You are avoiding my point. If rotation goes for and against aether
> creating different pressures of gravity then gravity is not a constant
> for the Earth. How do you address that?
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Rotation does NOT go for and against aether creating different
pressures of gravity.
Gravity is NOT the pressure associated with objects moving through the
aether ENTRAINED by the Earth.
Gravity is the pressure exerted by the aether towards the Earth which
is DISPLACED by the Earth.
The aether displaced by the Earth and entrained by the Earth is the
same aether.
Gravity, the downward pressure associated with the aether displaced by
the Earth has nothing to do with the pressure associated with object
moving through the aether entrained by the Earth.
Aether entrainment is not related to the downward force associated
with the aether displaced by the Earth.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:37 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 5:32 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 29, 8:24 pm, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 5:12 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > > > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > > > > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > > > > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > > > > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > > > > “quin·tes·sence
> > > > > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > > > > –noun
> > > > > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > > > > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > > > > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > > > > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > > > > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > > > > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > > > > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > interactions with matter”
>
> > > > > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > > > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > > > > gravity.
>
> > > > > Thanks for the link.
>
> > > > Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> > > > and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> > > > substance.
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > The matter which is the Earth is displaced far beyond the Moon. This
> > > aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the aether
> > > displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the Earth
> > > equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the distance
> > > the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > You are avoiding my point. If rotation goes for and against aether
> > creating different pressures of gravity then gravity is not a constant
> > for the Earth. How do you address that?
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> Rotation does NOT go for and against aether creating different
> pressures of gravity.
But you have already claimed that it is.
>
> Gravity is NOT the pressure associated with objects moving through the
> aether ENTRAINED by the Earth.
>
> Gravity is the pressure exerted by the aether towards the Earth which
> is DISPLACED by the Earth.
>
> The aether displaced by the Earth and entrained by the Earth is the
> same aether.
>
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:40 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 8:37 pm, BURT wrote:
> On Mar 29, 5:32 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 8:24 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 5:12 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > > > > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > > > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > > > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > > > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > > > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > > > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > > > > > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > > > > > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > > > > > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> > > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > > > > > “quin·tes·sence
> > > > > > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > > > > > –noun
> > > > > > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > > > > > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > > > > > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > > > > > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > > > > > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > > > > > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > > > > > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > interactions with matter”
>
> > > > > > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > > > > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > > > > > gravity.
>
> > > > > > Thanks for the link.
>
> > > > > Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> > > > > and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> > > > > substance.
>
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > The matter which is the Earth is displaced far beyond the Moon. This
> > > > aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the aether
> > > > displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the Earth
> > > > equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the distance
> > > > the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > You are avoiding my point. If rotation goes for and against aether
> > > creating different pressures of gravity then gravity is not a constant
> > > for the Earth. How do you address that?
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > Rotation does NOT go for and against aether creating different
> > pressures of gravity.
>
> But you have already claimed that it is.
>
No, you misinterpreted it that way. I never said rotation had anything
to do with gravity.
I said an atomic clock traveling eastward is moving against the ‘flow’
of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick slower.
An atomic clock traveling westward is moving with the ‘flow’ of
aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick faster.
Not once did I relate aether ‘flow’ or ‘entrainment’ with gravity.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:51 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 5:40 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 29, 8:37 pm, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 5:32 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 8:24 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 5:12 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > > > > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > > > > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > > > > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > > > > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > > > > > > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > > > > > > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > > > > > > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> > > > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > > > > > > “quin·tes·sence
> > > > > > > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > > > > > > –noun
> > > > > > > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > > > > > > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > > > > > > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > > > > > > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > > > > > > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > > > > > > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > > > > > > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > > interactions with matter”
>
> > > > > > > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > > > > > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > > > > > > gravity.
>
> > > > > > > Thanks for the link.
>
> > > > > > Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> > > > > > and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> > > > > > substance.
>
> > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > The matter which is the Earth is displaced far beyond the Moon. This
> > > > > aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the aether
> > > > > displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the Earth
> > > > > equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the distance
> > > > > the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > > You are avoiding my point. If rotation goes for and against aether
> > > > creating different pressures of gravity then gravity is not a constant
> > > > for the Earth. How do you address that?
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > Rotation does NOT go for and against aether creating different
> > > pressures of gravity.
>
> > But you have already claimed that it is.
>
> No, you misinterpreted it that way. I never said rotation had anything
> to do with gravity.
>
> I said an atomic clock traveling eastward is moving against the ‘flow’
> of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick slower.
>
> An atomic clock traveling westward is moving with the ‘flow’ of
> aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick faster.
>
> Not once did I relate aether ‘flow’ or ‘entrainment’ with gravity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
NO. When you make a mistake and I call you on it you cannot get away
with saying it was just my misinterpretation when it was not.
I will give you the fact that maybe you do not remember what you say
mpc.
Mitch Raemsch
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:03 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 8:51 pm, BURT wrote:
> On Mar 29, 5:40 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 8:37 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 5:32 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 8:24 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 29, 5:12 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > > > > > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > > > > > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > > > > > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > > > > > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > > > > > > > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > > > > > > > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > > > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > > > > > > > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > > > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> > > > > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > > > > > > > “quin·tes·sence
> > > > > > > > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > > > > > > > –noun
> > > > > > > > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > > > > > > > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > > > > > > > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > > > > > > > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > > > > > > > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > > > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > > > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > > > > > > > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > > > > > > > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > > > interactions with matter”
>
> > > > > > > > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > > > > > > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > > > > > > > gravity.
>
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the link.
>
> > > > > > > Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> > > > > > > and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> > > > > > > substance.
>
> > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > The matter which is the Earth is displaced far beyond the Moon. This
> > > > > > aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the aether
> > > > > > displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the Earth
> > > > > > equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the distance
> > > > > > the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > You are avoiding my point. If rotation goes for and against aether
> > > > > creating different pressures of gravity then gravity is not a constant
> > > > > for the Earth. How do you address that?
>
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > Rotation does NOT go for and against aether creating different
> > > > pressures of gravity.
>
> > > But you have already claimed that it is.
>
> > No, you misinterpreted it that way. I never said rotation had anything
> > to do with gravity.
>
> > I said an atomic clock traveling eastward is moving against the ‘flow’
> > of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick slower.
>
> > An atomic clock traveling westward is moving with the ‘flow’ of
> > aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick faster.
>
> > Not once did I relate aether ‘flow’ or ‘entrainment’ with gravity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > – Show quoted text -
>
> NO. When you make a mistake and I call you on it you cannot get away
> with saying it was just my misinterpretation when it was not.
> I will give you the fact that maybe you do not remember what you say
> mpc.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Find the post. They are all on this thread.
What I said is the aether is ‘entrained’ by the Earth. The further
from the surface of the Earth the aether is the less ‘entrained’ it
is. If you were standing on the Earth looking up and were able to see
the aether it would move east to west. The ‘entrained’ aether is
moving west to east but at a slower rate than the Earth rotates.
An atomic clock on an airplane flying eastward is flying against the
‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will be
under greater aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and
will tick slower than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
An atomic clock on an airplane flying westward is flying with the
‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will under
less aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and will tick
faster than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
Not once did I relate the above to gravity.
If you think I did go find the post.
What I have said consistently is the rate at which a GPS satellite
ticks is based upon both its motion with respect to the aether and the
pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth (gravity).
The rate at which an atomic clock ‘ticks’ is based upon the aether
pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS
satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether
and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS
satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest
with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to
“result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day”. The aether pressure associated
with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS
satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth “causing the GPS
clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day”. The aether pressure
associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with
respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the
aether displaced by the Earth causes “clocks on the GPS satellites
[to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground.”
(quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).
==============================================================================
TOPIC: CERN, LHC. Tomorrow, the 30-th of March, despite to our protests, CERN
plans to perform the first collisions of protons with the energy 3.5 TeV per
proton (7 TeV per collision).
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:48 pm
From: eric gisse
Magnetic wrote:
> On Mar 30, 1:56 am, “J. Clarke” wrote:
>> On 3/29/2010 4:23 PM, John Christiansen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > “Uncle Al” skrev i en meddelelse
>> >news:4BB0C8DF.E4006D50@hate.spam.net…
>> >> Magnetic wrote:
>>
>> >>> Tomorrow, despite to our protests, CERN plans to perform the first
>> >>> collisions of protons with the energy 3.5 TeV per proton (7 TeV per
>> >>> collision).
>> >>> I give about 50% that the dangerous microscopic object will be
>> >>> created. It will grow, ruining the ordinary matter, and can ruin our
>> >>> planet or a part of it.
>> >> [snip crap]
>>
>> >>http://physics.aps.org/articles/v2/104
>> >>
>> >>http://arxiv/abs/1003.2030
>> >>
>>
>> >> idiot
>>
>> >> –
>> >> Uncle Al
>> >>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
>> >> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
>> >>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
>>
>> > Not even a billion collisions would create enough energy to heat 1
>> > liter of water by 1 K. Magnetic has obviously no idea how little 1 TeV
>> > is.
>>
>> That last sentence has five more words than it needs
>
> ========
> +++++++++++++++
> 6 700 000 000 ++++++++++
> ++++++++++++++++++
So when nothing happens, what will you do?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Please listen with respect to Mr Banerjee, an vastly superior
aristocratic mind indeed !!!
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:03 pm
From: Arindam Banerjee
On Mar 30, 1:08 am, Marshall wrote:
> On Mar 29, 5:19 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tell me, dear doggie, ain’t it rum
> > How the choicest of the net scum
> > Blasts the stink from its tum
> > So that none may near it come?
> > None good, that is; some
> > Are fools, to heed that bum.
> > Too much rot, that’s the sum
> > Of the jBm’s keyboard’s thrum.
>
> I like your poetry every bit as much as I like you science!
> It’s just as good!
>
> Marshall
Wow, thanks a lot! Great to have appreciation! Now, shall we throw
out the wrong notions of relativity from the textbooks? Please,
please…
As for my poetry, I have only had few opportunities to recite them in
public. My friend and partner Ilya (the well-known poet, philosopher
and translator) has been most eager, but distances here are too great.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:21 pm
From: John Larkin
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:19:47 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
wrote:
>
>
>John Larkin wrote:
>
>
>> Each channel has its own ARM with a 12-bit ADC and a 10-bit DAC. The
>> ADC will measure the voltage drop across a shunt resistor, to get loop
>> current, and also our terminal voltage. The DAC drives a series linear
>> mosfet to regulate output. It will behave like a constant-voltage,
>> current-limited power supply, in that the user can program current and
>> voltage and it will operate in the appropriate mode, depending on the
>> load.
>>
>> It’s a 100 MHz 32-bit cpu, and the fastest I can digitize the pair of
>> inputs is 100 KHz, and I could run the loop at 50 or even 25 KHz, so
>> there should be tons of cpu cycles available.
>
>This is not a lot. The loop cutoff frequency can hardly be done higher
>then 1/(6 x total delay in the loop), so if you run at 25kHz, it is
>going to be 4kHz or so. You probably want at least 20dB of feedback, so
>400 Hz it is; unless real fancy feedback arrangements. Pretty slow.
>
>Vladimir Vassilevsky
>DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
>http://www.abvolt.com
I could tolerate a 1 millisecond risetime, which is in fact in the
ballpark of 400 Hz. If I run at 50K, things should be OK. I can maybe
run at 100K, which gives me 1000 CPU cycles per whack. This is a
32-bit machine with a single-cycle multiply.
John
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:24 pm
From: John Larkin
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:07:37 -0700, Tim Wescott
wrote:
>John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:31:02 -0700 (PDT), pnachtwey
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 29, 11:53 am, John Larkin
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:20:31 -0400, Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>> Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>>> Fred Bartoli wrote:
>>>>>>> Tim Wescott a �crit :
>>>>>>>> Fred Bartoli wrote:
>>>>>>>>> John Larkin a �crit :
>>>>>>>>>> I’m designing a gadget that uses an ARM uP, with 12-bit mux’d ADC and
>>>>>>>>>> a 10-bit DAC, to essentially make a current and voltage regulated
>>>>>>>>>> power supply. The ADC will measure voltage and current and the DAC
>>>>>>>>>> will control a fairly soft source-follower series-pass mosfet. The
>>>>>>>>>> customer load could be most anything.
>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be time-effective to simulate the control loop while
>>>>>>>>>> the PC board is being fabbed, so we don’t have to play with dynamics
>>>>>>>>>> as much in the critical delivery path.
>>>>>>>>>> I can simulate it as an analog loop using LT Spice, as I’m familiar
>>>>>>>>>> with that and could get it done quickly. It would be handy if I could
>>>>>>>>>> also use the same model in digital mode, which would add sampling
>>>>>>>>>> delays and maybe even quantization.
>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts on how to do this?
>>>>>>>>>> I note here that more and more formerly-analog control loops, things
>>>>>>>>>> like switching power supplies, motor drivers, power amps, will be
>>>>>>>>>> going digital in the future. Some of the ARM chips are selling for
>>>>>>>>>> under a dollar. Analog parts will, I think, increasingly be used for
>>>>>>>>>> things like amplification, and less for computation.
>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>> It can easily done with spice.
>>>>>>>>> The software delay can be modeled as a TLINE provided it is constant
>>>>>>>>> in your system.
>>>>>>>>> For switchers you model the switch as an averaged one (continuous
>>>>>>>>> model). The sampling action is modeled by a 2 poles TF (look at
>>>>>>>>> Ridley’s paper “Accurate and practical small signal model for
>>>>>>>>> current mode control”, or I can try to dig in one of my previous HDs).
>>>>>>>>> With good modeling you can have average transient and AC (loop
>>>>>>>>> gain,…) simulations which are real close to the actual circuit.
>>>>>>>>> That won’t give you quantization though, and I guess this can’t be
>>>>>>>>> modeled as with sigma delta since you have a first order loop and
>>>>>>>>> probably an almost constant signal.
>>>>>>>>> Maybe, but I never tried this, you can discretize the loop (only for
>>>>>>>>> transient analysis) with use of B “arbitrary sources” within which
>>>>>>>>> you use some integer part function. I don’t know whether LTspice
>>>>>>>>> support B sources, but you should find something equivalent…
>>>>>>>> Quantization looks like infinite gain, though, so unless it is
>>>>>>>> wrapped inside of a sampled-time section it’ll really slow down — or
>>>>>>>> completely crash — the simulation.
>>>>>>>> You can analyze fairly well for quantization by treating it as noise
>>>>>>>> at the magnitude of the quantization, and the worst possible
>>>>>>>> frequency. Just inject a signal at the quantization point, do a
>>>>>>>> frequency sweep to figure out the sensitivity of the output to the
>>>>>>>> quantization, and take the worst spot.
>>>>>>>> Quantization always seems to seek to do the most damage possible, so
>>>>>>>> treating it as worst case isn’t paranoid. In this case, it really is
>>>>>>>> out to get you!
>>>>>>> It’s been a while I’ve looked at this but IIRC it’s only one bit
>>>>>>> quantizer that have infinite gain. Multibit quantizers, as I guess
>>>>>>> John will use since he has plentiful bits ADC/DAC, have unit gain.
>>>>>>> I once used an ARM with 12b ADC/DACs to build a low OSR SD converter
>>>>>>> with real high resolution at almost no cost (the ARM was mandated for
>>>>>>> other things). Of course it wasn’t more linear than the DAC on large
>>>>>>> signals, but the app was OK with that…
>>>>>> At the point of the quantization step the input moves an infinitesimal
>>>>>> amount, and the output moves a finite amount. That’s an infinite gain.
>>>>>> With a 12-bit device, it happens 4095 times, instead of once.
>>>>> It really plays havoc when computing a simple “derivative”.
>>>>> Jerry
>>>> Derivatives usually cause more trouble than they do good. My “PID”
>>>> controller will almost certainly have D=0.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>> Many systems don’t require a derivative gain. It depends on the
>>> number of poles in your plant and we have no idea what you are trying
>>> to do.
>>>
>>> I am a big believer in derivative gains since I must tune under damped
>>> systems. The trick is a have very fine resolution feed back that is
>>> almost noise free or a good model. I would use 16 bit analog feedback
>>> devices to get the finer resolution. I was just at a site where I
>>> used the second derivative gain and it was necessary.
>>>
>>> Sometime a low pass filter on the output helps too. If you are clever
>>> you can calculate the gains and take the low pass filter into
>>> consideration. This is better than trying to tweak each gain one a
>>> time along with the output filter.
>>>
>>> Do you have excess CPU time?
>>>
>>> Peter Nachtwey
>>
>> This is my VME module, with 12 channels of 4-20 mA isolated outputs.
>> Each channel has its own ARM with a 12-bit ADC and a 10-bit DAC. The
>> ADC will measure the voltage drop across a shunt resistor, to get loop
>> current, and also our terminal voltage. The DAC drives a series linear
>> mosfet to regulate output. It will behave like a constant-voltage,
>> current-limited power supply, in that the user can program current and
>> voltage and it will operate in the appropriate mode, depending on the
>> load.
>>
>> It’s a 100 MHz 32-bit cpu, and the fastest I can digitize the pair of
>> inputs is 100 KHz, and I could run the loop at 50 or even 25 KHz, so
>> there should be tons of cpu cycles available.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>You may be surprised at how quickly you can use up 1000 CPU cycles.
Depends on the C compiler, I guess. If I were doing this in assembly
on a 68332 with a 20 MHz clock, I’d have no problem doing this PID in
10 microseconds. You’d think a 100 MHz ARM, with a single-cycle
multiply, could match that.
This will be interesting.
John
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:28 pm
From: John Larkin
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:13:24 -0700 (PDT), john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk
wrote:
>On 29 Mar, 17:11, John Larkin
> wrote:
>> I’m designing a gadget that uses an ARM uP, with 12-bit mux’d ADC and
>> a 10-bit DAC, to essentially make a current and voltage regulated
>> power supply. The ADC will measure voltage and current and the DAC
>> will control a fairly soft source-follower series-pass mosfet. The
>> customer load could be most anything.
>>
>> I think it would be time-effective to simulate the control loop while
>> the PC board is being fabbed, so we don’t have to play with dynamics
>> as much in the critical delivery path.
>>
>> I can simulate it as an analog loop using LT Spice, as I’m familiar
>> with that and could get it done quickly. It would be handy if I could
>> also use the same model in digital mode, which would add sampling
>> delays and maybe even quantization.
>>
>> Any thoughts on how to do this?
>>
>> I note here that more and more formerly-analog control loops, things
>> like switching power supplies, motor drivers, power amps, will be
>> going digital in the future. Some of the ARM chips are selling for
>> under a dollar. Analog parts will, I think, increasingly be used for
>> things like amplification, and less for computation.
>>
>> John
>
>Recently did a sampled oscillator ALC loop using an AVR chip (10 bit
>ADC+a bit of free dither and ‘Course/fine’ PWM as a DAC setpoint). Was
>tedious to figure out and redraw various interesting loop mechanisms
>in LTspice, so used Powerbasic. Much quicker in trialing a seemingly
>infinite number of valid control methods.
I am still considering doing the sim in PowerBasic, but LT spice has
all those nice graphics and scope probes, and it’s easy to fiddle
values and save files and print and stuff. Just easier to drive.
PBCC would of course do the time-sample and quantization bits easily.
John
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:27 pm
From: Joerg
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:53:39 -0700, Joerg wrote:
>
>> D from BC wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>> jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says…
[...]
>>>> Seismology has been called The Jesuit Science.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
>>>>
>>> I’m sure they all have very intelligent reasons for why they believe in
>>> Jesus and God and Noah that guy that lived in a fish.
>>
>> Ahm, the guy in the fish was Jonah
>
> Whales are fish? Who wudda thunk.
>
Ok, BIG fish
Or in biblical terms leviathan-sized …
[...]
–
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
“gmail” domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:34 pm
From: D from BC
In article ,
eather@tpg.com.au says…
>
> On 30/03/2010 10:16 AM, D from BC wrote:
> > Checked link
> > http://www.biblicalconcourse.com/BiblicalWorldviewEngineering.pdf
> > huh.. A Christian Engineering Education Conference in 2004
> >
> > clipped from article page 3:
> >
> > ‘Redemption was effected by God, when His Son, Jesus the Christ, paid
> > the penalty for man?s unrighteous
> > actions. This redemption has a two-fold effect on humankind.’
> >
> > I agree but for different reasons.
> > 1) It’s a good way of knowing what engineers can detect bullshit.
> > Jesus didn’t make a sacrifice if he ain’t permanently dead on earth and
> > in imaginary dimensions. iows ..no resurrection.
>
> Well that might be true if you exclude the pain of getting beaten for
> hours sold, flogged, having big nails driven through your wrists and
> feet, the emotional cost of all that plus the betrayal of a close
> friend, abandonment by everyone, and total rejection by his nation,
> mockery, humiliation, shame and the pain of dying of congestive heart
> failure,while naked and splayed out for public view with both shoulders
> dislocated.
>
> Of course if you think that is no great thing you can prove it – I will
> bring the hammer and nails, but first we will have to flog most of your
> skin off.
Sorry .. But Jesus is disqualified in raising an emotion here.
This is due to God = Jesus. An all powerful God gets harmed??
This is like kicking superman in the balls.. It doesn’t do anything.
I’m sure Jesus = God can handle a Mel Gibson style beating while
answering prayers and doing miracles on the other side of the globe
without blinking.
(Note: Doesn’t apply to all 38000 christian denominations.)
There’s no sacrifice.. It’s just God putting on a gore show.
>
> >
> > 2) It’s a good way of knowing what engineers can detect illogic.
> > Christians (not all there’s 38000 denominations) have God = Jesus =
> > Father = Son = Holy Spirit = Holy Ghost and it’s not considered a
> > redundancy.
> >
> >
>
> It is described as a scared mystery. It is fully accepted that this
> appears and indeed is illogical to our way of understanding.
Ha! A positive spin on illogic.
It’s a mystery when 1 = 3.
Square circles are a mystery too!
A bowl of sleep is a mystery!
Love on toast is a mystery!
The illogic of God = Son = Father = Holy spirit is not a mystery. It’s
poo poo.
(Note: Doesn’t apply to all 38000 christian denominations.)
>
> Now, don’t troll. If the newsgroup is uninteresting post something useful.
–
D from BC
British Columbia
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:44 pm
From: “krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz”
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:31:00 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:59:07 -0700 (PDT), mpm
>wrote:
>
>>On Mar 29, 6:35�pm, D from BC wrote:
>>> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so…
>>> Time for another mega-troll.
>>>
>>> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering?
>>> How can Christian electronics designers still do a good job with
>>> Christian concepts in their head. This seems like a mind combo that can
>>> have an impact and lead to potential problems.
>>>
>>> 1) Do designers believe electronic designs will work without evidence?
>>> 2) Do designers pray that the test equipment is accurate? Does the
>>> prayer avoid calibration 100% ?
>>> 3) Does all your electronic knowledge come from one book?
>>> 4) Does it feel pointless to do good engineering because it’ll all be
>>> over soon and you’ll finally have joy in the afterlife?
>>> 5) Do you resort to obfuscation, red herrings, lying, diversion,
>>> digression, deception, personal attacks,circular reasoning and logical
>>> fallacies to convince people you have the best design?
>>> 6) Do you think that other designers that do design differently will
>>> burn in hell?
>>> 7) Do you stone designers that don’t follow UL?
>>> Do you talk to Jesus when you are stuck on a tough electronics
>>> problem?
>>> 9) Do he answer?
>>> 10) Do you believe in God the creator of everything because every
>>> circuit has a creator?
>>> 11) Do you make safe circuits(shock/fire) so that God doesn’t send you
>>> to hell for killing someone?
>>> 12) When a circuit doesn’t work do you fling your arms in the air and
>>> say ‘God’s plan!’ But when it does work it’s a miracle!
>>> 13) When written electronics theory doesn’t fit your design ideas, do
>>> you change the theory with excuses such as mistranslation or
>>> misinterpretation?
>>> 14) Do you make designs work with wishful thinking?
>>> 15) Have you designed all your circuits with sin included?
>>> 16) When nobody can disprove if an Ebay oscilloscope is broken then it
>>> must work?
>>> 17) Do you believe in stories of burnt circuits magically coming back to
>>> life?
>>> 18) Have you sacrificed an oscilloscope lately?
>>> 19) Do you think radio waves go up into the firmament?
>>> 20) You see no reason to make electronics for treating cancer cause
>>> prayer works.
>>> 21) If you believe in God, Jesus and Satan then how is that different
>>> than believing in transistor fairies?
>>>
>>> –
>>> D from BC
>>> British Columbia
>>
>>Substitute God for God and Goddess, delete Jesus and Satan, and change
>>Christian to Wicca and you got yourself a deal.
>>After all, they don’t call it solder wick for nothin’.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Sign in a parking lot near here:
>
>
> WITCH PARKING ONLY
>
> all other will be toad
Bumper sticker I saw a few years ago (and want one for my wife’s car), “I’ve
been in a bad mood since the house fell on my sister”.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:49 pm
From: D from BC
In article ,
eather@tpg.com.au says…
>
> On 30/03/2010 10:33 AM, D from BC wrote:
> > In article,
> > jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says…
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:35:39 -0700, D from BC
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so…
> >>> Time for another mega-troll.
> >>>
> >>> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering?
> >>> How can Christian electronics designers still do a good job with
> >>> Christian concepts in their head.
> >>
> >> I know a couple of seriously Christian electronics designers and
> >> programmers who are literally a couple of orders of magnitude better
> >> than you are.
> >>
> >> Some of the best scientists and mathematicians have been Jesuits.
> >> Seismology has been called The Jesuit Science.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
> >>
> >
> > I’m sure they all have very intelligent reasons for why they believe in
> > Jesus and God and Noah that guy that lived in a fish.
> > Maybe you can list what their reasons are.
> >
> >
>
> I can, if you are actually interested.
Sure..
Do Larkin’s intelligent scientists and intelligent engineers and
intelligent mathematicians have an intelligent reason for why they
believe the story of Jonah (that biblical guy that lived for days in a
fish) or Noah or God or Jesus?
–
D from BC
British Columbia
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 8:22 am
From: Robert Baer
D from BC wrote:
> Checked link
> http://www.biblicalconcourse.com/BiblicalWorldviewEngineering.pdf
> huh.. A Christian Engineering Education Conference in 2004
>
> clipped from article page 3:
>
> ‘Redemption was effected by God, when His Son, Jesus the Christ, paid
> the penalty for man?s unrighteous
> actions. This redemption has a two-fold effect on humankind.’
>
> I agree but for different reasons.
> 1) It’s a good way of knowing what engineers can detect bullshit.
> Jesus didn’t make a sacrifice if he ain’t permanently dead on earth and
> in imaginary dimensions. iows ..no resurrection.
>
> 2) It’s a good way of knowing what engineers can detect illogic.
> Christians (not all there’s 38000 denominations) have God = Jesus =
> Father = Son = Holy Spirit = Holy Ghost and it’s not considered a
> redundancy.
>
>
Re: #2, now you know (one reason) why Muslims “dis” Christians…
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 8:22 am
From: Robert Baer
D from BC wrote:
> In article ,
> jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says…
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:35:39 -0700, D from BC
>> wrote:
>>
>>> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so…
>>> Time for another mega-troll.
>>>
>>> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering?
>>> How can Christian electronics designers still do a good job with
>>> Christian concepts in their head.
>> I know a couple of seriously Christian electronics designers and
>> programmers who are literally a couple of orders of magnitude better
>> than you are.
>>
>> Some of the best scientists and mathematicians have been Jesuits.
>> Seismology has been called The Jesuit Science.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
>>
>
> I’m sure they all have very intelligent reasons for why they believe in
> Jesus and God and Noah that guy that lived in a fish.
> Maybe you can list what their reasons are.
>
>
*NOT* a fish!
Get your facts straight first…
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 8:24 am
From: Robert Baer
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:35:39 -0700, D from BC
>> wrote:
>>
>>> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so…
>>> Time for another mega-troll.
>>>
>>> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering?
>>> How can Christian electronics designers still do a good job with
>>> Christian concepts in their head. This seems like a mind combo that can
>>> have an impact and lead to potential problems.
>>>
>>> 1) Do designers believe electronic designs will work without evidence?
>>> 2) Do designers pray that the test equipment is accurate? Does the
>>> prayer avoid calibration 100% ?
>>> 3) Does all your electronic knowledge come from one book?
>>> 4) Does it feel pointless to do good engineering because it’ll all be
>>> over soon and you’ll finally have joy in the afterlife?
>>> 5) Do you resort to obfuscation, red herrings, lying, diversion,
>>> digression, deception, personal attacks,circular reasoning and logical
>>> fallacies to convince people you have the best design?
>>> 6) Do you think that other designers that do design differently will
>>> burn in hell?
>>> 7) Do you stone designers that don’t follow UL?
>>> Do you talk to Jesus when you are stuck on a tough electronics
>>> problem?
>>> 9) Do he answer?
>>> 10) Do you believe in God the creator of everything because every
>>> circuit has a creator?
>>> 11) Do you make safe circuits(shock/fire) so that God doesn’t send you
>>> to hell for killing someone?
>>> 12) When a circuit doesn’t work do you fling your arms in the air and
>>> say ‘God’s plan!’ But when it does work it’s a miracle!
>>> 13) When written electronics theory doesn’t fit your design ideas, do
>>> you change the theory with excuses such as mistranslation or
>>> misinterpretation?
>>> 14) Do you make designs work with wishful thinking?
>>> 15) Have you designed all your circuits with sin included?
>>> 16) When nobody can disprove if an Ebay oscilloscope is broken then it
>>> must work?
>>> 17) Do you believe in stories of burnt circuits magically coming back to
>>> life?
>>> 18) Have you sacrificed an oscilloscope lately?
>>> 19) Do you think radio waves go up into the firmament?
>>> 20) You see no reason to make electronics for treating cancer cause
>>> prayer works.
>>> 21) If you believe in God, Jesus and Satan then how is that different
>>> than believing in transistor fairies?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Sheeeesh!
>
>
> Is it any wonder that the transistor fairies are all Canadian?
>
>
What is it again? “how many transistors can dance on the head of a
pin?” ..
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:29 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In , Archimedes’ Lever wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT), osr@uakron.edu wrote:
>
>> I’ve yet to see a “synthetic” yellow that ever comes close
>>to a direct yellow.
>
> Would not “compiled” be a better term?
>
> There is a video of a Thai dance that used a lot of yellow lasers.
>
> Quite a beautiful dance, even though it gives the impression that young
>girls and women are enslaved to such “service” in life. Then they pick
>the best and prettiest dancers from that crop to actually put “on
>display”.
>
> A lot of them look real hot, but then my 18 or older alarm starts
>sounding, because even though some of them are surely of adult age, many
>did not look that way.
>
> Anyway, they had a LOT of pure yellow lasers going and it certainly
>does light everything up with a real yellow tinge.
>
> Still, an LCD panel is a backlit filter array more than anything else,
>so this added ‘pixel’ into the ‘pixel mosh pit’ might make for a
>’compiled pixel’ that actually expands the color space use quite a bit.
>
> Funny how I had to explain to a guy at work the other day how the three
>colors add up to black on a printer and white on a display. I had to
>explain to him the differences between additive and subtractive color
>mixing and how an opaque “color” will add together to form black.
>
> He acted like he still didn’t believe me as he went back to his
>workstation. I did not have time from my work to go into any great depth
>of show him how a display adds up the same three colors differently than
>the printer does. Most all printers use opaque inks, not transparent
>inks
If that is true, than Canon BJC600 and i560 printers are other than
“most all printers”, at least as far as the colored inks go.
However, transparent inks follow subtractive color mixing well.
– Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:48 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In , Archimedes’ Lever wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT), osr@uakron.edu wrote:
>
>>With 8 bit RGB alone, I have a theoretical 16.8 million color
>>system. In reality, we would use 32 or 64 color palettes. More then
>>that is overload.
>
> We cannot even see what a modern display is capable of. They can all
>pretty much produce colors that we are not able to discern. Our useable,
>readable, “seeable” “color space” is INSIDE of what they can produce
>already.
At least nearly all red laser pointers, many red LEDs and a fair number
of red traffic signals (mainly incandescent ones and the GaAlAsP LED ones
common in Philadelphia but not anywhere else I have been) have a red color
that I easily find to be a deeper, more pure shade of red than the red
phosphor in CRT monitors and TV sets, the main reddish wavelength of most
CCFL lamps, and the usaul InGaAlP red LEDs.
And how about a usual green InGaAlP LED filtered by a layer or two of
green Plexiglas or the like? I have yet to see any monitor or TV set
produce a green like that, let alone the nice deep emerald green of the
514.9/515.3 nm line pair of high pressure sodium or the deep blue-green
of the 497.9/498.3 line pair of high pressure sodium, or the vivid deep
blue-greenish turquoise of the 486.1 nm line of hydrogen.
Heck, I have yet to see a monitor or TV set achieve the deep lime
green of 532 nm laser pointers, but sometimes some look close. And
turquoise-side blue InGaN LEDs have a color that I have yet to see in a
monitor or a TV set, so does a 473 nm turquoise blue laser.
– Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 1:58 am
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:05:05 -0700, mike wrote:
>Greegor wrote:
>> Is there any truth to their claim that adding Yellow to RGBY
>> enables them to represent colors that RGB cannot?
>>
>> Are Yellows hard to produce with RGB Displays?
>>
>Ability of the display is only part of the equation.
>What about the source material?
>If I’m watching a 5 year old DVD manufactured for a 3-color
>display, will I perceive any difference.
>
>Can’t watch pictures of yellow synthetic fish all day…
Did they ‘create’ that fish inside of a computer simulator, or are you
full of shit and they filmed that fish with a four sub-pixel camera?
Bwuahahahahaah!
I already posted that the source material would also have to contain
additional information for such a system to work correctly. Would be no
harder to store the data, but one would have to engineer a new set of
source generation tools.
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 2:00 am
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:05:36 -0700, Fred Abse
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:57:17 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> I used to love the way US newscasters drifted between ghoulish green and
>> purple in the days before they were clamped to pale orange leather. I
>> always believed it was a limitation of NTSC broadcast signals until I
>> lived in Japan where they manage to do it correctly.
>
>Newscasters *are* orange
And my head jerks a lot when I watch them…
Or is that *him* shaking ?
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 2:01 am
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:05:36 -0700, Fred Abse
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:57:17 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> I used to love the way US newscasters drifted between ghoulish green and
>> purple in the days before they were clamped to pale orange leather. I
>> always believed it was a limitation of NTSC broadcast signals until I
>> lived in Japan where they manage to do it correctly.
>
>Newscasters *are* orange
For some reason, I also thought of ‘Liquid Sky’
Even though there isn’t even the most remote connection.
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 2:01 am
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:36:14 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:57:17 +0100, Martin Brown
> wrote:
>
>>I used to love the way US newscasters drifted between ghoulish green and
>>purple in the days before they were clamped to pale orange leather. I
>>always believed it was a limitation of NTSC broadcast signals until I
>>lived in Japan where they manage to do it correctly.
>
>NTSC = No True Skin Colors?
>
>>Regards,
>>Martin Brown
Cover the entire gamut… Never Twice Same Color
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:07 pm
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:29:31 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
>In , Archimedes’ Lever wrote:
>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT), osr@uakron.edu wrote:
>>
>>> I’ve yet to see a “synthetic” yellow that ever comes close
>>>to a direct yellow.
>>
>> Would not “compiled” be a better term?
>>
>> There is a video of a Thai dance that used a lot of yellow lasers.
>>
>> Quite a beautiful dance, even though it gives the impression that young
>>girls and women are enslaved to such “service” in life. Then they pick
>>the best and prettiest dancers from that crop to actually put “on
>>display”.
>>
>> A lot of them look real hot, but then my 18 or older alarm starts
>>sounding, because even though some of them are surely of adult age, many
>>did not look that way.
>>
>> Anyway, they had a LOT of pure yellow lasers going and it certainly
>>does light everything up with a real yellow tinge.
>>
>> Still, an LCD panel is a backlit filter array more than anything else,
>>so this added ‘pixel’ into the ‘pixel mosh pit’ might make for a
>>’compiled pixel’ that actually expands the color space use quite a bit.
>>
>> Funny how I had to explain to a guy at work the other day how the three
>>colors add up to black on a printer and white on a display. I had to
>>explain to him the differences between additive and subtractive color
>>mixing and how an opaque “color” will add together to form black.
>>
>> He acted like he still didn’t believe me as he went back to his
>>workstation. I did not have time from my work to go into any great depth
>>of show him how a display adds up the same three colors differently than
>>the printer does. Most all printers use opaque inks, not transparent
>>inks
>
> If that is true, than Canon BJC600 and i560 printers are other than
>”most all printers”, at least as far as the colored inks go.
>
> However, transparent inks follow subtractive color mixing well.
>
> – Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Stacking the three bases overlapped makes what color in the center
overlapped area from a jet printer?
And then from a laser? Are toner powders transparent dyes, not opaque
fine powders?
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:09 pm
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:48:14 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
>In , Archimedes’ Lever wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT), osr@uakron.edu wrote:
>>
>>>With 8 bit RGB alone, I have a theoretical 16.8 million color
>>>system. In reality, we would use 32 or 64 color palettes. More then
>>>that is overload.
>>
>> We cannot even see what a modern display is capable of. They can all
>>pretty much produce colors that we are not able to discern. Our useable,
>>readable, “seeable” “color space” is INSIDE of what they can produce
>>already.
>
> At least nearly all red laser pointers, many red LEDs and a fair number
>of red traffic signals (mainly incandescent ones and the GaAlAsP LED ones
>common in Philadelphia but not anywhere else I have been) have a red color
>that I easily find to be a deeper, more pure shade of red than the red
>phosphor in CRT monitors and TV sets, the main reddish wavelength of most
>CCFL lamps, and the usaul InGaAlP red LEDs.
>
> And how about a usual green InGaAlP LED filtered by a layer or two of
>green Plexiglas or the like? I have yet to see any monitor or TV set
>produce a green like that, let alone the nice deep emerald green of the
>514.9/515.3 nm line pair of high pressure sodium or the deep blue-green
>of the 497.9/498.3 line pair of high pressure sodium, or the vivid deep
>blue-greenish turquoise of the 486.1 nm line of hydrogen.
> Heck, I have yet to see a monitor or TV set achieve the deep lime
>green of 532 nm laser pointers, but sometimes some look close. And
>turquoise-side blue InGaN LEDs have a color that I have yet to see in a
>monitor or a TV set, so does a 473 nm turquoise blue laser.
>
> – Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
You look into lasers?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Through Hole vs. Surface Mount
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 7:50 am
From: Robert Baer
Joerg wrote:
> Robert Baer wrote:
>> Joerg wrote:
>>> Martin Riddle wrote:
>>>> “Chris” wrote in message
>>>> news:fbd910e4-f10e-42d8-a193-bb9c7a1cd19f@c2g2000pre.googlegroups.com…
>>>>
>>>>> I have just completed a designing a board that has 5 16 pin ICs. I
>>>>> was planing on etching and drilling myself, but after my last project
>>>>> took for ever to drill far fewer holes, I was considering going
>>>>> surface mount. I am only planing to make three at first. Should I
>>>>> stick to through hole for the ease of hand soldering, or should I
>>>>> switch to decaf and wait a month and try my hand at surface mount.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> A glass of Guinness works much better
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Comments Welcome,
>>>>> Chris Maness
>>>>
>>>> I second the SMT try. It’s not as difficult as it seems. Get a
>>>> good magnifier , headband type.
>>>> A good pair of tweezers, fine tips for your iron, and fine 0.015″
>>>> solder helps too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I like 0.015″ Kester No-Clean best. No mess.
>>>
>>>
>>>> There are some good parts out there that only come in SMT.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, like tons of great RF transistors or fast opamps.
>>>
>> “No-Clean”? GACK! avoid that junk like the plague it is…
>
>
> I’ve had no issues at all with it. Very clean solder joints, and they
> stay clean.
>
1) What do you use to clean the glop off?
2) What about leakage current issues?
3) What about high voltage issues?
4) What about reliability issues if glop is left alone?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anybody know a decent scanner that works in Linux?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 7:56 am
From: Robert Baer
Jan Panteltje wrote:
> Anybody know a decent scanner that works in Linux?
> Preferably not Canon.
What you really mean is “are there any decent scanners that have
available Linux drivers”.
Am sure there are a fair number of decent scanners…
Pick one you like, find the maker on the web, check for a driver or
ask. Next see if there is a 3rd party driver.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: NiCad batteries not in use for a long time/discharged
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 1:55 am
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:58:26 -0700, mike wrote:
>Gary Peek wrote:
>> Any NiCad battery experts out there? For a NiCad battery pack that
>> has not been in use for a long time, like a year, and has discharged
>> well below the point of operating the circuit it was powering, what
>> is the best way to restore it to use? Is charging it in the normal
>> manner good enough, or are a couple of charge/discharge cycles better?
>>
>> — news://freenews.netfront.net/ – complaints: news@netfront.net —
>
>beware shorted cells.
>I’ve seen many a wall-wart melted because they’re designed to charge
>all-good cells. When one or more cells shorts, the wall-wart has
>insufficient current to blow out the short, so it burns itself up
>trying to stuff unlimited current into fewer cells. That can also
>over heat the good cells. Happens a lot with power tools.
>
Well, it does NOT happen with the wall wart type you describe. For one
thing, they charge in pairs, and one pair does not affect the other, so
at the very most, you would surge ONE already charged battery.
However, they also nearly all have a watchdog circuit that checks the
batteries at the first insertion and application of power (plugging it
in). I have never seen one that could or would charge or apply a charge
or surge, that could heat it or the battery up to the melting point of
the plastic, much less its flash point.
>It’s safer to use an external supply to zap any shorts and get the
>pack voltage up past 1V/cell before attempting to use the stock charger.
Seal packs are a different case, for sure. Single cells, had they
NEVER been commonly referred to as “batteries” to begin with, would have
solved any ambiguities that still exist there. Folks would understand
discussions about memory effect, etc. far better.
Parts is parts. We should call a single cell a cell and a battery a
battery.
They are AAA, AA, C, and D CELLS. It is a ‘Nine Volt BATTERY’.
The BATTERY pack on your computer, drill, Portable DVD player, etc.,
are made up of two or more CELLS of various and sundry sizes and voltages
and electro-chemical energy storage technologies.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 8:12 am
From: Robert Baer
messianic light wrote:
> I am just starting with idea to design a digitally controlled analogue
> synthesizer
>
> does anyone have basic analogue synthesizer circuits to get me going
> with breadboard design?
The Theremin comes to mind…
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:12 pm
From: a7yvm109gf5d1@netzero.com
Just installed the 9.0 PADS suite from Mentor, I’m using it as a
viewer to look at a contractor’s pcb work.
I’m having a hard time with two simple things:
1) I can’t for the life of me figure out how to turn on the rat’s
nests. I think they’re called unroutes in the PADS world. The designer
somehow turned them all off and I’ve tried in vain to get them to show
again. How do you do this?
There’s a net visibilty window and the settings here seem to affect
nothing. It doesn’t seem to be a color issue either.
2) Reporting and selecting things on-screen seem weak in PADS. I’m
more of an Allegro guy. In Allegro I can select a bunch of things and
generate a report on all the items. PADS seems to be able to handle
only one item at a time in its properties dialog. This can not be
real…
Suppose I select 24 items on the screen with the nets filter, how can
I generate a text file with all the relevant info for the 24 nets?
TIA
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Reverse or inverse ARP from windows/linux – no way (!?!?)
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:22 pm
From: Didi
On Mar 30, 1:44 am, Hans-Bernhard Bröker
wrote:
> Didi wrote:
> > I tried today to figure out a simple way to give users of our
> > new netmca (http://tgi-sci.com/tgi/nmcatb.htm) to locate its
> > IP address once it gets one via dhcp when there is no internet
> > at the moment
>
> I believe that, strictly speaking, that can’t happen. If you have no
> internet at the moment, you don’t have DHCP either. Remember that DHCP
> itself is a UDP service. UDP in turn works on top of IP, and that, for
> better or for worse, is “internet”.
Oh no. Here we go again. I got quite a few really insightful replies
and
now this.
There are DHCP servers in the absence of internet. For example, a
popular
type of cable models do assign IP addresses of the 192.168…. kind
when it has no link over the TV cable. Routers do that whether they
are linked to the internet or not. On which planet do you live.
>
> > Turned out there is nothing like an easy way to do that!
>
> Well, the problem is nowhere near as easy as it appears at first sight.
> It’s called a “network” because it’s _work_ to set up a properly
> functioning net.
Thank for the opinion. But you are posting to groups where some
minimal
understanding of how things work is implied, these are not general
talk
forums. Have a look at the thread in its entity and you will see what
I mean. No offense meant, just being practical and trying to save time
to myself and the rest of the people who really had something to say.
>
> > How on Earth is that possible?!
>
> You’ll want to look up “zero config networking”. That’s what the big
> guys came up with to address this very same issue. You’ll see Apple
> mentioned rather a lot, for their “Rendezvouz”/”Bonjour” project.
No. I was quite particular explaining what I wanted, the fact that you
did not understand it should have indicated to you that you are
about to post to a thread you do not understand.
>
> And let me point out I’m completely flabbergasted that nobody mentioned
> this before me — not over here in c.a.embedded, anyway. I mean, come
> on guys: not a single owner of an Apple Airport base station speaking
> up, wondering what all these people keep talking about for days, when a
> “normal” WLAN box just does the job???
Same answer. The fact that you did not understand what we were talking
about should have been sufficient for you to grasp that the topic is
outside of your competence and that you have nothing to contribute.
* well here we go again, capitalists working against their own best self
interests:there are no rules in capitalism, except those enforced by
government:Moth forces wine country’s secret into the open:Suitcase smuggling -
1 messages, 1 author
* Why Are Domestic Terrorists Apprehended In Blue States While Red State
Politicians Support the “2nd Amend. Right” To Spree Shoot and Terror Attack
Innocents? – 2 messages, 2 authors
> They made the same mistake you do – assuming any criticism
> must come from the far fringe of what partisan loyalists consider “the
> enemy”.
>
> A great many people – liberal, moderate, and conservative – are
> disturbed at the childish games of both parties. But you simply
> choose to view your politics as “us” vs “them” as a substitute for
> football teams.
>
> Read my body of posts and it’s clear I take a very dim view of the
> shenanigans of BOTH parties.
>
> The rest of your continuing insistence of seeing everything as “us” vs
> “them” snipped.
>
> __
> WS in a.s and m.s
> Two parties, not a dimes worth of difference.- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:05 pm
From: Winston_Smith
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:39 pm
From: “What you are reading is Philosophy and P Versus NP.”
On Mar 29, 3:18 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
> “What you are reading is Philosophy and P Versus NP.” wrote:
>
>
>
> > Our units of temporal measurement, from seconds on up to months, are
> > so complicated, assymetrical and disjunctive so as to make coherent
> > mental reckoning in time all but impossible.
>
> Take lithium; get a wristwatch; move to Borneo.
>
Father confront those who confront me with all fear they muster and
all anger and rage. Say, to these:
<
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:48 pm
From: Bret Cahill
> > > > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > > > > nonsense.
>
> > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > Fuck McBeaner. We’re tired of linguini spined RINOS that think they
> > > > > need to “cross party lines” to get along with progressives. We want
> > > > > conservative candidates that are willing to use the same slash and
> > > > > burn tactics as progressives. Kill em’ all and let GOD sort em’ out !!
>
> > > > BREAKING NEWS:9 conservatives charged with conspiracy to kill police
> > > > officers in hopes of triggering a violent uprising against the
> > > > democratically elected government of the unites states of america:to
> > > > levy war against the United States
>
> > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_re_us/us_fbi_raids
>
> > > > 9 militia members charged in police-killing plot
>
> > > > By COREY WILLIAMS and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers –
> > > > 1 hr 1 min ago
> > > > DETROIT – Nine suspects tied to a Midwest Christian militia that was
> > > > preparing for the Antichrist were charged with conspiring to kill
> > > > police officers, then attack a funeral using homemade bombs in the
> > > > hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors
> > > > said Monday.
> > > > The Michigan-based group, called Hutaree, planned to use the attack on
> > > > police as a catalyst for a larger uprising against the government,
>
> > > Fortunately it was a blue state. Red state politicians won’t stop
> > > spree shooters and rightard terror bombers until the blood is already
> > > flowing.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > we can only hope the southern poverty law center can keep tabs on
> > them and warn us.
>
> If nothing else, they can point out to the right-
> wing extremists who are hiding under your bed
> at night.
Did you get that from one of your LaRouche links?
Bret Cahill
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:53 pm
From: Bret Cahill
> > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > nonsense.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > Considering your reputation as an extremist
> > hater of the First Amendment, how can anyone
> > take your daffynition of the words, “extremist,”
> > or, “moderate?”
>
> That is who can take your daffynition of those
> words seriously? Seriously.
Now that you know that your hero Dumbya Bush’s Patriot Act is now
being used against rightard gun nutter militias and that you have no
hope of popping off any Democrat politicians without getting a Third
Eye you tell me your only option now is to spree.
But I tell you, try not to spree and if you must spree, try to spree
local. Very local.
Just shoot up your double wide.
Bret Cahill
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:10 pm
From: Shrikeback
On Mar 29, 7:53 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > > nonsense.
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > Considering your reputation as an extremist
> > > hater of the First Amendment, how can anyone
> > > take your daffynition of the words, “extremist,”
> > > or, “moderate?”
>
> > That is who can take your daffynition of those
> > words seriously? Seriously.
>
> Now that you know that your hero Dumbya Bush’s Patriot Act is now
> being used against rightard gun nutter militias and that you have no
> hope of popping off any Democrat politicians without getting a Third
> Eye you tell me your only option now is to spree.
I didn’t support the Patriot Act, anymore than
I supported McCain Feingold’s Free Speech reform.
So you’re being pointless.
> But I tell you, try not to spree and if you must spree, try to spree
> local. Very local.
>
> Just shoot up your double wide.
Save the planet; kill yourself.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:11 pm
From: Shrikeback
On Mar 29, 7:48 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > > > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > > > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > > > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > > > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > > > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > > > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > > > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > > > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > > > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > > > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > > > > > nonsense.
>
> > > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > > Fuck McBeaner. We’re tired of linguini spined RINOS that think they
> > > > > > need to “cross party lines” to get along with progressives. We want
> > > > > > conservative candidates that are willing to use the same slash and
> > > > > > burn tactics as progressives. Kill em’ all and let GOD sort em’ out !!
>
> > > > > BREAKING NEWS:9 conservatives charged with conspiracy to kill police
> > > > > officers in hopes of triggering a violent uprising against the
> > > > > democratically elected government of the unites states of america:to
> > > > > levy war against the United States
>
> > > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_re_us/us_fbi_raids
>
> > > > > 9 militia members charged in police-killing plot
>
> > > > > By COREY WILLIAMS and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers –
> > > > > 1 hr 1 min ago
> > > > > DETROIT – Nine suspects tied to a Midwest Christian militia that was
> > > > > preparing for the Antichrist were charged with conspiring to kill
> > > > > police officers, then attack a funeral using homemade bombs in the
> > > > > hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors
> > > > > said Monday.
> > > > > The Michigan-based group, called Hutaree, planned to use the attack on
> > > > > police as a catalyst for a larger uprising against the government,
>
> > > > Fortunately it was a blue state. Red state politicians won’t stop
> > > > spree shooters and rightard terror bombers until the blood is already
> > > > flowing.
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > we can only hope the southern poverty law center can keep tabs on
> > > them and warn us.
>
> > If nothing else, they can point out to the right-
> > wing extremists who are hiding under your bed
> > at night.
>
> Did you get that from one of your LaRouche links?
Glad you brought LaDouche up. Your Vast Right-wing
Corpwhore Conspiracy to shove Free Speech down
everyone’s throat is very LaDouchean.
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:13 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 7:10 pm, Shrikeback wrote:
> On Mar 29, 4:29 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 4:59 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 2:50 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 2:14 pm, The PHANTOM wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 29, 11:08 am, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > > > > nonsense.
>
> > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > Fuck McBeaner. We’re tired of linguini spined RINOS that think they
> > > > > need to “cross party lines” to get along with progressives. We want
> > > > > conservative candidates that are willing to use the same slash and
> > > > > burn tactics as progressives. Kill em’ all and let GOD sort em’ out !!
>
> > > > BREAKING NEWS:9 conservatives charged with conspiracy to kill police
> > > > officers in hopes of triggering a violent uprising against the
> > > > democratically elected government of the unites states of america:to
> > > > levy war against the United States
>
> > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_re_us/us_fbi_raids
>
> > > > 9 militia members charged in police-killing plot
>
> > > > By COREY WILLIAMS and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers –
> > > > 1 hr 1 min ago
> > > > DETROIT – Nine suspects tied to a Midwest Christian militia that was
> > > > preparing for the Antichrist were charged with conspiring to kill
> > > > police officers, then attack a funeral using homemade bombs in the
> > > > hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors
> > > > said Monday.
> > > > The Michigan-based group, called Hutaree, planned to use the attack on
> > > > police as a catalyst for a larger uprising against the government,
>
> > > Fortunately it was a blue state. Red state politicians won’t stop
> > > spree shooters and rightard terror bombers until the blood is already
> > > flowing.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > we can only hope the southern poverty law center can keep tabs on
> > them and warn us.
>
> If nothing else, they can point out to the right-
> wing extremists who are hiding under your bed
> at night.
i live in michelle bachmans district.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:14 pm
From: Shrikeback
On Mar 29, 8:13 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Mar 29, 7:10 pm, Shrikeback wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 4:29 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 4:59 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 2:50 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 29, 2:14 pm, The PHANTOM wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 29, 11:08 am, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > > > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > > > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > > > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > > > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > > > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > > > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > > > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > > > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > > > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > > > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > > > > > nonsense.
>
> > > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > > Fuck McBeaner. We’re tired of linguini spined RINOS that think they
> > > > > > need to “cross party lines” to get along with progressives. We want
> > > > > > conservative candidates that are willing to use the same slash and
> > > > > > burn tactics as progressives. Kill em’ all and let GOD sort em’ out !!
>
> > > > > BREAKING NEWS:9 conservatives charged with conspiracy to kill police
> > > > > officers in hopes of triggering a violent uprising against the
> > > > > democratically elected government of the unites states of america:to
> > > > > levy war against the United States
>
> > > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_re_us/us_fbi_raids
>
> > > > > 9 militia members charged in police-killing plot
>
> > > > > By COREY WILLIAMS and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers –
> > > > > 1 hr 1 min ago
> > > > > DETROIT – Nine suspects tied to a Midwest Christian militia that was
> > > > > preparing for the Antichrist were charged with conspiring to kill
> > > > > police officers, then attack a funeral using homemade bombs in the
> > > > > hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors
> > > > > said Monday.
> > > > > The Michigan-based group, called Hutaree, planned to use the attack on
> > > > > police as a catalyst for a larger uprising against the government,
>
> > > > Fortunately it was a blue state. Red state politicians won’t stop
> > > > spree shooters and rightard terror bombers until the blood is already
> > > > flowing.
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > we can only hope the southern poverty law center can keep tabs on
> > > them and warn us.
>
> > If nothing else, they can point out to the right-
> > wing extremists who are hiding under your bed
> > at night.
>
> i live in michelle bachmans district.
They’re watching you.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:19 pm
From: Bret Cahill
> > > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > > > nonsense.
>
> > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > Considering your reputation as an extremist
> > > > hater of the First Amendment, how can anyone
> > > > take your daffynition of the words, “extremist,”
> > > > or, “moderate?”
>
> > > That is who can take your daffynition of those
> > > words seriously? Seriously.
>
> > Now that you know that your hero Dumbya Bush’s Patriot Act is now
> > being used against rightard gun nutter militias and that you have no
> > hope of popping off any Democrat politicians without getting a Third
> > Eye you tell me your only option now is to spree.
>
> I didn’t support the Patriot Act,
But you voted for Dumbya Bush.
Why did you vote for Dumbya Bush if he effectively took away your
“right” to plan assassinations and form violent right winger dinger
militias?
. . .
> > But I tell you, try not to spree and if you must spree, try to spree
> > local. Very local.
>
> > Just shoot up your double wide.
>
> Save the planet; kill yourself.
Yea, shoot yourself _before_ you shoot anyone else.
Bret Cahill
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Save the Children
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:50 pm
From: Nate
On 3/29/2010 8:24 AM, The Black Monk wrote:
> On Mar 28, 7:51 pm, Nate wrote:
>> On 3/28/2010 3:31 PM, RVG wrote:
>>
>>> Nate a �crit :
>>>> On 3/27/2010 6:49 PM, The Black Monk wrote:
>>>>> Demogoguery. The percentage of Roman Catholic priests having sexual
>>>>> relations with minors is about the same as the percentage of teachers
>>>>> doing the same. Yet there is no mass outrage and threats to pull kids
>>>>> out of schools.
>>
>>>> The teaching profession doesn’t claim to represent God. Very big
>>>> difference.
>>
>>> Plus a certain percentage of cathobears are teachers, which increases
>>> the total amount of perverts in the profession.
>>
>> One would expect an institution that preaches morality and compassion
>> for the weak would exercise a higher degree in discerning good and evil,
>> and then make every effort to root out that evil in its midst, than our
>> secular institutions which they rail against for being “Godless.” Given
>> a choice between a Godless agency that fires and prosecutes pedophiles
>> versus a supposedly God-fearing organization that does neither, I’ll
>> side with the former any day. The latter could at least pretend to give
>> a sh*t about child safety but they can’t even do that.
>
> Schools have a long history of coverups and shuffling around teachers
> who abuse minors.
Maybe a long history before *recent* history, i.e. the last several
decades. That was before it was recognized that diddling kids and using
one’s authority to rape employees was wrong and should be prosecuted.
That the RC remains decades behind secular institutions on the issue of
sexual assault is an indictment on its on authority on matters of morality.
> See here:
We’re not interested in anecdotal cut and paste stories from the
internet. Finding a singular exception of the “other guy’s doin’ it” [a
logical fallacy, BTW] doesn’t excuse, nor minimize, the widespread and
institutional pattern within the modern RC hierarchy to cover up and
protect pedophile clergy. The RC claims to teach and promote the will of
God. The teaching profession doesn’t. If RC clergy believed in what they
would have others do, one would expect they would have a much better
record than secular organizations in actually doing it. That they don’t
says much. At the very least it shows they don’t fear, perhaps don’t
believe in, their Maker.
> —————-
> The interesting question is, why does the American media seem to
> single out the Roman Catholic Church, particularly during the
> holidays? An expression of typical Anglo-Saxon anti-Catholic bigotry?
>
They’re not. One hears of pedophilia on the news all the time. The
question is why a religious organization in the 21st still pretends they
can get away with cover ups while expecting the independent minded to
not ask questions.
It’s hardly an “American” media thing. The RC pedophilia scandals are
widely reported in the news across Europe and Latin America. This latest
episode broke out in Europe. I suppose that qualifies as a… heh…
conspiracy.
Nate
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What else can we be required to buy?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:51 pm
From: Poetic Justice
On 3/27/2010 8:21 PM, Clave wrote:
> “Immortalist” wrote in message
> news:64568b34-8feb-4b57-afb1-7debf9dcc373@g28g2000prb.googlegroups.com…
> On Mar 27, 5:09 pm, Michael Gordge wrote:
>> On Mar 24, 12:55 pm, “Clave”
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yep. Trips to the Bahamas and the French Riviera.
>>
>> And where the fuck do politicians go with money they steal (tax) from
>> productive human beings?
>>
>> At least with banks you have a choice (notwithstanding the dopey
>> regulations that ewe fucking brain dead lefturdian and right wing
>> conservative morons invent to control them), there is no choice
>> between republican and democrat, ewe fucking moronic Kantian idiot.
>>
>> MG
>
> Do Randroids get Hemroids!?
Government employees claim hemorrhoids as workers comp(Job place injury)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do we feel aroused when two ideas contradict each other?
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:53 pm
From: Immortalist
On Mar 29, 5:55 pm, “Rod Speed” wrote:
> Immortalist wrote
>
> > bigflet…@gmail.com >> Immortalist wrote
> >>> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
> >> More a case of ‘know thyselve’s.
> > That would be more like “relax and know thyself and get eaten alive” theory.
> > Being disturbed/aroused by inconsistency is probably a survival instinct.
>
> Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
>
> Its MUCH more likely that it actually helps with survival if you can handle congitive dissonance effortlessly.
>
I agree. But also it would also help one’s survival to recognize
arousal arising from conflicting sense data and memories. This
probably would apply to animals also, these instincts are some of the
oldest.
Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled “Of the Reason
of Animals.” Hume suggests that we reason by analogy, linking similar
causes and similar effects. He suggests that his theories regarding
human understanding might then be well supported if we could find
something analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding. He
identifies two respects in which this analogy holds. First, animals,
just like humans, learn from experience and come to infer causal
connections between events. Second, animals certainly do not learn to
make these inferences by means of reason or argument. Nor do children,
and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers. We infer effects
from causes not by means of human reason, but through a species of
belief, whereby the imagination comes to perceive some sort of
necessary connection between cause and effect. We often admire the
innate instincts of animals that help them get by, and Hume suggests
that our ability to infer causal connections is a similar kind of
instinct.
Of The Reason Of Animals
David Hume (1711–76).
An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
ALL our reasonings concerning matter of fact are founded on a species
of Analogy, which leads us to expect from any cause the same events,
which we have observed to result from similar causes. Where the causes
are entirely similar, the analogy is perfect, and the inference, drawn
from it, is regarded as certain and conclusive: nor does any man ever
entertain a doubt, where he sees a piece of iron, that it will have
weight and cohesion of parts; as in all other instances, which have
ever fallen under hit observation. But where the objects have not so
exact a similarity, the analogy is less perfect, and the inference is
less conclusive; though still it has some force, in proportion to the
degree of similarity and resemblance. The anatomical observations,
formed upon one animal, are, by this species of reasoning, extended to
all animals; and it is…
http://www.bartleby.com/37/3/13.html
————————————
But for your pointing towards strength and the “Freeze” in “Fight/
Flight/Freeze” I support cognitive therapy and “Stoicism”. But it
would be more than just strength and the ability to not be noticed
while aroused but the consideration that what is happening in the mind
is hoped to be “consonant” with what is happening.
“What disturbs people’s minds are not events but their judgments on
events…”
“Seek not that the things which happen should happen as you wish; but
wish the things which happen to be as they are, and you will have a
tranquil flow of life…”
“Men are not worried by things, but by their ideas about things. When
we meet difficulties, become anxious or troubled, let us not blame
others, but rather ourselves, that is: our idea about things … Some
things are up to us and some are not up to us. Our opinions are up to
us, our impulses, desires, aversions, in-short whatever is our doing.
Our bodies are not up to us, nor our possessions, our reputations, or
our public offices, or that is, whatever is not of our own doing…”
–Epictetus (Roman Slave)
http://www.google.com/search?q=epictetus
————————————–
The theory of REBT has evolved mainly through the research and
writings of Albert Ellis. The theory states that humans are born with
strong biological predispositions among which are the sex/love
relationships and the need to live in some kind of family group. To
meet these needs successfully, Ellis believes that humans will attempt
to negotiate relationship with the use of their potential self-
determination.
His main philosophy is from Epictetus, the Roman stoic philosopher
who, in the first century AD, wrote that Humans are disturbed not by
things but by the views they take of them. The fallibility of the
human is his ability to approach his or her environment with views
that things are either harmful/disturbing or safe/undisturbing. These
thought patterns Ellis calls the Rational or Irrational Beliefs. By
successfully confronting these thought patterns (or view creation
patterns) the client is able to better cope and not become disturbed.
A Christian perspective on this thinking is reflected in 2 Corinthians
10:5 “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up
against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to
make it obedient to Christ.” The goal of the REBT therapist is to
bring the views of life into a place in which the client may obtain
the long-range maximized pleasure. The focus through Pastoral
Counseling is to bring this goal into a place that is theologically
focused on serving God. The confrontation of irrational belief is from
a format of scripture, prayer, and Christ centered living.
Ellis sees his approach as coming out of the ancient Stoic tradition,
and supported by such philosophers as Spinoza. He sees additional
similarities in existentialism and existential psychology. Any
approach that puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the
individual and his or her beliefs is likely to have commonalities with
Ellis’s REBT.
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/ellis.html
The Tenets of Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy
REBT differs from other cognitive therapies in that it attempts to
bring the client to a philosophical change, not a temporary change.
Ellis refers to this as the “elegant solution” and he feels that it
grants the client an ability to protect against future problems after
therapy ends.
What is the philosophy that Ellis wants his clients to share?
The philosophical outlook of REBT believes in: “refined hedonism” or
respectful self interest, self-direction, tolerance of self and
others, flexiblity, acceptance of uncertainty, commitment to vital
interesets, self acceptance, scientific thinking, and a non utopian
perspective. Students of Ayn Rand will note the incredible similarity
between the work of Ellis and the writings of Rand.
In the therapeutic environment, human thinking and emotions are seen
as interrelated. The therapeutic model uses a simple mneumonic device
to teach its contentions: the “ABCs” of REBT.
Let’s learn the ABCs
A is for activating experiences, which are all the many things we
point to as the cause of our unhappiness. C is for consequences, the
neurotic symptoms and negative emotions such as depression panic, and
rage, that come from our beliefs.
Yeah, I know. I skipped B.
Well, I did so on purpose.
The key to REBT (and Ellis might very well add, to life itself) is the
B. The B stands for beliefs, especially irrational, self-defeating
beliefs that are the actual sources of our unhappiness. Although the
activating experiences may be quite real and cause real pain, it is
our irrational beliefs that create long-term, disabling problems. In
short, psychoneurological consequences are determined by person’s
belief system regarding particular activating events. In this, Ellis’
philosophy goes right back the Greek Stoic Epictetus:
“Your body is chained, but not your mind.”
- Epictetus
Ellis doesn’t stop where Epictetus did, however. Ellis goes on to add
the D and E to ABC: The therapist must dispute (D) irrational beliefs,
in order for the client to ultimately enjoy the positive psychological
Effects (E) of rational beliefs. (Ok, so he was stuck for a good “E”,
so sue him.)
REBT assumes that substituting overgeneralized, absolutist thought
with realistic desires leads to major changes in emotional and
behavior – but irrational thoughts have a preseverative nature and
require much work to eradicate. REBT is a multidimensional therapy,
but at root is a “logico-empirical method” based on client’s self
reports.
Ellis maintains that irrational beliefs develop as the the result of
philosophical conditioning, or “habits” as David Hume would say. For
example, we might form bad habits by using such logical fallacies as:
Ignoring the positive, Exaggerating the negative or Overgeneralizing
singular instances. These are all the types of errors that Francis
Bacon warned scientists about. They lead to a warped view of reality.
Yet, we live with such errors every day, and most of us avoid becoming
too neurotic. Why is this so?
This is because irrational beliefs typically take the form of absolute
statements. Instead of acknowledging a preference or a desire, we make
unqualified demands on others, or convince ourselves that we have
overwhelming needs. Once our “needs” become “Musts” or “Shoulds” they
take on an a dogmatic quality that leads to feelings of guilt, low
self worth, pity and guilt – i.e. pathogenic thoughts.
But why should even irrational musts and shoulds bother us?
Ah, now you ask the real question. Musts and Shoulds can only really
bother us, Ellis tells us, when they lead to EVALUATIVE irrational
beliefs. These beliefs “stand in judgement of us” and tell us things
about us that drive us wacky – that we are worthless, weak, stupid,
incompetent, etc.
Ok, so how do we get to irrational beliefs in therapy?
The therapist first tries to get to these irrational beliefs, usually
by asking a question like “What were you telling yourself when you
thought/felt/did that? Eventually, the therapist can trace back the
pain the cliet is experiencing to an irrational belief.
> > You don’t want to forget the cave man.
>
> You aint established that they are relevant.
>
The relevance to me is the attention to arousal. And particularly the
evolution of “inference” between cognition in animals and humans. I
might sound scatter brain on this because I have been trying to invent
a way to talk about it for many years.
> > Error Management Theory
> > Humans live in an uncertain world. We rely on our senses to pick up
> > information from the world, and then use our information processing
> > capacities to make inferences about the true state of the world.
> > Real threats to our survival and relationships are not always readily
> > apparent, given the ambiguity and uncertainty of the information.
>
> Thats hardly ever the case and has no relevance to cognative dissonance anyway.
>
I was thinking of the relation of arousal to the evolution of
inference neurons in brains, sorry, a little deep and off topic.
> > Consider a relatively simple problem of walking through
> > the woods and fleetingly sensing a slithering object scurry
> > underneath some leaves in the path directly in front of you.
>
> Its almost certainly of no significance what so ever.
>
> > There are two possible states of reality: either there is a dangerous snake in your path
>
> Nope, if its slithering away, its not a problem, just let it leave.
>
Just let it there seems like a pathetic response, does it imply some
skill learned along the way or something vague? Are you claiming that
phobias are not hard wired instinctual drives we are born with?
Phobias hooked up with or evolutionarily modified from “food
avoidance” instincts, modified from smell disgust and the small
“freeze” between fight and flight and the recent discovery of the
“worry circuit” in the brain all this stuff has it wiring from, leads
to all the new frontier of “human nature” and its wiring? Is that
sentence a Gordian knot or what!?
Disgust is an emotion, typically associated with things that are
perceived as unclean or inedible. In The Expression of the Emotions in
Man and Animals, Charles Darwin wrote that disgust refers to something
revolting. Primarily in relation to the sense of taste, as actually
perceived or vividly imagined; and secondarily to anything which
causes a similar feeling. Through the sense of smell, touch, and even
of eyesight. Disgust is one of the basic emotions of Robert Plutchik’s
theory of emotions.
Disgust may be further subdivided into physical disgust, associated
with physical or metaphorical uncleanness, and moral disgust, a
similar feeling related to courses of action. Antonyms to disgust are
sympathy and also liking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgust
A phobia (from the Greek “fear”), is a strong, persistent fear of
situations, objects, activities, or persons. The main symptom of this
disorder is the excessive, unreasonable desire to avoid the feared
subject. When the fear is beyond one’s control, or if the fear is
interfering with daily life, then a diagnosis under one of the anxiety
disorders can be made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_phobia
> > or there is not a dangerous snake in your path. Given
> > the incomplete and uncertain information that you have
> > percieved, there are also two inferences you could make.
>
> Or you might get real radical and see if you can see any snake
> and if you can, see if it looks like one of the rare poisonous ones.
>
These is some real cause and effect empirical evidence about these
neural structures we are born with called phobias. Are you promoting
the idea that there is no human nature pre-wired into us, that there
are no biases that humans have because they are human, or are you just
jerkin around here with a strange sounding subject, good buddy?
> > There is indeed a dangerous snake, and you act to avoid it.
>
> Dont need to if its slithering away, its already leaving, stupid.
>
> > Or you could conclude that there is no snake and continue walking down the path.
>
> Or you might take the precaution of waiting till whatever it is has left etc.
>
> Nothing to do with cognative dissonance.
>
I admit my orientation is the evolution of an entire package or suite
of instincts, many related in seemingly paradoxical ways.
> > There are also two possible ways that you could be wrong.
>
> There are a hell of a lot more than just two.
>
> > You could believe that there is a snake when in fact no
> > snake exists. Or you could believe that no snake when
> > in fact a venomous rattler is lurking right in your path.
>
> They dont slither around when something approaches, stupid.
>
The author is trying to distinguish between false-positive and false-
negative errors.
A new theory of cognitive biases, called error management theory
(EMT), proposes that psychological mechanisms are designed to be
predictably biased when the costs of false-positive and false-negative
errors were asymmetrical over evolutionary history. This theory
explains known phenomena such as men’s overperception of women’s
sexual intent, and it predicts new biases in social inference such as
women’s underestimation of men’s commitment.
Buss comments on Error Management Theory. In an uncertain world, two
potential errors in thinking: a. partner having affair (but isn’t) b.
partner isn’t having affair (but is) The cost of making those two
errors are very different. Those making the first error have less cost
(from a reproductive success standpoint) than those who make the
second. Theoretically we evolved toward vigilance and are more likely
to make adaptive error. Explains why men and women sometimes have
delusions that a partner is unfaithful or might be. “It’s not paranoia
if they’re really out to get you!”
> > The costs of these two types of errors, however, are vastly different.
>
> Not necessarily, most obviously when you let it leave or just wait till it leaves, whatever it is.
>
> > In the first case, your belief causes you to incur the trivial
> > metabolic cost of taking an unnecessary evasive action.
>
> You dont need to do that either, just let whatever it is leave.
>
> > By giving a wide birth to the area that you believe
> > harbors a snake, you have merely gone out of your
> > way a little, incurring a minor delay in your walk.
>
> And you dont even do anything except pause and let it leave if you have a clue.
>
> > In the second case, however, failing to detect a snake
> > that is in fact lurking in your path can cost you your life.
>
> Hardly ever.
>
> > THe two ways of being wrong carry substantially different costs.
>
> There is no need to be wrong at all if you just let whatever it is leave.
>
Look I don’t want to make you look ignorant because I think your a
very smart guy but your common sense folk psychology is bleeding over
into a folk science, the kind that got people tortured in the Middle
Ages because it all sounded so logical and persuasive.
Folk Psychology as a Theory
Many philosophers and cognitive scientists claim that our everyday or
“folk” understanding of mental states constitutes a theory of mind.
That theory is widely called “folk psychology” (sometimes
“commonsense” psychology). The terms in which folk psychology is
couched are the familiar ones of “belief” and “desire”, “hunger”,
“pain” and so forth. According to many theorists, folk psychology
plays a central role in our capacity to predict and explain the
behavior of ourselves and others. However, the nature and status of
folk psychology remains controversial.
Biological classification is a form of scientific taxonomy, but should
be distinguished from folk taxonomy, which lacks scientific basis.
Folk taxonomies are generated from social knowledge and are used in
everyday speech. They are distinguished from scientific taxonomies
that claim to be disembedded from social relations and thus objective
and universal.; they are generally embedded in local cultural and
social systems, and serve various social functions.
Folk taxonomies exist to allow popular identification of classes of
objects, and apply to all areas of human activity. All parts of the
world have their own systems of naming local plants and animals. These
naming systems are a vital aid to survival and include information
such as the fruiting patterns of trees and the habits of large
mammals. These localised naming systems are folk taxonomies.
> > Now imagine that this scenario not only repeats itself
> > thousands and thousands of times in your liftime,
>
> That doesnt happen.
>
> > but billions and billions of times over human evolutionary history.
> > Those who made the first kind of mistake tended to survive, whereas
> > those who made the second kind of mistake tended to die.
>
> It aint that binary, fool.
>
How is he making it sound binary when he is describing two statistical
population with each individual having more or less of some traits?
> > As a result, modern humans have descended from a line of
> > ancestors whose inferences about the uncertain world erred in
> > the direction of believing that snakes existed more than they do.
>
> Wrong when the evolving happened were there are no poisonous snakes.
>
> > These can be called adaptive errors.
>
> Only by wankers.
>
Folksy sounding, like how even though the Earth is proved roundish it
still looks flat when we look out on the horizon. Are you part of the
flat world society?
The idea of a flat Earth is that the surface of the Earth is flat (a
plane), rather than the correct view that it is to a very close
approximation the surface of a sphere.
Note that the flatness or otherwise of the earth is only relevant when
considering large distances; the curvature of the earth over local
distances is so small that the approximation of a flat earth is very
good locally. Consequently in antiquity only sailors, astronomers,
philosophers, and theologians would be concerned about the large-scale
shape of the earth…
…Before dismissing the idea as ignorant and useless, we should bear
in mind that the earth is, indeed, flat to a very good approximation
over distances much less than its radius. Assuming the whole earth to
be flat was actually a sophisticated insight by primitive people: they
realized that all the local accidents of geography: hills, valleys,
rivers, and so on, were merely unevenness of a surface which was on
average flat as far as they could go. The flat-earth approximation was
(and still is) entirely satisfactory for making mental and drawn local
maps; the larger-scale shape of the earth only became of practical
importance when long sea voyages were possible.
Indeed, even now we are all flat earthers in our local neighborhood.
We are content with flat maps, instead of using a globe. When
surveying and direction-finding we assume that the angles of a
triangle add up to 180°, which is not true for a triangle on the
surface of a sphere.
Obviously the local usefulness of the flat-earth approximation does
not justify any claim that the large-scale shape of the earth is other
than approximately spherical.
> > Consider uncertainty about whether your romantic partner is having an
> > affair or is likely to have an affair…. Continued on page 76 The Dangerous
> > Passion – Why jealousy is necessary as love and sex – David M Buss
>
> Wota fucking wanker.
>
> > The Dangerous Passion:
> > Why Jealousy Is As Necessary As Love and Sex
>
> Just another wanker with a title designed to flog his shit.
>
> > by David M. Buss
> >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684850818/
>
> Just another completely mindless steaming turd.
>
Oh ya, David Buss created the very first textbook and class in
evolutionary psychology some years back. There are other textbooks
now, but that guy started the revolution that has taken over more than
80% of evolutionary science.
> Why are you into completely mindless steaming turds ?
>
Because I like to understand what evolutionary theory offers to guide
life than some fake religious or social dogma?
> >> The part of the brain that responds to actions resulting in well
> >> being is often countered by the part that wants inactivity and laziness.
> >> We use a common term to ‘tame’ such contradictions, but most do not
> >> really grasp what they are saying. The term is ‘self discipline’ ,
> >> more accurately ‘selfs disciplined.
> >> Either aspects can dominate, which leads to inbalance. The ‘bits of
> >> the brain’ do not negotiate. “You” officiate.The ‘self’ is not being
> >> disciplined, but disciplining.
> >> Of course there are also ‘parts of the brain’ that, not understanding
> >> such basic principles, come up with all sorts of weird and wonderful
> >> theories.Not ‘full proof’ he states….Id never have guessed!!! (that
> >> comes from the sarcastic part of my brain, but ‘I’ decided to use it
> >> to emphasise a useful insight.)
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:54 pm
From: M Purcell
On Mar 29, 5:21 pm, Immortalist wrote:
>
> That would be more like “relax and know thyself and get eaten alive”
> theory. Being disturbed/aroused by inconsistency is probably a
> survival instinct. You don’t want to forget the cave man.
>
> Error Management Theory
>
> Humans live in an uncertain world. We rely on our senses to pick up
> information from the world, and then use our information processing
> capacities to make inferences about the true state of the world. Real
> threats to our survival and relationships are not always readily
> apparent, given the ambiguity and uncertainty of the information.
>
> Consider a relatively simple problem of walking through the woods and
> fleetingly sensing a slithering object scurry underneath some leaves
> in the path directly in front of you. There are two possible states of
> reality: either there is a dangerous snake in your path or there is
> not a dangerous snake in your path. Given the incomplete and uncertain
> information that you have percieved, there are also two inferences you
> could make. There is indeed a dangerous snake, and you act to avoid
> it. Or you could conclude that there is no snake and continue walking
> down the path.
>
> There are also two possible ways that you could be wrong. You could
> believe that there is a snake when in fact no snake exists. Or you
> could believe that no snake when in fact a venomous rattler is lurking
> right in your path. The costs of these two types of errors, however,
> are vastly different. In the first case, your belief causes you to
> incur the trivial metabolic cost of taking an unnecessary evasive
> action. By giving a wide birth to the area that you believe harbors a
> snake, you have merely gone out of your way a little, incurring a
> minor delay in your walk. In the second case, however, failing to
> detect a snake that is in fact lurking in your path can cost you your
> life. THe two ways of being wrong carry substantially different costs.
>
> Now imagine that this scenario not only repeats itself thousands and
> thousands of times in your liftime, but billions and billions of times
> over human evolutionary history. Those who made the first kind of
> mistake tended to survive, whereas those who made the second kind of
> mistake tended to die. As a result, modern humans have descended from
> a line of ancestors whose inferences about the uncertain world erred
> in the direction of believing that snakes existed more than they do.
> These can be called adaptive errors.
>
> Consider uncertainty about whether your romantic partner is having an
> affair or is likely to have an affair…. Continued on page 76 The
> Dangerous Passion – Why jealousy is necessary as love and sex – David
> M Buss
>
> The Dangerous Passion:
> Why Jealousy Is As Necessary As Love and Sex
> by David M. Busshttp://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684850818/
Personally, I’d go looking to find out what was making the noise. It’s
been a long time since I’ve come across a rattle snake but there might
be something else intesting such as dinner. And I have complete trust
in my wife.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why The Supreme Court By 5-4 Will Dump The Democrats Health Legislation
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:56 pm
From: Shrikeback
On Mar 29, 7:29 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > > This prediction is based on my fear that the Supreme Court is partisan
>
> > > What partisan assumtions drive you to the conclusion
> > > that the Supreme Court is partisan?
>
> > > > At least two decisions, Bush v Gore and the recent corporation
> > > > political contribution decision are
> > > > indicators of POSSIBLE SC partisan decision-making
>
> > > The problem with the above is that there was no
> > > recent political contribution decision at all. There
> > > was a decision that the FEC couldn’t regulate speech,
> > > which is merely a normal, rational defense of the
> > > First Amendment, which liberals are supposed
> > > to support. There are no liberals anymore, just
> > > “progressives.”
>
> > > > Am I being foolish & simple-minded if not stupid?
>
> > > No, you’re just swallowing the corpwhore backwash
> > > that is spewed on that most corpwhore of broadcast
> > > organs, Microsoft-NBC-GE Olbermannland, whose
> > > owners have, interestingly, received billions in
> > > stimulus largesse.
>
> > > > Perhaps
>
> > > > Am I being unfair if not unpatriotic?
>
> > > You are being ill-liberal actually. The attempts
> > > to demogogue about Citizen’s United v. the FEC
> > > are illiberal assaults on the assumptions of our
> > > liberal founders with regard to the freedom of
> > > speech.
>
> > > > I dunno, am I really?
>
> > > > Is this note a typical piece of internet dogshit?
>
> > > > I hope that it proves to be a nutty woof-woof-woof
>
> > > > To try to briefly explain my thinking, since this is supposed to be a
> > > > philosophy n.g.
>
> > > > Previously I have posted umpteen times my perceptions of the SC
> > > > interpreting the
> > > > U.S. Constitution, Google’s archive has apparently cut some years out,
> > > > while much is still here
>
> > > > The SC is not robotic: It is indeed human and adaptive and
> > > > “maladaptive,” creative and traditional,
> > > > candid & intellectually disingenuous, reactionary and progressive
>
> > > > The Constitution cannot always be interpreted purely mechanistically,
> > > > though some try
>
> > > Sometimes it can be. This decision was one of the most
> > > natural interpretations of the First ever. The FEC doesn’t
> > > have the authority to tell Citizen’s United what they can
> > > say when. What is there to complain about, unless you
> > > have some illiberal ideas regarding free speech.
>
> > > > Reality is slightly more complex if not convoluted if not dynamic
>
> > > > The Justices in their black robes are ad hoc “our secular gods &
> > > > goddesses”
>
> > > > Their overall power & responsibility cannot be discounted, despite
> > > > that allegation of ‘let the
> > > > Supreme Court enforce their g-damn decision,’ possibly made by Tom
> > > > Jefferson after his Louisiana
> > > > Purchase was ruled unconstitutional (or whatever the crisis
> > > > situation)
>
> > > That was Andrew Jackson, ignoring the ruling that Georgia
> > > had stolen Cherokee land and ripped them off in so many
> > > ways.
>
> > > > The Justices decision-making is ultimately discretionary human
>
> > > Well, sure. But can we just agree that this decision
> > > was forced by the First Amendment? There is no other
> > > interpretation possible, other than an entirely Orwellian
> > > one.
>
> > > > Legalistic jargon is just that in my humble, cynical take of reality,
> > > > and the gifted clerks know
> > > > how to spread wordy fertilizer
>
> > > > I’m attempting to be rational if not paranoiac, while the p word
> > > > cannot be sloughed away
>
> > > > I apologize to Americans offended by this heretical ass-say (which
> > > > should be all)
>
> > > How can you side with the corpwhores at MSNBC, and call
> > > yourself heretical?
>
> > Anyway, it may be that parts of this bill could be
> > struck down as unconstitutional, but I expect those
> > parts will necessarily be egregious, like McCain-
> > Feingold was. It may be that the individual mandate,
> > for example is not within the powers delegated
> > to the Feds. Overall, though, it’s going to be the
> > legislature that will overturn most of the hated
> > provisions of this 2700+ pages of lobbyist spoor.
>
> No horse apple?
Isn’t that Genetically Modified sort of food illegal in
your commune?
> Are horse apples out of season or what?
> > November. Change.
>
> That’s why I’ll certainly be working hard for the next 7 years to over
> turn the unconstitutional Patriot Act.
Good luck with that. That isn’t something the
Democrats have planned. You might just
wind up an enema of the state.
> In the mean time every cloud has a silver lining. The Patriot Act
> will help provide some good youtube video of a right wing gun nutter
> assassin’s sinuses exploding out of the back of his skull along with a
> 9 mm slug fired by the Secret Service.
The things you wish for, eh? Some folks like their nekkid
nazi flagburning porn, I guess. But, hell, this is America,
it’s your body you can get all excited about whatever
excitin’ Hollywood porn video you want.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:59 pm
From: Bret Cahill
> > > > > This prediction is based on my fear that the Supreme Court is partisan
>
> > > > What partisan assumtions drive you to the conclusion
> > > > that the Supreme Court is partisan?
>
> > > > > At least two decisions, Bush v Gore and the recent corporation
> > > > > political contribution decision are
> > > > > indicators of POSSIBLE SC partisan decision-making
>
> > > > The problem with the above is that there was no
> > > > recent political contribution decision at all. There
> > > > was a decision that the FEC couldn’t regulate speech,
> > > > which is merely a normal, rational defense of the
> > > > First Amendment, which liberals are supposed
> > > > to support. There are no liberals anymore, just
> > > > “progressives.”
>
> > > > > Am I being foolish & simple-minded if not stupid?
>
> > > > No, you’re just swallowing the corpwhore backwash
> > > > that is spewed on that most corpwhore of broadcast
> > > > organs, Microsoft-NBC-GE Olbermannland, whose
> > > > owners have, interestingly, received billions in
> > > > stimulus largesse.
>
> > > > > Perhaps
>
> > > > > Am I being unfair if not unpatriotic?
>
> > > > You are being ill-liberal actually. The attempts
> > > > to demogogue about Citizen’s United v. the FEC
> > > > are illiberal assaults on the assumptions of our
> > > > liberal founders with regard to the freedom of
> > > > speech.
>
> > > > > I dunno, am I really?
>
> > > > > Is this note a typical piece of internet dogshit?
>
> > > > > I hope that it proves to be a nutty woof-woof-woof
>
> > > > > To try to briefly explain my thinking, since this is supposed to be a
> > > > > philosophy n.g.
>
> > > > > Previously I have posted umpteen times my perceptions of the SC
> > > > > interpreting the
> > > > > U.S. Constitution, Google’s archive has apparently cut some years out,
> > > > > while much is still here
>
> > > > > The SC is not robotic: It is indeed human and adaptive and
> > > > > “maladaptive,” creative and traditional,
> > > > > candid & intellectually disingenuous, reactionary and progressive
>
> > > > > The Constitution cannot always be interpreted purely mechanistically,
> > > > > though some try
>
> > > > Sometimes it can be. This decision was one of the most
> > > > natural interpretations of the First ever. The FEC doesn’t
> > > > have the authority to tell Citizen’s United what they can
> > > > say when. What is there to complain about, unless you
> > > > have some illiberal ideas regarding free speech.
>
> > > > > Reality is slightly more complex if not convoluted if not dynamic
>
> > > > > The Justices in their black robes are ad hoc “our secular gods &
> > > > > goddesses”
>
> > > > > Their overall power & responsibility cannot be discounted, despite
> > > > > that allegation of ‘let the
> > > > > Supreme Court enforce their g-damn decision,’ possibly made by Tom
> > > > > Jefferson after his Louisiana
> > > > > Purchase was ruled unconstitutional (or whatever the crisis
> > > > > situation)
>
> > > > That was Andrew Jackson, ignoring the ruling that Georgia
> > > > had stolen Cherokee land and ripped them off in so many
> > > > ways.
>
> > > > > The Justices decision-making is ultimately discretionary human
>
> > > > Well, sure. But can we just agree that this decision
> > > > was forced by the First Amendment? There is no other
> > > > interpretation possible, other than an entirely Orwellian
> > > > one.
>
> > > > > Legalistic jargon is just that in my humble, cynical take of reality,
> > > > > and the gifted clerks know
> > > > > how to spread wordy fertilizer
>
> > > > > I’m attempting to be rational if not paranoiac, while the p word
> > > > > cannot be sloughed away
>
> > > > > I apologize to Americans offended by this heretical ass-say (which
> > > > > should be all)
>
> > > > How can you side with the corpwhores at MSNBC, and call
> > > > yourself heretical?
>
> > > Anyway, it may be that parts of this bill could be
> > > struck down as unconstitutional, but I expect those
> > > parts will necessarily be egregious, like McCain-
> > > Feingold was. It may be that the individual mandate,
> > > for example is not within the powers delegated
> > > to the Feds. Overall, though, it’s going to be the
> > > legislature that will overturn most of the hated
> > > provisions of this 2700+ pages of lobbyist spoor.
>
> > No horse apple?
>
> Isn’t that Genetically Modified sort of food illegal in
> your commune?
>
> > Are horse apples out of season or what?
No answer?
> > > November. Change.
>
> > That’s why I’ll certainly be working hard for the next 7 years to over
> > turn the unconstitutional Patriot Act.
>
> Good luck with that. That isn’t something the
> Democrats have planned. You might just
> wind up an enema of the state.
>
> > In the mean time every cloud has a silver lining. The Patriot Act
> > will help provide some good youtube video of a right wing gun nutter
> > assassin’s sinuses exploding out of the back of his skull along with a
> > 9 mm slug fired by the Secret Service.
>
> The things you wish for, eh?
You want to waste taxpayer money on a trial?
Bret Cahill
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:02 pm
From: Shrikeback
On Mar 29, 7:59 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > > > > This prediction is based on my fear that the Supreme Court is partisan
>
> > > > > What partisan assumtions drive you to the conclusion
> > > > > that the Supreme Court is partisan?
>
> > > > > > At least two decisions, Bush v Gore and the recent corporation
> > > > > > political contribution decision are
> > > > > > indicators of POSSIBLE SC partisan decision-making
>
> > > > > The problem with the above is that there was no
> > > > > recent political contribution decision at all. There
> > > > > was a decision that the FEC couldn’t regulate speech,
> > > > > which is merely a normal, rational defense of the
> > > > > First Amendment, which liberals are supposed
> > > > > to support. There are no liberals anymore, just
> > > > > “progressives.”
>
> > > > > > Am I being foolish & simple-minded if not stupid?
>
> > > > > No, you’re just swallowing the corpwhore backwash
> > > > > that is spewed on that most corpwhore of broadcast
> > > > > organs, Microsoft-NBC-GE Olbermannland, whose
> > > > > owners have, interestingly, received billions in
> > > > > stimulus largesse.
>
> > > > > > Perhaps
>
> > > > > > Am I being unfair if not unpatriotic?
>
> > > > > You are being ill-liberal actually. The attempts
> > > > > to demogogue about Citizen’s United v. the FEC
> > > > > are illiberal assaults on the assumptions of our
> > > > > liberal founders with regard to the freedom of
> > > > > speech.
>
> > > > > > I dunno, am I really?
>
> > > > > > Is this note a typical piece of internet dogshit?
>
> > > > > > I hope that it proves to be a nutty woof-woof-woof
>
> > > > > > To try to briefly explain my thinking, since this is supposed to be a
> > > > > > philosophy n.g.
>
> > > > > > Previously I have posted umpteen times my perceptions of the SC
> > > > > > interpreting the
> > > > > > U.S. Constitution, Google’s archive has apparently cut some years out,
> > > > > > while much is still here
>
> > > > > > The SC is not robotic: It is indeed human and adaptive and
> > > > > > “maladaptive,” creative and traditional,
> > > > > > candid & intellectually disingenuous, reactionary and progressive
>
> > > > > > The Constitution cannot always be interpreted purely mechanistically,
> > > > > > though some try
>
> > > > > Sometimes it can be. This decision was one of the most
> > > > > natural interpretations of the First ever. The FEC doesn’t
> > > > > have the authority to tell Citizen’s United what they can
> > > > > say when. What is there to complain about, unless you
> > > > > have some illiberal ideas regarding free speech.
>
> > > > > > Reality is slightly more complex if not convoluted if not dynamic
>
> > > > > > The Justices in their black robes are ad hoc “our secular gods &
> > > > > > goddesses”
>
> > > > > > Their overall power & responsibility cannot be discounted, despite
> > > > > > that allegation of ‘let the
> > > > > > Supreme Court enforce their g-damn decision,’ possibly made by Tom
> > > > > > Jefferson after his Louisiana
> > > > > > Purchase was ruled unconstitutional (or whatever the crisis
> > > > > > situation)
>
> > > > > That was Andrew Jackson, ignoring the ruling that Georgia
> > > > > had stolen Cherokee land and ripped them off in so many
> > > > > ways.
>
> > > > > > The Justices decision-making is ultimately discretionary human
>
> > > > > Well, sure. But can we just agree that this decision
> > > > > was forced by the First Amendment? There is no other
> > > > > interpretation possible, other than an entirely Orwellian
> > > > > one.
>
> > > > > > Legalistic jargon is just that in my humble, cynical take of reality,
> > > > > > and the gifted clerks know
> > > > > > how to spread wordy fertilizer
>
> > > > > > I’m attempting to be rational if not paranoiac, while the p word
> > > > > > cannot be sloughed away
>
> > > > > > I apologize to Americans offended by this heretical ass-say (which
> > > > > > should be all)
>
> > > > > How can you side with the corpwhores at MSNBC, and call
> > > > > yourself heretical?
>
> > > > Anyway, it may be that parts of this bill could be
> > > > struck down as unconstitutional, but I expect those
> > > > parts will necessarily be egregious, like McCain-
> > > > Feingold was. It may be that the individual mandate,
> > > > for example is not within the powers delegated
> > > > to the Feds. Overall, though, it’s going to be the
> > > > legislature that will overturn most of the hated
> > > > provisions of this 2700+ pages of lobbyist spoor.
>
> > > No horse apple?
>
> > Isn’t that Genetically Modified sort of food illegal in
> > your commune?
>
> > > Are horse apples out of season or what?
>
> No answer?
To what? I don’t speak gibbershspeak, you’ll have
to hire someone to translate into English.
> > > > November. Change.
>
> > > That’s why I’ll certainly be working hard for the next 7 years to over
> > > turn the unconstitutional Patriot Act.
>
> > Good luck with that. That isn’t something the
> > Democrats have planned. You might just
> > wind up an enema of the state.
>
> > > In the mean time every cloud has a silver lining. The Patriot Act
> > > will help provide some good youtube video of a right wing gun nutter
> > > assassin’s sinuses exploding out of the back of his skull along with a
> > > 9 mm slug fired by the Secret Service.
>
> > The things you wish for, eh?
>
> You want to waste taxpayer money on a trial?
Okay. So you want to masturbate to executions.
That’s what I’m hearing. It’s okay, this is America.
We have free speech. You can get all that in CGI
form anytime.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pictures Just In
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:56 pm
From: Bret Cahill
> > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> > > > What could be a more convincing argument for banning same-race
> > > > marriage?
>
> > > Well, that’s one way to cut down on the number
> > > of lily-white readers of the New York Times.
>
> > If you believe there’s some 2nd Amend. right to spree shoot or terror
> > bomb innocent people you really ought to move to a red state like OK
> > or TX where the authorities won’t stop you until after the blood
> > starts flowing.
>
> Okay. Good job staying on topic, by the way.
Thanks.
Now you need to reciprocate:
If you believe there’s some 2nd Amend. right to spree shoot or terror
bomb innocent people you really ought to move to a red state like OK
or TX where the authorities won’t stop you until after the blood
starts flowing.
Bret Cahill
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:06 pm
From: lorad
On Mar 29, 5:18 pm, tg wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> What could be a more convincing argument for banning same-race
> marriage?
>
> -tg
Mugabe of Zimbabwe
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:08 pm
From: lorad
On Mar 29, 6:02 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> > What could be a more convincing argument for banning same-race
> > marriage?
>
> Fortunately it was a blue state and right wing a ding terrorists were
> stopped _before_ the bloodshed.
So too maybe you?
(see how unsubstantiated allegations work?)
> In red states politicians believe there is a 2nd Amend. right to spree
> shoot and terror bomb innocent people.
No they don’t.
If you still claim so.. then prove it>
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:09 pm
From: lorad
On Mar 29, 6:18 pm, Bible Studies with Satan
wrote:
> tg wrote:
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> > What could be a more convincing argument for banning same-race
> > marriage?
>
> > -tg
>
> Wow. So THAT’S what conservatives look like!
Yeah.. they don’t look like mexican illegals at all !
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:16 pm
From: Shrikeback
On Mar 29, 7:56 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> > > > > What could be a more convincing argument for banning same-race
> > > > > marriage?
>
> > > > Well, that’s one way to cut down on the number
> > > > of lily-white readers of the New York Times.
>
> > > If you believe there’s some 2nd Amend. right to spree shoot or terror
> > > bomb innocent people you really ought to move to a red state like OK
> > > or TX where the authorities won’t stop you until after the blood
> > > starts flowing.
>
> > Okay. Good job staying on topic, by the way.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Now you need to reciprocate:
>
> If you believe there’s some 2nd Amend. right to spree shoot or terror
> bomb innocent people you really ought to move to a red state like OK
> or TX where the authorities won’t stop you until after the blood
> starts flowing.
If you believe there’s some First Amendment right to talk
like Goebbels in the way you do above, you’re right. There is.
Welcome to America, fascist.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What makes a good scientist?
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:05 pm
From: ta
On Mar 29, 9:30 am, “Daniel T.” wrote:
> John Jones wrote:
> > There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy and
> > leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering to
> > onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of science in action.
>
> > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler is
> > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are
> > impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden strengths of
> > science.
>
> There are lots of kinds of scientists, but to the question “What makes a
> good scientist?” my answer is “objectivity.”
Good answer.
And interestingly, it is that same quality which makes a good
spiritualist (for lack of a better term).
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:13 pm
From: Yap
On Mar 29, 5:58 am, “Mark Earnest” wrote:
> “John Jones” wrote in message
>
> news:hoolgj$3k9$1@news.eternal-september.org…
>
> > There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy and leaps
> > from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering to onlookers, who
> > are awestruck by this real-time display of science in action.
>
> > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler is
> > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are impressed
> > by this display as it reminds them of the hidden strengths of science.
>
> A scientist is an esteemed colleague that patronizes other scientists
> in order to have the same returned to himself, with little regard
> for reality.
A reply from delusional plateform.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:17 pm
From: Yap
On Mar 29, 5:33 am, John Jones wrote:
> There are only two kinds of scientist.
Your own invention?
>
> One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy and
> leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering to
> onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of science in action.
Incomputable.
>
> The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler is
> silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are
> impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden strengths of
> science.
Incomputable.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:19 pm
From: Yap
On Mar 29, 7:19 am, omprem wrote:
> On Mar 28, 7:04 pm, Immortalist wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 3:33 pm, John Jones wrote:
>
> > > There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> > > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy and
> > > leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering to
> > > onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of science in action.
>
> > > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler is
> > > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are
> > > impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden strengths of
> > > science.
>
> > [1] – A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in
> > a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that
> > engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of
> > thought or philosophy.
>
> > [2] – In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who
> > uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or
> > more areas of science.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist
>
> > ————————–
>
> > ”One of the subordinate male chimpanzees
> > studied by Jane Goodall at the Gombe
> > Stream National Park in Tanzania learned
> > to bang two empty kerosene cans together.”
>
> > ”He then used the extraordinary movement and
> > noise to (augment) his threat_displays and,
> > as a result, rose to dominance in just a few
> > days over larger males in the troop.”
>
> > Chimpanzees have other, sometimes surprising talents. Under laboratory
> > conditions they can weave sticks and vines into simple patterns (but
> > cannot untie knots). They can classify and group objects into abstract
> > classes according to size and color, distinguish photographs of human
> > beings from those of all kinds of animals, and draw rough circles and
> > other elementary figures just short of representational images. When a
> > chimpanzee looks into a mirror he recognizes himself as something
> > distinct from other members of his own species. In the original test
> > of that capacity, the psychologist Gordon G. Gallup put spots of red
> > dye on the heads of chimpanzees under anesthesia and then allowed them
> > to see their reflections after awakening. The apes immediately
> > responded by touching their hand to the red spot. We may conclude that
> > if some habiline Narcissus ever looked into a pool of still water, he
> > understood that the face staring back was his own image and not that
> > of a second, ghostly primitive. Perhaps he also thought in some
> > wordless fashion: this is I, who exists apart from the clamorous band
> > and will someday die. Scientists, given enough time, might deduce
> > whether this is true and thereby have something to say about the
> > evolutionary history of the self and of the soul.
>
> > Biologists and psychologists alike speak of flexibility as an advanced
> > trait and, sure enough, chimpanzees and great apes have more varied
> > behavior than monkeys. When given a toy or some other novel object to
> > examine, they touch it with more of their body parts, hold and
> > manipulate it in a greater variety of ways, and are generally less
> > predictable in moment-to-moment responses. As a corollary, young
> > chimpanzees play and explore more than other animals, yet much less
> > than modern human children and adults. We can again assume that the
> > problematic habilines lay somewhere in between. Play extends the
> > variability of behavior mightily and opens numerous possibilities for
> > cultural innovation in both animals and man. John and Janice Baldwin
> > described a remarkable example involving a two-year-old squirrel
> > monkey named Corwin. Occasionally Corwin dropped food pellets, which
> > bounced off his cage floor. He turned the accident into a game in
> > which he deliberately dropped pellets and chased them as they bounced
> > around. One day as he was leaping upward a pellet flew out of his hand
> > and ricocheted through the upper part of the cage before settling to
> > the floor. Corwin then started to release pellets deliberately as he
> > jumped, making the game more complicated. Finally, he learned to toss
> > the pellets up into the air and catch them in his mouth.
>
> > Such antics can sometimes be turned to advantage. One of the
> > subordinate male chimpanzees studied by Jane Goodall at the Gombe
> > Stream National Park in Tanzania learned to bang two empty kerosene
> > cans together. He then used the extraordinary movement and noise to
> > augment his threat displays and, as a result, rose to dominance in
> > just a few days over larger males in the troop. Another, partially
> > crippled chimpanzee observed by Geza Teleki compensated for his lack
> > of mobility during hunting by dashing the head of a prey repeatedly
> > against tree trunks. How easy it would be to evolve to a more
> > humanlike behavior, to change from hitting a stick with a head to
> > hitting a head with a stick. The habilines or their immediate
> > ancestors almost certainly took this step. They inaugurated the long
> > and malevolent lineage of weaponry, which in its final nuclear form
> > could annihilate Homo and demonstrate—in a conclusive and unexpected
> > manner—that culture is indeed superior to heredity.
>
> > Promethean Fire – Reflections on the Origins of Mind
> > Charles J. Lumsdem – E.O. Wilson – 1983http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
>
> So you too are saying that scientists are monkeys who exhibit
> extraordinary movement and noise to get attention, tenure and to sell
> books.- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
Real scientist did work and published results/findings for the world,
to benefit mankind.
You did nothing.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:12 pm
From: Immortalist
On Mar 29, 2:23 pm, “White bird” wrote:
> If you have imaginary friends as a child, it is considered
> quite normal and healthy.
>
> If you have imaginary friends as an adult, it is considered
> schizophrenia.
[E] – GODS/SPIRITS AS PARTNERS: IMAGINARY COMPANIONS/FRIENDS
Although we are not aware of it, the inference systems that manage our
interaction with other people are full-time workers. We constantly use
intuitions delivered by these systems. Indeed, we also use them when
we are not actually interacting with people. All inference systems can
run in a decoupled mode, that is, disengaged from actual external
inputs from the environment or external output in behavior. A crucial
human capacity is to imagine counterfactuals-What would happen if I
had less meat than I actually have? What would happen if I chose this
path rather than that one?-and this applies to interaction too. Before
we make a particular move in any social interaction, we automatically
consider several scenarios. This capacity allows us, for instance, to
choose this rather than that course of action because we can imagine
other people’s reactions to what we would do.
In fact, we can run such decoupled inferences not only about persons
who are not around but also about purely imaginary characters. It is
striking that this capacity seems to appear very early in children’s
development. From an early age (between three and ten years) many
children engage in durable and complex relationships with “imaginary
companions.” Psychologist Marjorie Taylor, who has studied this
phenomenon extensively, estimates that about half of the children she
has worked with had some such companions. These imagined persons or
person-like animals, sometimes but not always derived from stories or
cartoons or other cultural folklore, follow the child around, play
with her, converse with her, etc. One girl describes her companions
Nutsy and Nutsy as a couple of birds, one male and one female, who
accompany her as she goes for a walk, goes to school or gets in the
car.
Taylor’s studies show that having long-term relationships with
nonexistent characters is not a sign of confusion between fantasy and
reality. Developmental psychologists now use precise tests to
determine how children mark off the real from the fantastic. Those
with companions pass such tests from the age of three and are often
better than other children at differentiating between the real and the
imagined. They know perfectly well that their friends the invisible
lizard, the awkward monkey, or the amazing magician, are not there in
the same sense as real friends and other people. Also, children with
companions are often better than others at tasks that require a subtle
use of intuitive psychology. They seem to have a firmer grasp of the
difference between their own and other people’s perspectives on a
given situation and are better at construing other people’s mental
states and emotions.
All this led Taylor to the intriguing hypothesis that imaginary
companions may well provide a very useful form of training for the
social mind. The relationship with such a companion is a stable one,
which means that the child computes the companion’s reactions by
taking into account not just the imagined friend’s personality but
also past events in their relationship. Taylor’s studies show that
wishful thinking plays only a minor role in such fantasies. What the
companions do or say is constrained by the persons they are, and this
has to remain consistent and plausible even in this fantastic domain.
A four-year-old has sophisticated skills at representing not only an
agent where there is none but also an agent with a specific history
and personality, with particular tastes and capacities different from
one’s own. Companions are often used to provide an alternative
viewpoint on a situation. They may find odd information unsurprising,
or frightening situations manageable.
So it is extremely easy, from an early age, to maintain social
relations in a decoupled mode. From an early age, children have the
social capacities required to maintain coherent representations of
interaction with persons even when these persons are not actually
around and do not in fact exist.
It would be tempting at this point to drift into a not-too-rigorous
parallel between such imagined companions and the supernatural agents
with which people seem to establish long and important relations, such
as guardian angels, spirits and ancestors. (Indeed, the very term
imaginary companion used by modern-day psychologists seems to echo the
phrase invisible friend [aoratos philos] used to describe the saints
in early Christianity.) But the differences are as great as the
similarities. First, for many people spirits and ancestors are
emphatically not fantasies, there is a sense that they are actually
around. Second, believers do not just construct their own decoupled
interaction; they share with others information about who the spirits
are and what they do. Third and most important, the tenor of people’s
relations with spirits and gods is special because of one crucial
characteristic of these supernatural agents, as we will see presently.
Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought
Pascal Boyer
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Time to disarm all the Christo-fascist terrorist ‘ militia’ retards
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:14 pm
From: Bret Cahill
> > > These morons are proof positive that religious fanatics and mental
> > > defectives must not have access to guns & ammo. These loons can’t even
> > > be trusted with butter-knives and scissors.
>
> > Why doncha hop on your bicycle and come on over and try.
>
> > –
> > To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation
> > of their women.
>
> Got an address for the FBI tough guy?
The FBI, Secret Service, BATF and Homeland security _already have_ his
address because of Dumbya Bush’s Patriot Act.
If he tries anything there’ll be a you tube video of his sinuses
exploding out of the back of skull along with a 9mm slug paid for with
taxpayer money.
Nutters don’t have any brains so all you’ll see are his sinuses.
Of course like 99.99% of nutters he won’t do jack except sit in front
of his bathroom mirror oiling his AK-47 practicing his Hollywood actor
NRA president Charlton Heston hiss.
And even that fantasy is out of date as BATF now has microwave beam
vehicles and can take his gun out of his live warm hands.
Bret Cahill
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Media ignores democrat violence, as usual
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:15 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 7:03 pm, “Killing, Inc.”
wrote:
> On Mar 29, 5:09 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > Looks like the meia is ignoring sick democrats commiting violence and
> > > making threats. Tea Patriots demonstrate peacefully while the left
> > > throws eggs…..
>
> > It’s very difficult to compete against rightard violence:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> > Next question?
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Oh, you mean that “rightard” violence that never happened?
> For all you know they could have been framed, and considering how
> Democrats have no shortage of made-up stories and lies about the right
> and tea party protesters, a frame-up is more likely than not.
>
> Next question.
>
> Democrats and other “progressive” fascists are still the dumbest
> creatures on the planet.
liberals and progressives cannot be fascist. all fascism is, is
conservatism in decay.
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 8:27 am
From: Robert Baer
D from BC wrote:
> I saw a stat that BC has the largest % of atheism in Canada.
> 11% in BC.
> According to Christians(not all 38000 denominations) means that 11% of
> BC are certain to burn in hell along with about 66% of the world
> population that are non-Christian.
> By the numbers, God is more in the business punishing people for
> eternity.
> Sure.. a few goodies go to heaven but God is mostly into toasting
> billions (66% of iirc 8billion) of different faiths and skeptics.
> What a nice guy…
>
1) that is *66.6* percent..
2) NOT a guy..get your facts straight first (oh, sorry already said that).
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 8:29 am
From: Robert Baer
richard wrote:
> D from BC wrote:
>> I saw a stat that BC has the largest % of atheism in Canada.
>> 11% in BC.
>> According to Christians(not all 38000 denominations) means that 11% of
>> BC are certain to burn in hell along with about 66% of the world
>> population that are non-Christian.
>> By the numbers, God is more in the business punishing people for
>> eternity.
>> Sure.. a few goodies go to heaven but God is mostly into toasting
>> billions (66% of iirc 8billion) of different faiths and skeptics.
>> What a nice guy…
>>
>
>
>
> Yes, I was taught (by Catholic priests) of “baptism by blood” and
> “baptism of desire” and that an uneducated savage would not necessarily
> be condemned to an afterlife in the fires of hell for eternity – see
> following quote from http://www.stgenesius.com/baptismofblood.html
>
> “It must also be understood that in Catholic teaching those who are not
> baptized and not members of the Church are not necessarily lost or
> excluded from heaven: if they do not know or believe in Christ or his
> teaching through no fault of their own, but live good lives according to
> their understanding, God in his mercy will not exclude them”.
>
> But perhaps other denominations are not so liberal.
Maybe Catholics can afford to be liberal since they defy and abuse
the first commandment…
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:02 pm
From: D from BC
In article , invalid@invalid.invalid
says…
>
> D from BC wrote:
> > In article ,
> > jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says…
> >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:35:39 -0700, D from BC
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so…
> >>> Time for another mega-troll.
> >>>
> >>> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering?
> >>> How can Christian electronics designers still do a good job with
> >>> Christian concepts in their head.
> >> I know a couple of seriously Christian electronics designers and
> >> programmers who are literally a couple of orders of magnitude better
> >> than you are.
> >>
> >> Some of the best scientists and mathematicians have been Jesuits.
>
>
> I have had the same experience. And no, I went to a public highschool
> and I am not a Jesuit so this is a fairly unbiased opinion. I made that
> observation way before I found back to church.
>
>
> >> Seismology has been called The Jesuit Science.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
> >>
> >
> > I’m sure they all have very intelligent reasons for why they believe in
> > Jesus and God and Noah that guy that lived in a fish.
>
>
> Ahm, the guy in the fish was Jonah
>
>
> > Maybe you can list what their reasons are.
> >
>
> My reason is very simple: Christian faith. It only works for people who
> believe in what the bible teaches, otherwise it won’t work.
Does it ‘work’ by making people feel happy that by believing in Jesus
they avoid being punished in hell forever.
If I got this right…
The reason why you believe in God is because it works for those that
believe in God.
uhh.. That’s too ambiguous for me..
I’m understanding that as: The reason why you believe in God is because
others believe in God.
Correct?
–
D from BC
British Columbia
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:16 pm
From: D from BC
In article ,
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz says…
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 10:45:44 +1000, David Eather wrote:
>
> >On 30/03/2010 10:33 AM, D from BC wrote:
> >> In article,
> >> jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says…
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:35:39 -0700, D from BC
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so…
> >>>> Time for another mega-troll.
> >>>>
> >>>> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering?
> >>>> How can Christian electronics designers still do a good job with
> >>>> Christian concepts in their head.
> >>>
> >>> I know a couple of seriously Christian electronics designers and
> >>> programmers who are literally a couple of orders of magnitude better
> >>> than you are.
> >>>
> >>> Some of the best scientists and mathematicians have been Jesuits.
> >>> Seismology has been called The Jesuit Science.
> >>>
> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
> >>>
> >>
> >> I’m sure they all have very intelligent reasons for why they believe in
> >> Jesus and God and Noah that guy that lived in a fish.
> >> Maybe you can list what their reasons are.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I can, if you are actually interested.
>
> He’s not. The idiot is just stirring shit again.
I’m in suspense.
Somebody is going to post hyperintelligent reasons as to why super duper
intelligent mensa prometheus people believe in Noah, Jonah, Jesus and
God.
I’m waiting to be blown away
Hopefully it’s less than 30 words without bible quotes.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:20 pm
From: John Larkin
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:49:14 -0700, D from BC
wrote:
>In article ,
>eather@tpg.com.au says…
>>
>> On 30/03/2010 10:33 AM, D from BC wrote:
>> > In article,
>> > jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says…
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:35:39 -0700, D from BC
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so…
>> >>> Time for another mega-troll.
>> >>>
>> >>> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering?
>> >>> How can Christian electronics designers still do a good job with
>> >>> Christian concepts in their head.
>> >>
>> >> I know a couple of seriously Christian electronics designers and
>> >> programmers who are literally a couple of orders of magnitude better
>> >> than you are.
>> >>
>> >> Some of the best scientists and mathematicians have been Jesuits.
>> >> Seismology has been called The Jesuit Science.
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
>> >>
>> >
>> > I’m sure they all have very intelligent reasons for why they believe in
>> > Jesus and God and Noah that guy that lived in a fish.
>> > Maybe you can list what their reasons are.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I can, if you are actually interested.
>
>Sure..
>Do Larkin’s intelligent scientists and intelligent engineers and
>intelligent mathematicians have an intelligent reason for why they
>believe the story of Jonah (that biblical guy that lived for days in a
>fish) or Noah or God or Jesus?
Some do; some just have faith.
There are lots of things that are faith-based, even if you don’t
believe in God. Thinks like empathy, honesty, senses of fairness,
love, a desire to help others. Maybe you’re a sociopath and don’t feel
any of these things. Or maybe you’re just an idiot.
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:30 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In , Archimedes’ Lever wrote:
>On 30 Mar 2010 01:29:31 +0 UTC, don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>
>>In , Archimedes’ Lever wrote:
>>> Funny how I had to explain to a guy at work the other day how the three
>>>colors add up to black on a printer and white on a display. I had to
>>>explain to him the differences between additive and subtractive color
>>>mixing and how an opaque “color” will add together to form black.
>>>
>>> He acted like he still didn’t believe me as he went back to his
>>>workstation. I did not have time from my work to go into any great depth
>>>of show him how a display adds up the same three colors differently than
>>>the printer does. Most all printers use opaque inks, not transparent
>>>inks
>>
>> If that is true, than Canon BJC600 and i560 printers are other than
>>”most all printers”, at least as far as the colored inks go.
>>
>> However, transparent inks follow subtractive color mixing well.
>>
>> – Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
>
> Stacking the three bases overlapped makes what color in the center
>overlapped area from a jet printer?
It makes what they call “composite black”, which appears to me to be
a quite dark and very slightly greenish gray.
> And then from a laser?
That I have yet to try, since all color printers I have ever owned
are/were inkjet printers. Same for everyone else in my family where I
know what kind of printer they have.
> Are toner powders transparent dyes, not opaque fine powders?
My experience is that toners are powders that appear to me at least
somewhat opaque. But what does that have to do with “most all printers”,
since inkjet printers don’t use powdered toners but liquid dyed inks?
– Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:44 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In , Archimedes’ Lever wrote:
>On 30 Mar ’10 01:48:14 +0 UTC, don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>
>>In , Archimedes’ Lever wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT), osr@uakron.edu wrote:
>>>
>>>>With 8 bit RGB alone, I have a theoretical 16.8 million color
>>>>system. In reality, we would use 32 or 64 color palettes. More then
>>>>that is overload.
>>>
>>> We cannot even see what a modern display is capable of. They can all
>>>pretty much produce colors that we are not able to discern. Our useable,
>>>readable, “seeable” “color space” is INSIDE of what they can produce
>>>already.
>>
>> At least nearly all red laser pointers, many red LEDs and a fair number
>>of red traffic signals (mainly incandescent ones and the GaAlAsP LED ones
>>common in Philadelphia but not anywhere else I have been) have a red color
>>that I easily find to be a deeper, more pure shade of red than the red
>>phosphor in CRT monitors and TV sets, the main reddish wavelength of most
>>CCFL lamps, and the usaul InGaAlP red LEDs.
>>
>> And how about a usual green InGaAlP LED filtered by a layer or two of
>>green Plexiglas or the like? I have yet to see any monitor or TV set
>>produce a green like that, let alone the nice deep emerald green of the
>>514.9/515.3 nm line pair of high pressure sodium or the deep blue-green
>>of the 497.9/498.3 line pair of high pressure sodium, or the vivid deep
>>blue-greenish turquoise of the 486.1 nm line of hydrogen.
>> Heck, I have yet to see a monitor or TV set achieve the deep lime
>>green of 532 nm laser pointers, but sometimes some look close. And
>>turquoise-side blue InGaN LEDs have a color that I have yet to see in a
>>monitor or a TV set, so does a 473 nm turquoise blue laser.
>>
>> – Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
>
> You look into lasers?
What, you think I have to look into one to see the color of its light?
What’s wrong with looking at the spot that one gets when shining a laser
of around a hundred microwatts to several milliwatts onto a wall? Or
looking at translucent objects irradiated by such lasers? (As in doing
the trick of examining the filament of a frosted incandescent lamp for
breakage?)
– Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What is a “Tyne Coil”
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:32 pm
From: glennewton@paterson.con (Glen Newton)
Can anyone tell me what a tyne, or tynne, coil is? I saw this term
while reading book on magnetic field generation.
Glen Newton
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:55 pm
From: Spehro Pefhany
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:32:37 GMT, the renowned glennewton@paterson.con
(Glen Newton) wrote:
>Can anyone tell me what a tyne, or tynne, coil is? I saw this term
>while reading book on magnetic field generation.
>
>Glen Newton
Norwegian or Danish for “thin coil”?
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
–
“it’s the network…” “The Journey is the reward”
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:48 pm
From: “Royston Vasey”
“Glen Newton” wrote in message
news:4bb17064.3136421@news.tpg.com.au…
> Can anyone tell me what a tyne, or tynne, coil is? I saw this term
> while reading book on magnetic field generation.
>
> Glen Newton
“tynne” is norwegian for “thin”? Perhaps that is what is meant.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:04 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article , Glen Newton wrote:
>Can anyone tell me what a tyne, or tynne, coil is? I saw this term
>while reading book on magnetic field generation.
>
>Glen Newton
I try Google with the phrase (including quotation marks to indicate
exact wording other than capitalization/punctuation phrase) “tyne coil”,
and I got few hits, with most making sense to me mentioning
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Coil Winding Services.
Google gets me one hit and I sense it as “lower in making sense” when I
tried “tynne coil”.
It appears to me that web searching, inluding web searching with
refinement of search terms, especially beyond what I did for you over
half a minute or so, is something you should do.
There is such a thing as “Google Books”. Maybe Google has your book.
In the somewhat likely event they do, I give fair to maybe good chance
that they show enough of the relevant parts of the book that you had a
look at.
Meanwhile, there are several “search engines” besides Google for
web searching. 4 that I can name at this moment are Bing, Yahoo,
Altavista and Dogpile. (Dogpile is more of a “meta search engine”,
passing your search query onto several “search engines” and returning to
you the top very few hits from each of several “search engines”. Dogpile
does pass one’s “search query” onto many more “search engines” than I can
name.)
– Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Coming soon to the USA…
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:37 pm
From: “Bill Garber”
“amdx” wrote in message news:5a4d$4bb12b71$18d66003$16489@KNOLOGY.NET…
>
> “ian field” wrote in message news:RG5sn.124236$1j3.111888@newsfe10.ams2…
>>
>> “Jim Thompson” wrote in message
>> news:aul1r5dcnv27nkv095klm69d7dhgad70it@4ax.com…
>>> Coming soon to the USA… the ultimate nanny state…
>>
>> It’ll never be as bad as in the UK.
>>
>> Kids not allowed to play conkers – or climb trees to get them, no chasing a round cheese down a hill contests, no jumble sales in
>> case the village hall burns down.
>>
>> The list is inexhaustible.
>>
>
> Ian, a Massachusetts school stopped using jump ropes!
> They still jump, they just don’t use the rope, you see if little Mary or Billy catch
> the rope with a foot as it goes round it could hurt there self esteem.
>
>
> http://www.ocregister.com/articles/children-238013-bronson-merryman.html
>
> http://www.news-journalonline.com/opinion/editorials/2010/03/05/praise-in-the-lunchbox-tripping-on-a-jump-rope.html
I believe that taking away the rope hurts their self-esteem more,
as it symbolizes that they are too stupid to jump with the rope.
Like the ‘Everyone gets a Trophie’ Trophies. Some will see that
as a means of getting everyone not to try as hard as they can.
Bill
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:02 pm
From: Pieyed Piper
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:37:44 -0400, “Bill Garber”
wrote:
>Like the ‘Everyone gets a Trophie’ Trophies. Some will see that
>as a means of getting everyone not to try as hard as they can.
I only try as hard as I can to hold in a bong load for a really long
time… every time. Failures do occur.
At work, I usually know IT. If not, I try as hard as I need to to find
IT out, then DO it with as little or as much try as is required to
efficaciously perform the task.
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:00 pm
From: “Steve”
wrote in message
news:gpb2r5dutgq62h5h8fq95c3nr6ggivf702@4ax.com…
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:40:03 -0500, “Steve” wrote:
>
>>
>>”Don Ocean” wrote in message
>>news:81anasFk5tU1@mid.individual.net…
>>> The King wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:04:53 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:00:11 -0400, The King
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:58:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In reality, we right-wingers _will_ eventually tip over the edge.
>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>> this socialism goes too far we’re going to round up all you leftist
>>>>>>> weenies and have a big weenie roast
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> …Jim Thompson
>>>>>> You have been tipped over the edge and were coming to get you.
>>>>> Oh? Voluntarily coming to the weenie roast and pick-em-up truck
>>>>> drag-behind ?:-)
>>>>>
>>>>> …Jim Thompson
>>>>
>>>> If you promise to wear your hood.
>>>
>>> I thought only Union members were allowed to wear hoods?
>>
>>Guys, thats not something to even joke about…. they are alive and well
>>in
>>the *real* south. I was invited to attend another “headlight party” a week
>>or so ago. Yes, I politely declined (again).
>
> Bullshit.
Before you call bullshit, maybe you should come see for yourself?? OTOH,
never mind, we don’t need another damn yankee in south Mississippi.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:16 pm
From: “krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz”
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 22:00:15 -0500, “Steve” wrote:
>
> wrote in message
>news:gpb2r5dutgq62h5h8fq95c3nr6ggivf702@4ax.com…
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:40:03 -0500, “Steve” wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>”Don Ocean” wrote in message
>>>news:81anasFk5tU1@mid.individual.net…
>>>> The King wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:04:53 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:00:11 -0400, The King
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:58:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In reality, we right-wingers _will_ eventually tip over the edge.
>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>> this socialism goes too far we’re going to round up all you leftist
>>>>>>>> weenies and have a big weenie roast
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> …Jim Thompson
>>>>>>> You have been tipped over the edge and were coming to get you.
>>>>>> Oh? Voluntarily coming to the weenie roast and pick-em-up truck
>>>>>> drag-behind ?:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> …Jim Thompson
>>>>>
>>>>> If you promise to wear your hood.
>>>>
>>>> I thought only Union members were allowed to wear hoods?
>>>
>>>Guys, thats not something to even joke about…. they are alive and well
>>>in
>>>the *real* south. I was invited to attend another “headlight party” a week
>>>or so ago. Yes, I politely declined (again).
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
>Before you call bullshit, maybe you should come see for yourself?? OTOH,
>never mind, we don’t need another damn yankee in south Mississippi.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:01 pm
From: messianic light
On 29 Mar, 23:35, “Joel Koltner” wrote:
> “messianic light” wrote in message
>
> news:90e5ab9d-3cfa-4834-a4d5-cfbaf5bbca3a@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com…
>
> >I am just starting with idea to design a digitally controlled analogue
> > synthesizer
>
> > does anyone have basic analogue synthesizer circuits to get me going
> > with breadboard design?
>
> Tell us what kind of frequency ranges you’d like to cover, if you just need a
> sine wave output or modulation or other waveforms, etc…
I am only just learning about synthesisers
apparently there is sinewave, sawtooth and squarewave plus others you
may know of
I am looking for a simple circuit to start off with to produce a range
of sounds that I can build on
once I understand them
I am more proficient at digital electronics than analogue electronics
thanks for all the quick replies
any more help would be greatly appreciated
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Capacitance versus voltage for X7S caps?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:03 pm
From: “JosephKK”
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:47:48 -0700, Joerg wrote:
>JosephKK wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:05:08 -0700, Joerg wrote:
>>
>>> Jon Kirwan wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:41:39 -0700, Joerg
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jon Kirwan wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:22:59 -0700, Joerg
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tried the major mfgs and the typical datasheet looks like this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.avx.com/docs/Catalogs/cx7s.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quote “Capacitance for X7S varies under the influence of electrical
>>>>>>> operating conditions such as voltage and frequency.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then under diagrams … nada, zip, zilch. Great.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One paper listed X7S with the same voltage coefficient as X7R but that
>>>>>>> doesn’t sound right. Anyone have a link to some hard data, with a graph
>>>>>>> in there and preferably no marketing hype?
>>>>>> I seem to recall reading that C0G and NP0 dielectrics have
>>>>>> the lowest cap-vs-temp dependance and that pretty much
>>>>>> everyone “understands” that X7R dielectrics have large
>>>>>> coefficients and are pretty much unsuitable where it matters.
>>>>>> They pack a lot of capacitance into a small space and that
>>>>>> makes them great for decoupling jobs and not so much else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I don’t know remember reading anything about X7S,
>>>>>> specifically. If they are the same as X7R, they are crap if
>>>>>> what else I read was right.
>>>>> The lousy ones are Y5V and Z5U. X7R is actually pretty good.
>>>> X7R is bad enough that it distorts like hell in an audio
>>>> amplifier (used as the Miller cap) and I know I certainly
>>>> can’t even come close to using them in integrators, from
>>>> actual (hilarious, for a moment) experience. Decoupling is
>>>> what they are good for.
>>>>
>>> That’s what I am needing them for
>>
>> That is relatively easy. Polystyrene, polyethylene, or
>> polyethylenterephthalate [PET / Mylar] are normal materials
>> of choice. Of course if you have atypical size constraints
>> you may have real difficulty obtaining any parts of reasonable
>> price.
>
>
>Atypical? A 4.7uF/100V film cap is going to be humongous.
About 1/2 cubic inch any way you pack it.
Alternatively i might try the aluminum polymer electrolytics.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:15 pm
From: John Larkin
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:12:12 -0700 (PDT), a7yvm109gf5d1@netzero.com
wrote:
>Just installed the 9.0 PADS suite from Mentor, I’m using it as a
>viewer to look at a contractor’s pcb work.
>
>I’m having a hard time with two simple things:
>
>1) I can’t for the life of me figure out how to turn on the rat’s
>nests. I think they’re called unroutes in the PADS world. The designer
>somehow turned them all off and I’ve tried in vain to get them to show
>again. How do you do this?
>There’s a net visibilty window and the settings here seem to affect
>nothing. It doesn’t seem to be a color issue either.
I’m using an older version, but I select Setup/DisplayColors, pick a
color, and apply it to “connections.”
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:16 pm
From: whit3rd
On Mar 27, 4:43 pm, Peter Bennett wrote:
> Tripod threads are 1/4-20 – get a piece of 3/4 x 3/4 thin angle from
> Home Depot, and a short 1/4-20 bolt and a couple of nuts.
To be precise, camera and tripod threads are 1/4 -20 Whitworth thread,
which is ever-so-slightly different from 1/4-20 NC (National Coarse)
like one sees in common hardware items. Regular hardware will
work, but is a tad loose-fitting.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anybody know a decent scanner that works in Linux?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:19 pm
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 06:56:16 -0800, Robert Baer
wrote:
>Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> Anybody know a decent scanner that works in Linux?
>> Preferably not Canon.
> What you really mean is “are there any decent scanners that have
>available Linux drivers”.
> Am sure there are a fair number of decent scanners…
> Pick one you like, find the maker on the web, check for a driver or
>ask. Next see if there is a 3rd party driver.
Probably for the old, good SCSI ones, but there probably were not a
bunch of generic OEM “print engine” style makers out there that all
conformed to the same hardware/comm layer standards. So you center
around brand families that ever had Linux support.
There are standards for the finished file, so at least that translation
gets/got followed. Run it from within a windows emulator.
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:06 pm
From: mpc755
> On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
> > Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> > the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> > the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> > interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> > function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> > environment, with time constants and so forth.
> > But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> > which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> > the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
> > Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
> > –
> > Rich
> What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
> “co·her·ence
> 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
> “co·her·ent
> 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
> phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
> Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
> You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
> correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
> the particle when the particle is detected.
> The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
> detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
> the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
> bow wave.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
> “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
> ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> by the double solution theory
> Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
> “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
> wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
> of an external field acting on the particle.”
> “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> located.”
> de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave.
> In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
> double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
> the available slits.
> In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> interference.
The way I understand the nonsense of Feynman is knowing ‘which way’
the particle travels causes decoherence. This is what is meant by the
role the Observer plays. If the ‘which way’ information is known, then
there will not be interference.
However, that is complete nonsense. In order to know ‘which way’ the
particle travels the particle must be detected. Detecting the particle
physically turns the associated wave into chop. Physically destroying
the coherence of the associated wave (decoherence) does not allow the
waves to create interference upon exiting the slits. If there is no
interference created by the waves then the direction the particle
travels is not altered and there will not be an interference pattern
formed.
It gets even more absurd than that. If the ‘which way’ information is
detected far enough before the particle interacts with the slits then
an interference pattern will still be formed.
Obviously, if the boat is detected by the buoys and continues on,
given enough time the coherence of the bow wave will once again exist.
All the nonsense of ‘which way’ and the role of the Observer is not
understanding there is a physical particle and a physical wave in
wave-
particle duality.
But, again, what I referred to in the previous post is de Broglie Wave
Mechanics where the associated wave is an aether wave and the
generally accepted ‘understanding’ is of ‘which way’ and the role of
the Observer and the other ridiculous nonsense Feynman arrived at
based upon the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:07 pm
From: mpc755
> On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
> > Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> > the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> > the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> > interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> > function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> > environment, with time constants and so forth.
> > But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> > which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> > the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
> > Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
> > –
> > Rich
> What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
> “co·her·ence
> 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
> “co·her·ent
> 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
> phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
> Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
> You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
> correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
> the particle when the particle is detected.
> The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
> detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
> the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
> bow wave.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
> “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
> ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> by the double solution theory
> Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
> “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
> wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
> of an external field acting on the particle.”
> “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> located.”
> de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave.
> In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
> double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
> the available slits.
> In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> interference.
The way I understand the nonsense of Feynman is knowing ‘which way’
the particle travels causes decoherence. This is what is meant by the
role the Observer plays. If the ‘which way’ information is known, then
there will not be interference.
However, that is complete nonsense. In order to know ‘which way’ the
particle travels the particle must be detected. Detecting the particle
physically turns the associated wave into chop. Physically destroying
the coherence of the associated wave (decoherence) does not allow the
waves to create interference upon exiting the slits. If there is no
interference created by the waves then the direction the particle
travels is not altered and there will not be an interference pattern
formed.
It gets even more absurd than that. If the ‘which way’ information is
detected far enough before the particle interacts with the slits then
an interference pattern will still be formed.
Obviously, if the boat is detected by the buoys and continues on,
given enough time the coherence of the bow wave will once again exist.
All the nonsense of ‘which way’ and the role of the Observer is not
understanding there is a physical particle and a physical wave in
wave-
particle duality.
But, again, what I referred to in the previous post is de Broglie Wave
Mechanics where the associated wave is an aether wave and the
generally accepted ‘understanding’ is of ‘which way’ and the role of
the Observer and the other ridiculous nonsense Feynman arrived at
based upon the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:30 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 6:07 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> > On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
> > > Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> > > the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> > > the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> > > interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> > > function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> > > environment, with time constants and so forth.
> > > But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> > > which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> > > the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
> > > Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
> > > –
> > > Rich
> > What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
> > “co·her·ence
> > 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
> > “co·her·ent
> > 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
> > phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
> > Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
> > You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
> > correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
> > the particle when the particle is detected.
> > The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
> > detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
> > the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
> > bow wave.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
> > “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> > any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
> > ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> > by the double solution theory
> > Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
> > “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
> > wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
> > of an external field acting on the particle.”
> > “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> > theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> > where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> > natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> > be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> > located.”
> > de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> > and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> > the wave.
> > In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
> > double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
> > the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
> > the available slits.
> > In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> > The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> > associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> > slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> > slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> > the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> > displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> > interference.
>
> The way I understand the nonsense of Feynman is knowing ‘which way’
> the particle travels causes decoherence. This is what is meant by the
> role the Observer plays. If the ‘which way’ information is known, then
> there will not be interference.
>
> However, that is complete nonsense. In order to know ‘which way’ the
> particle travels the particle must be detected. Detecting the particle
> physically turns the associated wave into chop. Physically destroying
> the coherence of the associated wave (decoherence) does not allow the
> waves to create interference upon exiting the slits. If there is no
> interference created by the waves then the direction the particle
> travels is not altered and there will not be an interference pattern
> formed.
>
> It gets even more absurd than that. If the ‘which way’ information is
> detected far enough before the particle interacts with the slits then
> an interference pattern will still be formed.
>
> Obviously, if the boat is detected by the buoys and continues on,
> given enough time the coherence of the bow wave will once again exist.
>
> All the nonsense of ‘which way’ and the role of the Observer is not
> understanding there is a physical particle and a physical wave in
> wave-
> particle duality.
>
> But, again, what I referred to in the previous post is de Broglie Wave
> Mechanics where the associated wave is an aether wave and the
> generally accepted ‘understanding’ is of ‘which way’ and the role of
> the Observer and the other ridiculous nonsense Feynman arrived at
> based upon the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
If light collapses the waves then Einstein although he did not see it
himself will be vindicated.
Mitch Raemsch
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:37 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 9:30 pm, BURT wrote:
> On Mar 29, 6:07 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > > On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
> > > > Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> > > > the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> > > > the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> > > > interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> > > > function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> > > > environment, with time constants and so forth.
> > > > But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> > > > which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> > > > the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
> > > > Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
> > > > –
> > > > Rich
> > > What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
> > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
> > > “co·her·ence
> > > 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
> > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
> > > “co·her·ent
> > > 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
> > > phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
> > > Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
> > > You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
> > > correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
> > > the particle when the particle is detected.
> > > The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
> > > detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
> > > the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
> > > bow wave.
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
> > > “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> > > any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
> > > ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> > > by the double solution theory
> > > Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
> > > “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
> > > wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
> > > of an external field acting on the particle.”
> > > “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> > > theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> > > where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> > > natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> > > be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> > > located.”
> > > de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> > > and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> > > the wave.
> > > In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
> > > double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
> > > the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
> > > the available slits.
> > > In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> > > The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> > > associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> > > slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> > > slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> > > the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> > > displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> > > interference.
>
> > The way I understand the nonsense of Feynman is knowing ‘which way’
> > the particle travels causes decoherence. This is what is meant by the
> > role the Observer plays. If the ‘which way’ information is known, then
> > there will not be interference.
>
> > However, that is complete nonsense. In order to know ‘which way’ the
> > particle travels the particle must be detected. Detecting the particle
> > physically turns the associated wave into chop. Physically destroying
> > the coherence of the associated wave (decoherence) does not allow the
> > waves to create interference upon exiting the slits. If there is no
> > interference created by the waves then the direction the particle
> > travels is not altered and there will not be an interference pattern
> > formed.
>
> > It gets even more absurd than that. If the ‘which way’ information is
> > detected far enough before the particle interacts with the slits then
> > an interference pattern will still be formed.
>
> > Obviously, if the boat is detected by the buoys and continues on,
> > given enough time the coherence of the bow wave will once again exist.
>
> > All the nonsense of ‘which way’ and the role of the Observer is not
> > understanding there is a physical particle and a physical wave in
> > wave-
> > particle duality.
>
> > But, again, what I referred to in the previous post is de Broglie Wave
> > Mechanics where the associated wave is an aether wave and the
> > generally accepted ‘understanding’ is of ‘which way’ and the role of
> > the Observer and the other ridiculous nonsense Feynman arrived at
> > based upon the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > – Show quoted text -
>
> If light collapses the waves then Einstein although he did not see it
> himself will be vindicated.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
by the double solution theory
Louis de BROGLIE’
“These are essentially based on the way in which quantities
respectively characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0
wave of the particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular
region. u0 would have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the
singular region.”
This is similar to Einstein’s concept of:
‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity
by
Albert Einstein’
Think of the tip as being the ‘particle’ which collapses into a
quantum of matter when detected.
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:46 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 6:37 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 29, 9:30 pm, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 6:07 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
> > > > > Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> > > > > the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> > > > > the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> > > > > interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> > > > > function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> > > > > environment, with time constants and so forth.
> > > > > But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> > > > > which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> > > > > the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
> > > > > Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
> > > > > –
> > > > > Rich
> > > > What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
> > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
> > > > “co·her·ence
> > > > 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
> > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
> > > > “co·her·ent
> > > > 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
> > > > phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
> > > > Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
> > > > You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
> > > > correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
> > > > the particle when the particle is detected.
> > > > The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
> > > > detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
> > > > the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
> > > > bow wave.
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
> > > > “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> > > > any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
> > > > ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> > > > by the double solution theory
> > > > Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
> > > > “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
> > > > wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
> > > > of an external field acting on the particle.”
> > > > “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> > > > theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> > > > where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> > > > natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> > > > be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> > > > located.”
> > > > de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> > > > and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> > > > the wave.
> > > > In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
> > > > double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
> > > > the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
> > > > the available slits.
> > > > In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> > > > The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> > > > associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> > > > slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> > > > slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> > > > the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> > > > displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> > > > interference.
>
> > > The way I understand the nonsense of Feynman is knowing ‘which way’
> > > the particle travels causes decoherence. This is what is meant by the
> > > role the Observer plays. If the ‘which way’ information is known, then
> > > there will not be interference.
>
> > > However, that is complete nonsense. In order to know ‘which way’ the
> > > particle travels the particle must be detected. Detecting the particle
> > > physically turns the associated wave into chop. Physically destroying
> > > the coherence of the associated wave (decoherence) does not allow the
> > > waves to create interference upon exiting the slits. If there is no
> > > interference created by the waves then the direction the particle
> > > travels is not altered and there will not be an interference pattern
> > > formed.
>
> > > It gets even more absurd than that. If the ‘which way’ information is
> > > detected far enough before the particle interacts with the slits then
> > > an interference pattern will still be formed.
>
> > > Obviously, if the boat is detected by the buoys and continues on,
> > > given enough time the coherence of the bow wave will once again exist.
>
> > > All the nonsense of ‘which way’ and the role of the Observer is not
> > > understanding there is a physical particle and a physical wave in
> > > wave-
> > > particle duality.
>
> > > But, again, what I referred to in the previous post is de Broglie Wave
> > > Mechanics where the associated wave is an aether wave and the
> > > generally accepted ‘understanding’ is of ‘which way’ and the role of
> > > the Observer and the other ridiculous nonsense Feynman arrived at
> > > based upon the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > If light collapses the waves then Einstein although he did not see it
> > himself will be vindicated.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> by the double solution theory
> Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
> “These are essentially based on the way in which quantities
> respectively characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0
> wave of the particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular
> region. u0 would have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the
> singular region.”
>
> This is similar to Einstein’s concept of:
>
> ‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity
> by
> Albert Einstein’http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
>
> “the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places”.
>
> There is a connectedness between the particle and the neighborhood.
> There is a connectedness between the matter and the aether.
>
> de Broglie and Einstein were on the same page.
>
> I like this image of a photon:
>
> http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif
>
> Think of the tip as being the ‘particle’ which collapses into a
> quantum of matter when detected.- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
Light is the cause of the wave collapsing into its energy points.
Mitch Raemsch
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:48 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 9:46 pm, BURT wrote:
> On Mar 29, 6:37 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 9:30 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 6:07 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
> > > > > > Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> > > > > > the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> > > > > > the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> > > > > > interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> > > > > > function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> > > > > > environment, with time constants and so forth.
> > > > > > But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> > > > > > which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> > > > > > the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
> > > > > > Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
> > > > > > –
> > > > > > Rich
> > > > > What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
> > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
> > > > > “co·her·ence
> > > > > 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
> > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
> > > > > “co·her·ent
> > > > > 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
> > > > > phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
> > > > > Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
> > > > > You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
> > > > > correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
> > > > > the particle when the particle is detected.
> > > > > The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
> > > > > detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
> > > > > the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
> > > > > bow wave.
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
> > > > > “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> > > > > any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
> > > > > ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> > > > > by the double solution theory
> > > > > Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
> > > > > “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
> > > > > wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
> > > > > of an external field acting on the particle.”
> > > > > “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> > > > > theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> > > > > where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> > > > > natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> > > > > be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> > > > > located.”
> > > > > de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> > > > > and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> > > > > the wave.
> > > > > In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
> > > > > double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
> > > > > the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
> > > > > the available slits.
> > > > > In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> > > > > The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> > > > > associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> > > > > slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> > > > > slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> > > > > the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> > > > > displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> > > > > interference.
>
> > > > The way I understand the nonsense of Feynman is knowing ‘which way’
> > > > the particle travels causes decoherence. This is what is meant by the
> > > > role the Observer plays. If the ‘which way’ information is known, then
> > > > there will not be interference.
>
> > > > However, that is complete nonsense. In order to know ‘which way’ the
> > > > particle travels the particle must be detected. Detecting the particle
> > > > physically turns the associated wave into chop. Physically destroying
> > > > the coherence of the associated wave (decoherence) does not allow the
> > > > waves to create interference upon exiting the slits. If there is no
> > > > interference created by the waves then the direction the particle
> > > > travels is not altered and there will not be an interference pattern
> > > > formed.
>
> > > > It gets even more absurd than that. If the ‘which way’ information is
> > > > detected far enough before the particle interacts with the slits then
> > > > an interference pattern will still be formed.
>
> > > > Obviously, if the boat is detected by the buoys and continues on,
> > > > given enough time the coherence of the bow wave will once again exist.
>
> > > > All the nonsense of ‘which way’ and the role of the Observer is not
> > > > understanding there is a physical particle and a physical wave in
> > > > wave-
> > > > particle duality.
>
> > > > But, again, what I referred to in the previous post is de Broglie Wave
> > > > Mechanics where the associated wave is an aether wave and the
> > > > generally accepted ‘understanding’ is of ‘which way’ and the role of
> > > > the Observer and the other ridiculous nonsense Feynman arrived at
> > > > based upon the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > If light collapses the waves then Einstein although he did not see it
> > > himself will be vindicated.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> > by the double solution theory
> > Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
> > “These are essentially based on the way in which quantities
> > respectively characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0
> > wave of the particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular
> > region. u0 would have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the
> > singular region.”
>
> > This is similar to Einstein’s concept of:
>
> > ‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity
> > by
> > Albert Einstein’http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
>
> > “the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places”.
>
> > There is a connectedness between the particle and the neighborhood.
> > There is a connectedness between the matter and the aether.
>
> > de Broglie and Einstein were on the same page.
>
> > I like this image of a photon:
>
> >http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif
>
> > Think of the tip as being the ‘particle’ which collapses into a
> > quantum of matter when detected.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > – Show quoted text -
>
> Light is the cause of the wave collapsing into its energy points.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Light is the result of the wave collapse.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:40 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 6:48 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 29, 9:46 pm, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 6:37 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 9:30 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 6:07 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
> > > > > > > Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> > > > > > > the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> > > > > > > the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> > > > > > > interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> > > > > > > function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> > > > > > > environment, with time constants and so forth.
> > > > > > > But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> > > > > > > which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> > > > > > > the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
> > > > > > > Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
> > > > > > > –
> > > > > > > Rich
> > > > > > What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
> > > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
> > > > > > “co·her·ence
> > > > > > 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
> > > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
> > > > > > “co·her·ent
> > > > > > 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
> > > > > > phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
> > > > > > Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
> > > > > > You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
> > > > > > correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
> > > > > > the particle when the particle is detected.
> > > > > > The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
> > > > > > detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
> > > > > > the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
> > > > > > bow wave.
> > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
> > > > > > “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> > > > > > any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
> > > > > > ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> > > > > > by the double solution theory
> > > > > > Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
> > > > > > “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
> > > > > > wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
> > > > > > of an external field acting on the particle.”
> > > > > > “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> > > > > > theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> > > > > > where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> > > > > > natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> > > > > > be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> > > > > > located.”
> > > > > > de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> > > > > > and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> > > > > > the wave.
> > > > > > In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
> > > > > > double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
> > > > > > the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
> > > > > > the available slits.
> > > > > > In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> > > > > > The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> > > > > > associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> > > > > > slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> > > > > > slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> > > > > > the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> > > > > > displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> > > > > > interference.
>
> > > > > The way I understand the nonsense of Feynman is knowing ‘which way’
> > > > > the particle travels causes decoherence. This is what is meant by the
> > > > > role the Observer plays. If the ‘which way’ information is known, then
> > > > > there will not be interference.
>
> > > > > However, that is complete nonsense. In order to know ‘which way’ the
> > > > > particle travels the particle must be detected. Detecting the particle
> > > > > physically turns the associated wave into chop. Physically destroying
> > > > > the coherence of the associated wave (decoherence) does not allow the
> > > > > waves to create interference upon exiting the slits. If there is no
> > > > > interference created by the waves then the direction the particle
> > > > > travels is not altered and there will not be an interference pattern
> > > > > formed.
>
> > > > > It gets even more absurd than that. If the ‘which way’ information is
> > > > > detected far enough before the particle interacts with the slits then
> > > > > an interference pattern will still be formed.
>
> > > > > Obviously, if the boat is detected by the buoys and continues on,
> > > > > given enough time the coherence of the bow wave will once again exist.
>
> > > > > All the nonsense of ‘which way’ and the role of the Observer is not
> > > > > understanding there is a physical particle and a physical wave in
> > > > > wave-
> > > > > particle duality.
>
> > > > > But, again, what I referred to in the previous post is de Broglie Wave
> > > > > Mechanics where the associated wave is an aether wave and the
> > > > > generally accepted ‘understanding’ is of ‘which way’ and the role of
> > > > > the Observer and the other ridiculous nonsense Feynman arrived at
> > > > > based upon the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > > If light collapses the waves then Einstein although he did not see it
> > > > himself will be vindicated.
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> > > by the double solution theory
> > > Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
> > > “These are essentially based on the way in which quantities
> > > respectively characterizing the regular v wave and the internal u0
> > > wave of the particle connect with the neighbourhood of the singular
> > > region. u0 would have to increase very sharply as one penetrates the
> > > singular region.”
>
> > > This is similar to Einstein’s concept of:
>
> > > ‘Ether and the Theory of Relativity
> > > by
> > > Albert Einstein’http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
>
> > > “the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places”.
>
> > > There is a connectedness between the particle and the neighborhood.
> > > There is a connectedness between the matter and the aether.
>
> > > de Broglie and Einstein were on the same page.
>
> > > I like this image of a photon:
>
> > >http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif
>
> > > Think of the tip as being the ‘particle’ which collapses into a
> > > quantum of matter when detected.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > Light is the cause of the wave collapsing into its energy points.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> Light is the result of the wave collapse.- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
It is also the cause. This is quantum time order starting with light
flow.
Mitch Raemsch
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Seeking a correct explanation for Stellar Abberation
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:10 pm
From: train
On Mar 30, 4:09 am, “Inertial” wrote:
> “Paul B. Andersen” wrote in messagenews:hoq7db$14db$1@news01.tp.hist.no…
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20.03.2010 01:04, Inertial wrote:
> >> If light were simple ballistic particles, then if it was coming
> >> from a moving (or stationary)source aimed at a stationary telescope,
> >> then slowing it down would *not* change its angle.
>
> >> .
> >> .
> >> . o
> >> .
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . / /
>
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> . o
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . / /
>
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> . /o/
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . / /
>
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . /o/
> >> .
> >> . / /
>
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . /o/
>
> >> If light were simple ballistic particles, then if it was coming
> >> from a stationary source aimed at a moving telescope,
> >> then slowing it down *would* change its angle.
>
> >> .
> >> .
> >> . o
> >> .
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . / /
>
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> . o
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . / /
>
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> . /o/
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . / /
>
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> . o
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . / /
>
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . o /
> >> .
> >> . / /
>
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> . o
> >> . / /
>
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . / /
> >> .
> >> . o/ /
>
> > Hm.
> > This iscorrectas it stands, but it rests on an assumption
> > you may not be aware of.
>
> > Not to nit-pick, but I asked myself these questions:
>
> > What is the difference between the inertial “rest frame”,
> > and the inertial “moving telescope frame”?
>
> > Why is the trajectory of the particle straight in the former
> > but bent in the latter?
>
> > Let me illustrate.
> > In inertial frame A, a particle is going ‘straight down’,
> > and is reducing its speed from v1 to v2.
>
> > o
> > o v1
> > o
> > X
> > o
> > o v2
> > o
> > The trajectory is a straight line in frame A.
>
> > Frame B is moving ‘horizontally’ to the right at some speed v.
> > In this frame the trajectory would look something like this this:
>
> > o
> > o
> > o
> > X
> > o
> > o
> > o
>
> Yes .. hence the change in angle. It all depends on in which frame the
> ‘slowing’ happens.
>
>
>
> > The trajectory is bent in frame B.
>
> > Why?
> > The point is that there is no such thing as ‘reducing the speed
> > of the particle along its direction of motion’, because the direction
> > of motion is frame dependent.
> > So the important question is:
> > What is the direction of the force that is acting on the particle?
> > In frame A this force must be acting upwards opposite to the velocity
> > of the particle.
> > In frame B the force will still act vertically upwards, so it has an
> > angle to the velocity of the particle, and will change the direction
> > of the velocity as well as reducing the speed.
>
> > The point is that if the speed of the particle is reduced by
> > entering some medium, like a water filled telescope, the speed reducing
> > force will act opposite to the velocity _in the telescope frame_,
> > so the trajectory of the particle will be straight _in the telescope
> > frame_.
>
> It really depends how the slowing happens, I guess. Does moving water take
> light along with it?
>
> > Your somewhat questionable assumption was that the speed reducing
> > force was acting opposite to the velocity of the particle in
> > the (arbitrary?) ‘rest frame’, and thus not in the ‘moving telescope
> > frame’.
>
> I guess we should ask (if they were still alive) those who did the
> water-in-the-telescope experiments why they were expecting to possibly see a
> change in the angle :)
>
> > The speed of the source is in any case utterly irrelevant.
>
> Yeup.
It’s like this forum – we view the source – Albert Einstein, and
viewed through our own telescopes and our own assumptions we cannot
all agree.
You raise an important point that since AE is not alive we cannot
really know what he thought? We are interpreting his theory into our
own FoR – translating it using .. I don’t know what.
Is it all relative?
Is there a different between photons going down the telecope tube if
the source was moving and the source was at rest?
In A: the source and telescope are in stationary wrt each other
In B: the source is moving, but the telescope is angled so the photon
goes straight down
What is the physical difference between A and B?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:35 pm
From: “Inertial”
“train” wrote in message
news:1d23e4a8-317d-4b64-b773-2867093d7c11@x23g2000prd.googlegroups.com…
> On Mar 30, 4:09 am, “Inertial” wrote:
>> “Paul B. Andersen” wrote in
>> messagenews:hoq7db$14db$1@news01.tp.hist.no…
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 20.03.2010 01:04, Inertial wrote:
>> >> If light were simple ballistic particles, then if it was coming
>> >> from a moving (or stationary)source aimed at a stationary telescope,
>> >> then slowing it down would *not* change its angle.
>>
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> . o
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>>
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> . o
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>>
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> . /o/
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>>
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . /o/
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>>
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . /o/
>>
>> >> If light were simple ballistic particles, then if it was coming
>> >> from a stationary source aimed at a moving telescope,
>> >> then slowing it down *would* change its angle.
>>
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> . o
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>>
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> . o
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>>
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> . /o/
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>>
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> . o
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>>
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . o /
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>>
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> . o
>> >> . / /
>>
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . / /
>> >> .
>> >> . o/ /
>>
>> > Hm.
>> > This iscorrectas it stands, but it rests on an assumption
>> > you may not be aware of.
>>
>> > Not to nit-pick, but I asked myself these questions:
>>
>> > What is the difference between the inertial “rest frame”,
>> > and the inertial “moving telescope frame”?
>>
>> > Why is the trajectory of the particle straight in the former
>> > but bent in the latter?
>>
>> > Let me illustrate.
>> > In inertial frame A, a particle is going ‘straight down’,
>> > and is reducing its speed from v1 to v2.
>>
>> > o
>> > o v1
>> > o
>> > X
>> > o
>> > o v2
>> > o
>> > The trajectory is a straight line in frame A.
>>
>> > Frame B is moving ‘horizontally’ to the right at some speed v.
>> > In this frame the trajectory would look something like this this:
>>
>> > o
>> > o
>> > o
>> > X
>> > o
>> > o
>> > o
>>
>> Yes .. hence the change in angle. It all depends on in which frame the
>> ‘slowing’ happens.
>>
>>
>>
>> > The trajectory is bent in frame B.
>>
>> > Why?
>> > The point is that there is no such thing as ‘reducing the speed
>> > of the particle along its direction of motion’, because the direction
>> > of motion is frame dependent.
>> > So the important question is:
>> > What is the direction of the force that is acting on the particle?
>> > In frame A this force must be acting upwards opposite to the velocity
>> > of the particle.
>> > In frame B the force will still act vertically upwards, so it has an
>> > angle to the velocity of the particle, and will change the direction
>> > of the velocity as well as reducing the speed.
>>
>> > The point is that if the speed of the particle is reduced by
>> > entering some medium, like a water filled telescope, the speed reducing
>> > force will act opposite to the velocity _in the telescope frame_,
>> > so the trajectory of the particle will be straight _in the telescope
>> > frame_.
>>
>> It really depends how the slowing happens, I guess. Does moving water
>> take
>> light along with it?
>>
>> > Your somewhat questionable assumption was that the speed reducing
>> > force was acting opposite to the velocity of the particle in
>> > the (arbitrary?) ‘rest frame’, and thus not in the ‘moving telescope
>> > frame’.
>>
>> I guess we should ask (if they were still alive) those who did the
>> water-in-the-telescope experiments why they were expecting to possibly
>> see a
>> change in the angle :)
>>
>> > The speed of the source is in any case utterly irrelevant.
>>
>> Yeup.
>
> It’s like this forum – we view the source – Albert Einstein, and
> viewed through our own telescopes and our own assumptions we cannot
> all agree.
>
> You raise an important point that since AE is not alive we cannot
> really know what he thought?
It wasn’t his experiment
> We are interpreting his theory into our
> own FoR – translating it using .. I don’t know what.
>
> Is it all relative?
>
> Is there a different between photons going down the telecope tube if
> the source was moving and the source was at rest?
Nope .. other than doppler shift.
> A B
>
> | . | | . |
> | . | | . |
> | . | | . |
> | . | | . |
> | . | | . |
> | . | | . |
> | . | | . |
> | . | | . |
>
> In A: the source and telescope are in stationary wrt each other
>
> In B: the source is moving, but the telescope is angled so the photon
> goes straight down
>
> What is the physical difference between A and B?
None
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can’t be
serious.
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:11 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 6:03 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 29, 8:51 pm, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 5:40 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 8:37 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 5:32 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 29, 8:24 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 29, 5:12 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > > > > > > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > > > > > > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > > > > > > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > > > > > > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > > > > > > > > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > > > > > > > > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > > > > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > > > > > > > > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > > > > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> > > > > > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > > > > > > > > “quin·tes·sence
> > > > > > > > > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > > > > > > > > –noun
> > > > > > > > > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > > > > > > > > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > > > > > > > > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > > > > > > > > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > > > > > > > > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > > > > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > > > > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > > > > > > > > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > > > > > > > > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > > > > interactions with matter”
>
> > > > > > > > > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > > > > > > > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > > > > > > > > gravity.
>
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the link.
>
> > > > > > > > Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> > > > > > > > and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> > > > > > > > substance.
>
> > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > The matter which is the Earth is displaced far beyond the Moon. This
> > > > > > > aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the aether
> > > > > > > displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the Earth
> > > > > > > equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the distance
> > > > > > > the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > You are avoiding my point. If rotation goes for and against aether
> > > > > > creating different pressures of gravity then gravity is not a constant
> > > > > > for the Earth. How do you address that?
>
> > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > Rotation does NOT go for and against aether creating different
> > > > > pressures of gravity.
>
> > > > But you have already claimed that it is.
>
> > > No, you misinterpreted it that way. I never said rotation had anything
> > > to do with gravity.
>
> > > I said an atomic clock traveling eastward is moving against the ‘flow’
> > > of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick slower.
>
> > > An atomic clock traveling westward is moving with the ‘flow’ of
> > > aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick faster.
>
> > > Not once did I relate aether ‘flow’ or ‘entrainment’ with gravity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > NO. When you make a mistake and I call you on it you cannot get away
> > with saying it was just my misinterpretation when it was not.
> > I will give you the fact that maybe you do not remember what you say
> > mpc.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> Find the post. They are all on this thread.
>
> What I said is the aether is ‘entrained’ by the Earth. The further
> from the surface of the Earth the aether is the less ‘entrained’ it
> is. If you were standing on the Earth looking up and were able to see
> the aether it would move east to west. The ‘entrained’ aether is
> moving west to east but at a slower rate than the Earth rotates.
>
> An atomic clock on an airplane flying eastward is flying against the
> ‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will be
> under greater aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and
> will tick slower than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
>
> An atomic clock on an airplane flying westward is flying with the
> ‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will under
> less aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and will tick
> faster than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
>
> Not once did I relate the above to gravity.
>
> If you think I did go find the post.
>
> What I have said consistently is the rate at which a GPS satellite
> ticks is based upon both its motion with respect to the aether and the
> pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth (gravity).
>
> The rate at which an atomic clock ‘ticks’ is based upon the aether
> pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS
> satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether
> and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS
> satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest
> with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to
> “result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day”. The aether pressure associated
> with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS
> satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth “causing the GPS
> clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day”. The aether pressure
> associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with
> respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the
> aether displaced by the Earth causes “clocks on the GPS satellites
> [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground.”
> (quoted text fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
You look for the post yourself. I know what you said and you are not
going to get away with it if its up to me.
Mitch Raemsch
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:15 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 9:11 pm, BURT wrote:
> On Mar 29, 6:03 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 8:51 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 5:40 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 8:37 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 29, 5:32 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 29, 8:24 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 29, 5:12 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > > > > > > > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > > > > > > > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > > > > > > > > > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > > > > > > > > > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > > > > > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > > > > > > > > > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > > > > > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> > > > > > > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > > > > > > > > > “quin·tes·sence
> > > > > > > > > > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > > > > > > > > > –noun
> > > > > > > > > > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > > > > > > > > > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > > > > > > > > > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > > > > > > > > > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > > > > > > > > > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > > > > > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > > > > > > > > > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > > > > > interactions with matter”
>
> > > > > > > > > > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > > > > > > > > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > > > > > > > > > gravity.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the link.
>
> > > > > > > > > Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> > > > > > > > > and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> > > > > > > > > substance.
>
> > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > > The matter which is the Earth is displaced far beyond the Moon. This
> > > > > > > > aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the aether
> > > > > > > > displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the Earth
> > > > > > > > equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the distance
> > > > > > > > the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > You are avoiding my point. If rotation goes for and against aether
> > > > > > > creating different pressures of gravity then gravity is not a constant
> > > > > > > for the Earth. How do you address that?
>
> > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > Rotation does NOT go for and against aether creating different
> > > > > > pressures of gravity.
>
> > > > > But you have already claimed that it is.
>
> > > > No, you misinterpreted it that way. I never said rotation had anything
> > > > to do with gravity.
>
> > > > I said an atomic clock traveling eastward is moving against the ‘flow’
> > > > of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick slower.
>
> > > > An atomic clock traveling westward is moving with the ‘flow’ of
> > > > aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick faster.
>
> > > > Not once did I relate aether ‘flow’ or ‘entrainment’ with gravity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > NO. When you make a mistake and I call you on it you cannot get away
> > > with saying it was just my misinterpretation when it was not.
> > > I will give you the fact that maybe you do not remember what you say
> > > mpc.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > Find the post. They are all on this thread.
>
> > What I said is the aether is ‘entrained’ by the Earth. The further
> > from the surface of the Earth the aether is the less ‘entrained’ it
> > is. If you were standing on the Earth looking up and were able to see
> > the aether it would move east to west. The ‘entrained’ aether is
> > moving west to east but at a slower rate than the Earth rotates.
>
> > An atomic clock on an airplane flying eastward is flying against the
> > ‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will be
> > under greater aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and
> > will tick slower than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
>
> > An atomic clock on an airplane flying westward is flying with the
> > ‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will under
> > less aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and will tick
> > faster than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
>
> > Not once did I relate the above to gravity.
>
> > If you think I did go find the post.
>
> > What I have said consistently is the rate at which a GPS satellite
> > ticks is based upon both its motion with respect to the aether and the
> > pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth (gravity).
>
> > The rate at which an atomic clock ‘ticks’ is based upon the aether
> > pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS
> > satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether
> > and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS
> > satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest
> > with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to
> > “result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day”. The aether pressure associated
> > with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS
> > satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth “causing the GPS
> > clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day”. The aether pressure
> > associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with
> > respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the
> > aether displaced by the Earth causes “clocks on the GPS satellites
> > [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground.”
> > (quoted text fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).-Hide quoted text -
>
> > – Show quoted text -
>
> You look for the post yourself. I know what you said and you are not
> going to get away with it if its up to me.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Why am I going to look for a post I know I did not write?
Provide evidence to back up your claim.
What I said is the aether is ‘entrained’ by the Earth. The further
from the surface of the Earth the aether is the less ‘entrained’ it
is. If you were standing on the Earth looking up and were able to see
the aether it would move east to west. The ‘entrained’ aether is
moving west to east but at a slower rate than the Earth rotates.
An atomic clock on an airplane flying eastward is flying against the
‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will be
under greater aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and
will tick slower than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
An atomic clock on an airplane flying westward is flying with the
‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will under
less aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and will tick
faster than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
Not once did I relate the above to gravity.
What I have said consistently is the rate at which a GPS satellite
ticks is based upon both its motion with respect to the aether and the
pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth (gravity).
The rate at which an atomic clock ‘ticks’ is based upon the aether
pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS
satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether
and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS
satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest
with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to
“result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day”. The aether pressure associated
with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS
satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth “causing the GPS
clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day”. The aether pressure
associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with
respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the
aether displaced by the Earth causes “clocks on the GPS satellites
[to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground.”
(quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:27 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 6:15 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 29, 9:11 pm, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 6:03 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 8:51 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 5:40 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 29, 8:37 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 29, 5:32 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 29, 8:24 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 5:12 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > > > > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > > > > > > > > > > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > > > > > > > > > > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > > > > > > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > > > > > > > > > > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > > > > > > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> > > > > > > > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > > > > > > > > > > “quin·tes·sence
> > > > > > > > > > > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > > > > > > > > > > –noun
> > > > > > > > > > > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > > > > > > > > > > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > > > > > > > > > > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > > > > > > > > > > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > > > > > > > > > > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > > > > > > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > > > > > > interactions with matter”
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > > > > > > > > > > gravity.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the link.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> > > > > > > > > > and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> > > > > > > > > > substance.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > > > The matter which is the Earth is displaced far beyond the Moon. This
> > > > > > > > > aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the aether
> > > > > > > > > displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the Earth
> > > > > > > > > equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the distance
> > > > > > > > > the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > You are avoiding my point. If rotation goes for and against aether
> > > > > > > > creating different pressures of gravity then gravity is not a constant
> > > > > > > > for the Earth. How do you address that?
>
> > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > Rotation does NOT go for and against aether creating different
> > > > > > > pressures of gravity.
>
> > > > > > But you have already claimed that it is.
>
> > > > > No, you misinterpreted it that way. I never said rotation had anything
> > > > > to do with gravity.
>
> > > > > I said an atomic clock traveling eastward is moving against the ‘flow’
> > > > > of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick slower.
>
> > > > > An atomic clock traveling westward is moving with the ‘flow’ of
> > > > > aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick faster.
>
> > > > > Not once did I relate aether ‘flow’ or ‘entrainment’ with gravity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > > NO. When you make a mistake and I call you on it you cannot get away
> > > > with saying it was just my misinterpretation when it was not.
> > > > I will give you the fact that maybe you do not remember what you say
> > > > mpc.
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > Find the post. They are all on this thread.
>
> > > What I said is the aether is ‘entrained’ by the Earth. The further
> > > from the surface of the Earth the aether is the less ‘entrained’ it
> > > is. If you were standing on the Earth looking up and were able to see
> > > the aether it would move east to west. The ‘entrained’ aether is
> > > moving west to east but at a slower rate than the Earth rotates.
>
> > > An atomic clock on an airplane flying eastward is flying against the
> > > ‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will be
> > > under greater aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and
> > > will tick slower than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
>
> > > An atomic clock on an airplane flying westward is flying with the
> > > ‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will under
> > > less aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and will tick
> > > faster than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
>
> > > Not once did I relate the above to gravity.
>
> > > If you think I did go find the post.
>
> > > What I have said consistently is the rate at which a GPS satellite
> > > ticks is based upon both its motion with respect to the aether and the
> > > pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth (gravity).
>
> > > The rate at which an atomic clock ‘ticks’ is based upon the aether
> > > pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS
> > > satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether
> > > and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS
> > > satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest
> > > with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to
> > > “result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day”. The aether pressure associated
> > > with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS
> > > satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth “causing the GPS
> > > clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day”. The aether pressure
> > > associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with
> > > respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the
> > > aether displaced by the Earth causes “clocks on the GPS satellites
> > > [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground.”
> > > (quoted text fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > You look for the post yourself. I know what you said and you are not
> > going to get away with it if its up to me.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> Why am I going to look for a post I know I did not write?
> Provide evidence to back up your claim.
>
> What I said is the aether is ‘entrained’ by the Earth. The further
> from the surface of the Earth the aether is the less ‘entrained’ it
> is. If you were standing on the Earth looking up and were able to see
> the aether it would move east to west. The ‘entrained’ aether is
> moving west to east but at a slower rate than the Earth rotates.
>
> An atomic clock on an airplane flying eastward is flying against the
> ‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will be
> under greater aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and
> will tick slower than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
>
> An atomic clock on an airplane flying westward is flying with the
> ‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will under
> less aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and will tick
> faster than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
>
> Not once did I relate the above to gravity.
>
> What I have said consistently is the rate at which a GPS satellite
> ticks is based upon both its motion with respect to the aether and the
> pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth (gravity).
>
> The rate at which an atomic clock ‘ticks’ is based upon the aether
> pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS
> satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether
> and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS
> satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest
> with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to
> “result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day”. The aether pressure associated
> with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS
> satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth “causing the GPS
> clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day”. The aether pressure
> associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with
> respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the
> aether displaced by the Earth causes “clocks on the GPS satellites
> [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground.”
> (quoted text fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
I am pointing this out. You do not remember what you say mpc.
Mitch Raemsch
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:30 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 9:27 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> I am pointing this out. You do not remember what you say mpc.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
This is very easy to resolve. Go back through the posts and find where
I said ‘flow’ and ‘entrainment’ had something to do with gravity.
You won’t find any because there aren’t any.
What I said is the aether is ‘entrained’ by the Earth. The further
from the surface of the Earth the aether is the less ‘entrained’ it
is. If you were standing on the Earth looking up and were able to see
the aether it would move east to west. The ‘entrained’ aether is
moving west to east but at a slower rate than the Earth rotates.
An atomic clock on an airplane flying eastward is flying against the
‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will be
under greater aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and
will tick slower than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
An atomic clock on an airplane flying westward is flying with the
‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will under
less aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and will tick
faster than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
Not once did I relate the above to gravity.
What I have said consistently is the rate at which a GPS satellite
ticks is based upon both its motion with respect to the aether and the
pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth (gravity).
The rate at which an atomic clock ‘ticks’ is based upon the aether
pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS
satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether
and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS
satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest
with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to
“result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day”. The aether pressure associated
with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS
satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth “causing the GPS
clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day”. The aether pressure
associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with
respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the
aether displaced by the Earth causes “clocks on the GPS satellites
[to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground.”
(quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:44 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 6:30 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 29, 9:27 pm, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
> > I am pointing this out. You do not remember what you say mpc.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> This is very easy to resolve. Go back through the posts and find where
> I said ‘flow’ and ‘entrainment’ had something to do with gravity.
>
> You won’t find any because there aren’t any.
>
> What I said is the aether is ‘entrained’ by the Earth. The further
> from the surface of the Earth the aether is the less ‘entrained’ it
> is. If you were standing on the Earth looking up and were able to see
> the aether it would move east to west. The ‘entrained’ aether is
> moving west to east but at a slower rate than the Earth rotates.
>
> An atomic clock on an airplane flying eastward is flying against the
> ‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will be
> under greater aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and
> will tick slower than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
>
> An atomic clock on an airplane flying westward is flying with the
> ‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will under
> less aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and will tick
> faster than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
>
> Not once did I relate the above to gravity.
>
> What I have said consistently is the rate at which a GPS satellite
> ticks is based upon both its motion with respect to the aether and the
> pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth (gravity).
>
> The rate at which an atomic clock ‘ticks’ is based upon the aether
> pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS
> satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether
> and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS
> satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest
> with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to
> “result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day”. The aether pressure associated
> with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS
> satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth “causing the GPS
> clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day”. The aether pressure
> associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with
> respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the
> aether displaced by the Earth causes “clocks on the GPS satellites
> [to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground.”
> (quoted text fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).
I am sorry but I will not search for something you said.
My correction to you remains the same. You do not remember what you
have said.
Mitch Raemsch
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:47 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 9:44 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> I am sorry but I will not search for something you said.
>
> My correction to you remains the same. You do not remember what you
> have said.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Because I did not say it. You have provided no evidence to support
your claim. This conversation has taken place on this thread. If you
are going to make claims about what someone said, you should be
willing to back it up. It shows a lack of integrity if you continue to
make such a claim without backing it up when all of the evidence you
state exists is in this very thread.
What I said is the aether is ‘entrained’ by the Earth. The further
from the surface of the Earth the aether is the less ‘entrained’ it
is. If you were standing on the Earth looking up and were able to see
the aether it would move east to west. The ‘entrained’ aether is
moving west to east but at a slower rate than the Earth rotates.
An atomic clock on an airplane flying eastward is flying against the
‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will be
under greater aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and
will tick slower than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
An atomic clock on an airplane flying westward is flying with the
‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will under
less aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and will tick
faster than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
Not once did I relate the above to gravity.
What I have said consistently is the rate at which a GPS satellite
ticks is based upon both its motion with respect to the aether and the
pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth (gravity).
The rate at which an atomic clock ‘ticks’ is based upon the aether
pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS
satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether
and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS
satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest
with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to
“result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day”. The aether pressure associated
with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS
satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth “causing the GPS
clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day”. The aether pressure
associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with
respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the
aether displaced by the Earth causes “clocks on the GPS satellites
[to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground.”
(quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).
==============================================================================
TOPIC: *** Re: Please listen with respect to Mr Banerjee, an vastly superior
aristocratic mind indeed !!!
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:30 pm
From: “Me, …again!”
Hey, Arindam, I like your poetry too!!
straydoggie
//////////////////////////
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Mar 30, 1:08 am, Marshall wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 5:19 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Tell me, dear doggie, ain’t it rum
>>> How the choicest of the net scum
>>> Blasts the stink from its tum
>>> So that none may near it come?
>>> None good, that is; some
>>> Are fools, to heed that bum.
>>> Too much rot, that’s the sum
>>> Of the jBm’s keyboard’s thrum.
>>
>> I like your poetry every bit as much as I like you science!
>> It’s just as good!
>>
>> Marshall
>
> Wow, thanks a lot! Great to have appreciation! Now, shall we throw
> out the wrong notions of relativity from the textbooks? Please,
> please…
> As for my poetry, I have only had few opportunities to recite them in
> public. My friend and partner Ilya (the well-known poet, philosopher
> and translator) has been most eager, but distances here are too great.
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:34 pm
From: “Inertial”
“Arindam Banerjee” wrote in message
news:272ae3ef-4130-450a-8dd3-f169cd95f75a@x11g2000prb.googlegroups.com…
> On Mar 30, 1:08 am, Marshall wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 5:19 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Tell me, dear doggie, ain’t it rum
>> > How the choicest of the net scum
>> > Blasts the stink from its tum
>> > So that none may near it come?
>> > None good, that is; some
>> > Are fools, to heed that bum.
>> > Too much rot, that’s the sum
>> > Of the jBm’s keyboard’s thrum.
>>
>> I like your poetry every bit as much as I like you science!
>> It’s just as good!
>>
>> Marshall
>
> Wow, thanks a lot! Great to have appreciation! Now, shall we throw
> out the wrong notions of relativity from the textbooks? Please,
> please…
If you had even a gram of proof, then maybe it would beconsidered .. But you
don’t
> As for my poetry, I have only had few opportunities to recite them in
> public. My friend and partner Ilya (the well-known poet, philosopher
> and translator) has been most eager, but distances here are too great.
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
Bahaha. . you’re a clown
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:51 pm
From: Arindam Banerjee
On Mar 30, 12:30 pm, “Me, …again!” wrote:
> Hey, Arindam, I like your poetry too!!
>
> straydoggie
>
> //////////////////////////
>
>
>
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 1:08 am, Marshall wrote:
> >> On Mar 29, 5:19 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> >>> Tell me, dear doggie, ain’t it rum
> >>> How the choicest of the net scum
> >>> Blasts the stink from its tum
> >>> So that none may near it come?
> >>> None good, that is; some
> >>> Are fools, to heed that bum.
> >>> Too much rot, that’s the sum
> >>> Of the jBm’s keyboard’s thrum.
>
> >> I like your poetry every bit as much as I like you science!
> >> It’s just as good!
>
> >> Marshall
>
> > Wow, thanks a lot! Great to have appreciation! Now, shall we throw
> > out the wrong notions of relativity from the textbooks? Please,
> > please…
> > As for my poetry, I have only had few opportunities to recite them in
> > public. My friend and partner Ilya (the well-known poet, philosopher
> > and translator) has been most eager, but distances here are too great.
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
Thank you, dear Straydoggie. Going hot-air ballooning tomorrow, over
Yarra Valley, and then a few days of motoring on the Pacific coast. I
will in that period in my head compose a promotional poem on my
physics, funny-like. Let us see, if that works!
Cheers to you and all my other friends; my foes – go drown yourselves
in chullu-bhur-paani (a palmful of water)
Arindam Banerjee.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: There is no “pull” of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:56 pm
From: Paul Stowe
On Mar 28, 6:40 pm, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, PaulStowewrote:
> > On Mar 25, 4:39 pm, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010, PaulStowewrote:
> > > > On Mar 24, 7:45 am, PD wrote:
> > > > > On Mar 23, 10:34 pm, PaulStowe wrote:
>
> > > > That you cannot provide a physical theory with only a mathematical
> > > > correlational expression, thus his famous quote “Hypothesis Non-
> > > > Fingo”! It’s plain stupid to think otherwise.
>
> > > Newton explicity said that the mathematical model is enough. From the
> > > Motte/Cajori translation:
>
> > > “In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the
> > > phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. Thus it was
> > > that the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive force of
> > > bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation, were discovered. And
> > > to us it is enough that gravity does really exist; and act according to
> > > the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for
> > > all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our Sea.”
>
> > Hi Timo, its been a long time…
>
> > As to your comment above, yes, please note ‘this philosophy’ which can
> > be also interpreted as in ‘this case’. And sure, it’s enough to get
> > by with for the time being. If that is, in fact, the goal then all of
> > science might as well be a religion with fundamental ‘beliefs’ forming
> > its foundation.
>
> Note that this extract from the Scholium comes immediately after the
> extract I quoted below; “this philosophy” is “experimental philosophy”.
> More below.
>
> > > More than that, Newton explcitly stated that stories spun about the
> > > “physical” causes – tales of mechanism in the Cartesian style – have no
> > > place in physics:
>
> > > But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those
> > > properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses; for
> > > whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an
> > > hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of
> > > occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental
> > > philosophy.
You know, if… scientist of today were more rigorous and disciplined
with the use of term hypothesis verses theory then I would be more
inclined to accept the argument.
> > I think the key term here is the word experimental. In that context
> > I agree, data is data and should not be laden with speculations. Thus
> > my fundamental disagreement with Tom Robert’s claim that one cannot,
> > possibly, do an experiment without first having a theory in which to
> > frame it. Faraday’s experiments are a great example of this. But,
> > that is not what I’m talking about here.
>
> Newton’s “experimental philosophy” means “physics”. IIRC, this was his
> first major published use of the term, and it looks like part of his
> program to establish “experimental philosophy” as a synonym for “natural
> philosophy”, thereby excluding Cartesianist science from being science.
>
> This is discussed in Alan E. Shapiro, Newton’s “experimental philosophy”,
> Early Science and Medicine 9(3), 185-217 (2004) (and the text of a talk
> which appears to be the ancestor of this paper is readily found by
> googling the title). Shapiro quotes Newton:
>
> “Experimental Philosophy reduces Phaenomena to general Rules & looks
> upon the Rules to be general when they hold generally in Phaenomena….
> Hypothetical Philosophy consists in imaginary explications of things &
> imaginary arguments for or against such explications, or against the
> arguments of Experimental Philosophers founded upon Induction. The first
> sort of Philosophy is followed by me, the latter too much by Cartes,
> Leibnitz & some others.”
>
> (From Newton to Cotes, 28 March 1713, Newton, The Correspondence of Isaac
> Newton, ed., H. W. Turnbull, J. F. Scott, A. Rupert Hall, and Laura
> Tilling, 7 vols. (Cambridge, 1959-77), 5: 398-399.)
>
> The modern usage of “experiment”, in a strict and restricted philosophical
> sense, is not the same as it was for Newton, or in his time, when, more or
> less, we had “experiment” = “experience”, including pure observation,
> modern experiment in the strict sense, and lots of stuff in-between. In
> the strict modern usage, Tom Roberts is entirely correct, since an
> experiment is performed to reject one of two theories. “Experiment” is
> used in a much broader sense, even today, and such loose usage is closer
> to that of Newton’s time.
Many true ‘discoveries’ involved observations or elements of
experiments that were NOT intended to be part of the original. And,
more importantly, NOT! theoried before it was done. This, in and of
itself invalidates Robert’s stance.
> The idea of data divorced from theory (not at all the same as free from
> speculation) is very Baconian. See Salomon’s House in Bacon’s “New
> Atlantis” Not the idea of a research institute, but the details of the
> methodology – an attempt at describing theory-free observation and
> application of such data (it isn’t theory free).
>
> But, back to the main point:
>
> > > So, Newton says that the mathematical model is enough, and Newton says
> > > that Cartesian-style “explanations” of causes are not physics. Was Newton
> > > stupid? He clearly thought otherwise.
>
> > Correlations are useful, fruitful and point to understanding. But, if
> > he or you believe(d) that correlations are enough then then you think
> > reversed ‘engineering’ not fundamental understanding is sufficient.
> > And I, and I think other find such philosophy a poor excuse for
> > science.
>
> “Enough” for further progress to be made.
Indeed!
> If it’s the best that can be done (at least for the visible future),
I think that very mentality is selling both oneself and humanity short
if one actually believes it.
> does one proceed in the Newtonian
> fashion, or discard that approach as “not enough”?
Proceeds and openly declares that it’s not enough, and in the long
run, an unaceptable state.
> It’s clear that more is wanted, at least by many physicists, other
> scientists, and non-scientists. Witness the intellectual investment in the
> various interpretations of quantum mechanics. Also witness the progress
> that has resulted from these interpretations.
That’s a hopeful sign that the mentality ofr the last 80 years is
changing.
> Do we understand the “why” of quantum mechanics, what it “really means”?
> No. In this sense, it isn’t complete. It’s obviously enough to provide a
> basis for a great deal of further progress, both in quantum mechanics
> itself, and other fields making use of it. It’s enough for practical
> engineering. That you – and others – want more does not make it “not
> enough”.
I guess that depends upon one’s perspective…
> The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic theory by Aepinus is a
> superb example of the progress that can be made by being willing to work
> with “enough”, and being prepared to ignore Cartesian would-be-burdens.
> There’s a nice discussion in the English translation of his book.
>
> –
> Timo
Yes but it took the insight of Maxwell to put it all together. Then,
what does modern science do? Throws out the baby and keeps the
bathwater and claims the baby never existed…
Paul Stowe
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:46 pm
From: Timo Nieminen
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010, Paul Stowe wrote:
> On Mar 28, 6:40 pm, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, PaulStowewrote:
> > > On Mar 25, 4:39 pm, Timo Nieminen wrote:
> > > I think the key term here is the word experimental. In that context
> > > I agree, data is data and should not be laden with speculations. Thus
> > > my fundamental disagreement with Tom Robert’s claim that one cannot,
> > > possibly, do an experiment without first having a theory in which to
> > > frame it. Faraday’s experiments are a great example of this. But,
> > > that is not what I’m talking about here.
[cut]
> >
> > The modern usage of “experiment”, in a strict and restricted philosophical
> > sense, is not the same as it was for Newton, or in his time, when, more or
> > less, we had “experiment” = “experience”, including pure observation,
> > modern experiment in the strict sense, and lots of stuff in-between. In
> > the strict modern usage, Tom Roberts is entirely correct, since an
> > experiment is performed to reject one of two theories. “Experiment” is
> > used in a much broader sense, even today, and such loose usage is closer
> > to that of Newton’s time.
>
> Many true ‘discoveries’ involved observations or elements of
> experiments that were NOT intended to be part of the original. And,
> more importantly, NOT! theoried before it was done. This, in and of
> itself invalidates Robert’s stance.
No. First, such observation is not “experiment”, in the strict sense. That
useful discoveries can be made without experiment doesn’t invalidate
anything that’s been said here about experiments.
Second, such observation remains strongly informed by theory. How else do
you know what observations are surprising, interesting, worth further
investigation? You might never have observed a dog with 212,304 hairs
before, and the number of hairs on a dog is something you could measure.
How do you know it isn’t worthwhile? Answer: theory.
An observation that isn’t known theoretically beforehand can be very
interesting. It can tell you something that the theory can predict that
has escaped notice, or, even better, it can tell you that the theory is
wrong or incomplete. In the absence of theory, what does an observation
tell you?
> > > > So, Newton says that the mathematical model is enough, and Newton says
> > > > that Cartesian-style “explanations” of causes are not physics. Was Newton
> > > > stupid? He clearly thought otherwise.
> >
> > > Correlations are useful, fruitful and point to understanding. But, if
> > > he or you believe(d) that correlations are enough then then you think
> > > reversed ‘engineering’ not fundamental understanding is sufficient.
> > > And I, and I think other find such philosophy a poor excuse for
> > > science.
> >
> > “Enough” for further progress to be made.
>
> Indeed!
>
> > If it’s the best that can be done (at least for the visible future),
>
> I think that very mentality is selling both oneself and humanity short
> if one actually believes it.
>
> > does one proceed in the Newtonian
> > fashion, or discard that approach as “not enough”?
>
> Proceeds and openly declares that it’s not enough, and in the long
> run, an unaceptable state.
Lack of understanding of the ultimate secrets of the universe has been
with us for a long time. If it’s “unacceptable”, what do you do?
One could try an Apollo program scale effort, a Manhattan-scale effort, to
try to get there. Would this be a good investment?
That more than one story can lead to exactly the same quantitative model
is the giant roadblock on the road to “fundamental understanding”. How is
this to be overcome? A quantitative model can be tested. How can the story
behind it be tested?
(There are some interesting parallels in the history of theology,
concerning trying to decide what humans can know about the divine.)
> > It’s clear that more is wanted, at least by many physicists, other
> > scientists, and non-scientists. Witness the intellectual investment in the
> > various interpretations of quantum mechanics. Also witness the progress
> > that has resulted from these interpretations.
>
> That’s a hopeful sign that the mentality ofr the last 80 years is
> changing.
??? Work on interpretations of quantum mechanics has been with us as long
as quantum mechanics has been with us.
The scientific progress that has resulted from the various interpretations
is close to zero (unless you consider “shut up and calculate” an
“intepretation”). Interpretations have at times impeded progress.
People like interpretations, find them interesting, and contribute to
them, putting much effort and time into this. This doesn’t make it
science, or scientifically productive. (Try replacing “interpretations”
with “art”.)
> > The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic theory by Aepinus is a
> > superb example of the progress that can be made by being willing to work
> > with “enough”, and being prepared to ignore Cartesian would-be-burdens.
> > There’s a nice discussion in the English translation of his book.
>
> Yes but it took the insight of Maxwell to put it all together. Then,
> what does modern science do? Throws out the baby and keeps the
> bathwater and claims the baby never existed…
Where “modern” is over a century old, at least throws out the just-so
story and keeps the scientifically useful part, the testable part, the
part that enables further progress. To Hertz, the baby was the equations,
the rest the leftover refuse of the creative act.
But even Maxwell was doing this. Witness the role of aether in his
sequence of publication in 1861-2, 1865, and 1873. The de-aetherisation of
Maxwell’s theory was well underway in Maxwell’s writing. And this was
despite Maxwell being a convinced aetherist.
Maxwell was also aware that exactly the same quantitative model could be
obtained without his story behind it. He knew that Lorenz had done this
(published in 1867, the equivalence noted in Maxwell’s Treatise). Hertz
did it again some years later, making Maxwell’s theory (as in the
quantitative model) much more acceptable to his contemporaries.
Finally, a lot of Cartesianist stories only remove the unknown to one step
further away. They “explain” some observed phenomenon, but the elements of
the Cartesianist story remain unexplained.
For example, a story of aether as a fluid with special properties might
well yield Maxwell’s equations. Why does this fluid have these properties?
No good pointing at real-world materials that have some of these
properties – these real-world properties are the result of long-range
interactions between the constituent atoms. So assume that the
aether-fluid aether-atoms have such long-range interactions? What causes
these? If one is willing to accept such interactions without further
explanation, what was wrong with just accepting the original
electromagnetic interactions without further explanation?
If one were to invest time and effort in explanatory stories that lead to
_different_ quantitative models, then one can at least test which of the
models is better (but keep in mind that it’d be a test of the quantitative
models, not the explanatory stories behind them), then this might lead
somewhere. If the model arising from the new story has too many free
parameters so that the model is effectively immune from falsification,
then it’s less likely to lead anywhere.
There are good reasons why string theory is widely considered as
non-science.
–
Timo Nieminen
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can Anyone of the 2000 readers help “Inertial” to understand that hf is
one second dependent !!??
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:25 pm
From: “Y.Porat”
On Mar 29, 3:47 pm, Igor wrote:
> On Mar 29, 3:53 am, “Y.Porat” wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 9:23 am, “Y.Porat” wrote:
>
> > > please help him (and may be to yourself …)
> > > it is very important for the *little* advance in science
> > > (that is only *to honest* cleaver people ….)
> > > TIA
> > > Y.Porat
> > > —————————–
>
> > in other words
> > it is dependent on the definition of f
> > as dependent of f definition of
> > number of wave lengths **per second!!**
> > bottom line
> > time duration dependent
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
>
> Poor little ignorant Borat. I’d actually have pity for him if he
> wasn’t such a jerk about things.
——————–
how about some *** physics ****??:
is E=hf
time dependent or not??
2
is f time dependent or not (:-)
3
what is the definition of f ??
TIA
Y.Porat
———————
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:31 pm
From: “Inertial”
“Y.Porat” wrote in message
news:0778937e-83b7-4d4a-ba0e-b0529c989ed6@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com…
> On Mar 29, 3:47 pm, Igor wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 3:53 am, “Y.Porat” wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 29, 9:23 am, “Y.Porat” wrote:
>>
>> > > please help him (and may be to yourself …)
>> > > it is very important for the *little* advance in science
>> > > (that is only *to honest* cleaver people ….)
>> > > TIA
>> > > Y.Porat
>> > > —————————–
>>
>> > in other words
>> > it is dependent on the definition of f
>> > as dependent of f definition of
>> > number of wave lengths **per second!!**
>> > bottom line
>> > time duration dependent
>> > TIA
>> > Y.Porat
>>
>> Poor little ignorant Borat. I’d actually have pity for him if he
>> wasn’t such a jerk about things.
>
> ——————–
> how about some *** physics ****??:
You don’t understand it
> is E=hf
> time dependent or not??
No .. how many times do you need to be told?
If it was, there would be a variable (eg t) for time in there .. there is
none.
> 2
> is f time dependent or not (:-)
No .. how many times do you need to be told?
The particular numerical value of f (and E and h and every quantity that has
dimensions) in some system of units depends on the system of units you use.
Frequency is no more a time dependent quantity than speed or momentum or
energy.
> 3
> what is the definition of f ??
f is the rate at which wave cycles occur, or wave fronts arrive, the
frequency.
Gees .. how MANY MORE TIMES ??
Now .. answer my questions that so far you have avoided:
Porat, Can you answer these questions honestly and without resorting to
unwarranted and unprovoked personal attacks?
You claim individual single photon energy is time dependent. What IS the
dependency you claim between individual single photon energy and time
duration .. is the energy:
a) linearly proportional to the time (ie E = kt, for some constant k) ?
b) proportional to the square of the time (ie E = kt^2, for some constant k)
?
c) inversely proportional (ie E = k/t, for some constant k) ?
d) none of the above (please provide the relationship in formula form)
Next .. consider three scenarios:
A) monochromatic light shining on a detector for 0.1 seconds
B) monochromatic light shining on the same size detector for 0.2 seconds
C) monochromatic light shining on a detector of twice the area of that in
scenario A, but also for 0.1 seconds
Questions:
How does the total energy received by the detector in case A compare to that
in case B
a) A has HALF the energy of case B
b) A has THE SAME the energy of case B
c) A has DOUBLE the energy of case B
Your answer:
How does the total number of photons received by the detector in case A
compare to that in case B
a) A has HALF the number of photons as case B
b) A has THE SAME number of photons as case B
c) A has DOUBLE number of photons as case B
Your answer:
How does the total energy received by the detector in case A compare to that
in case C
a) A has HALF the energy of case C
b) A has THE SAME the energy of case C
c) A has DOUBLE the energy of case C
Your answer:
How does the total number of photons received by the detector in case A
compare to that in case C
a) A has HALF the number of photons as case C
b) A has THE SAME number of photons as case C
c) A has DOUBLE number of photons as case C
Your answer:
And the last question (for now):
What is your formula relating individual photon energy (for monochromatic
light of frequency f) to planck time (tP)? Please use the symbol E for the
single photon energy, h for Planck’s constant, f for the light frequency,
and tP for Planck time, and t for time
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:16 pm
From: “Y.Porat”
On Mar 29, 1:55 pm, “Inertial” wrote:
> “Y.Porat” wrote in message
>
> news:0939ae1d-2fd0-49e9-90c0-5562c903b9f3@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com…
>
> > On Mar 29, 9:23 am, “Y.Porat” wrote:
> >> please help him (and may be to yourself …)
> >> it is very important for the *little* advance in science
> >> (that is only *to honest* cleaver people ….)
> >> TIA
> >> Y.Porat
> >> —————————–
>
> > in other words
> > it is dependent on the definition of f
> > as dependent of f definition of
> > number of wave lengths **per second!!**
>
> No .. like E and H and c and every other quantity with units, the NUMERICAL
> VALUE of f is dependent on the system of units you use.
>
> The FORMULA E= hf is NOT time dependent.
>
> > bottom line
> > time duration dependent
>
> No .. the bottom line is the E = hf is NOT time dependent. The value of the
> energy of a photon is proportional to the frequency of light (regardless of
> the units one chooses)
>
> That is all.
>
> Now .. answer my questions that so far you have avoided:
>
> Porat, Can you answer these questions honestly and without resorting to
> unwarranted and unprovoked personal attacks?
>
> You claim individual single photon energy is time dependent. What IS the
> dependency you claim between individual single photon energy and time
> duration .. is the energy:
> a) linearly proportional to the time (ie E = kt, for some constant k) ?
> b) proportional to the square of the time (ie E = kt^2, for some constant k)
> ?
> c) inversely proportional (ie E = k/t, for some constant k) ?
> d) none of the above (please provide the relationship in formula form)
>
> Next .. consider three scenarios:
>
> A) monochromatic light shining on a detector for 0.1 seconds
> B) monochromatic light shining on the same size detector for 0.2 seconds
> C) monochromatic light shining on a detector of twice the area of that in
> scenario A, but also for 0.1 seconds
>
> Questions:
>
> How does the total energy received by the detector in case A compare to that
> in case B
> a) A has HALF the energy of case B
> b) A has THE SAME the energy of case B
> c) A has DOUBLE the energy of case B
> Your answer:
>
> How does the total number of photons received by the detector in case A
> compare to that in case B
> a) A has HALF the number of photons as case B
> b) A has THE SAME number of photons as case B
> c) A has DOUBLE number of photons as case B
> Your answer:
>
> How does the total energy received by the detector in case A compare to that
> in case C
> a) A has HALF the energy of case C
> b) A has THE SAME the energy of case C
> c) A has DOUBLE the energy of case C
> Your answer:
>
> How does the total number of photons received by the detector in case A
> compare to that in case C
> a) A has HALF the number of photons as case C
> b) A has THE SAME number of photons as case C
> c) A has DOUBLE number of photons as case C
> Your answer:
>
> And the last question (for now):
>
> What is your formula relating individual photon energy (for monochromatic
> light of frequency f) to planck time (tP)? Please use the symbol E for the
> single photon energy, h for Planck’s constant, f for the light frequency,
> and tP for Planck time, and t for time
—————————-
i was already shown it in my copyright formula
E min = h f Pt
while h is
f is 1.0000
Pt is 5.38 exp-44 Second
and i told you psychopath
that second is seconds
wither in MKS system
or in SI system
time dependent or not
IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE UNIT SYSTEM YOU CHOSE !!!!
it is dependent on
if you have some minimal brain in your dkull
or not !!
ishowed bythe
photoelectris experiemnt
that
TH EAMOUNT OF ENERGY EMITTED BY A CONSTANT
LIGHT SOURSE
IS LESS IN HALF A SECOND
THAT IN ONE SECOND !!!
TH ENUMBER OF ELECTRONS THAT ARE EMITTED
IS HALF IN HALF A SECOND THAN IN ONE SECOND!
2
the amount of energy needed to extract an electron
of the photoelectric Cell)
is dependent only on the
BINDING ENERGY OF THAT
ELECTRON TO THE ATOM
AND IT IS THE SAME FOR ALL THOSE ELECTRONS
and we see that the number of electrons at are emitted
IS TIME DEPENDENT LINEARILY
AGAIN LINEARLY TIME DEPENDENT !!!
iow
in one second
two times more electrons than in** half *** second
it means that
that hf has to be multiplied by some REDUCTION FACTOR
and i did it in my orriginal thread
as
E=hf n
while
0 > n <<< 1.0000
you Nazipig folowed my explanation and multiplied it by
n = integers
your monkey copy formula was
E = h f n
while you indicated explicitly that
n must be integers !!!
AND IT IS RECORDED
YOU CANT CHEAT THE WRITTEN RECORD !!
(ie a magnifier factor and not a diminishing factor as i did
so
how do you use your plank time as n bigger or equal to
1.000 ??
WHILE TH E EXPERIMENT SHOWS IT SHOULD BE
LESS THAN 1.000 IF THE CELLS ARE ACTIVE LESS THAN A SECOND ??!!
2
how can you **at all** multiply the hf by **any time factor **!!!!
(AS NEEDED BY THE PHOTOELECTRIC EXPERIMENT LASTING LESS THAN A
SECOND )
we deal with the **amount of energy** emitted by the same light
torch in case that **no one* of the photons there
lasted (WAS ACTIVE ) one second BUT WAS ACTIVE ** less than one
second !!*
IOW
hf is time dependent( as an experimental fact )
even for less than a second
while you claim that
****hf is NOT TIME DEPENDENT??!!!****
and multiplied it by Plank time
or else
what has that PLANK TIME
ANYTHING TO DO WITH hf
it is good and reasonable as
MULTIPLYING THE 'MAGNA CARTA'
BY A TIME FACTOR !!!!
TIA
Y.Porat
————————-
-
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:37 pm
From: "Inertial"
"Y.Porat" wrote in message
news:0eddb0d1-9f6a-4712-a36c-35dba732c784@h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com…
> On Mar 29, 1:55 pm, “Inertial” wrote:
>> “Y.Porat” wrote in message
>>
>> news:0939ae1d-2fd0-49e9-90c0-5562c903b9f3@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com…
>>
>> > On Mar 29, 9:23 am, “Y.Porat” wrote:
>> >> please help him (and may be to yourself …)
>> >> it is very important for the *little* advance in science
>> >> (that is only *to honest* cleaver people ….)
>> >> TIA
>> >> Y.Porat
>> >> —————————–
>>
>> > in other words
>> > it is dependent on the definition of f
>> > as dependent of f definition of
>> > number of wave lengths **per second!!**
>>
>> No .. like E and H and c and every other quantity with units, the
>> NUMERICAL
>> VALUE of f is dependent on the system of units you use.
>>
>> The FORMULA E= hf is NOT time dependent.
>>
>> > bottom line
>> > time duration dependent
>>
>> No .. the bottom line is the E = hf is NOT time dependent. The value of
>> the
>> energy of a photon is proportional to the frequency of light (regardless
>> of
>> the units one chooses)
>>
>> That is all.
>>
>> Now .. answer my questions that so far you have avoided:
>>
>> Porat, Can you answer these questions honestly and without resorting to
>> unwarranted and unprovoked personal attacks?
>>
>> You claim individual single photon energy is time dependent. What IS the
>> dependency you claim between individual single photon energy and time
>> duration .. is the energy:
>> a) linearly proportional to the time (ie E = kt, for some constant k) ?
>> b) proportional to the square of the time (ie E = kt^2, for some constant
>> k)
>> ?
>> c) inversely proportional (ie E = k/t, for some constant k) ?
>> d) none of the above (please provide the relationship in formula form)
>>
>> Next .. consider three scenarios:
>>
>> A) monochromatic light shining on a detector for 0.1 seconds
>> B) monochromatic light shining on the same size detector for 0.2 seconds
>> C) monochromatic light shining on a detector of twice the area of that in
>> scenario A, but also for 0.1 seconds
>>
>> Questions:
>>
>> How does the total energy received by the detector in case A compare to
>> that
>> in case B
>> a) A has HALF the energy of case B
>> b) A has THE SAME the energy of case B
>> c) A has DOUBLE the energy of case B
>> Your answer:
>>
>> How does the total number of photons received by the detector in case A
>> compare to that in case B
>> a) A has HALF the number of photons as case B
>> b) A has THE SAME number of photons as case B
>> c) A has DOUBLE number of photons as case B
>> Your answer:
>>
>> How does the total energy received by the detector in case A compare to
>> that
>> in case C
>> a) A has HALF the energy of case C
>> b) A has THE SAME the energy of case C
>> c) A has DOUBLE the energy of case C
>> Your answer:
>>
>> How does the total number of photons received by the detector in case A
>> compare to that in case C
>> a) A has HALF the number of photons as case C
>> b) A has THE SAME number of photons as case C
>> c) A has DOUBLE number of photons as case C
>> Your answer:
>>
>> And the last question (for now):
>>
>> What is your formula relating individual photon energy (for monochromatic
>> light of frequency f) to planck time (tP)? Please use the symbol E for
>> the
>> single photon energy, h for Planck’s constant, f for the light frequency,
>> and tP for Planck time, and t for time
>
> —————————-
> i was already shown it in my copyright formula
‘copyrighted’ nonsense
> E min = h f Pt
You mean tP
So h f Pt has units of Joules x Seconds .. so its not a formula for energy
at all
> while h is
> f is 1.0000
1.000 what? In which system of units? 1 Hz? Nature doesn’t care about
arbitrary human definitions like that.
> Pt is 5.38 exp-44 Second
tP .. but yes, approximately .. I know its value
> and i told you psychopath
> that second is seconds
> wither in MKS system
> or in SI system
Who says you have to use SI or MKS systems? And a valid formula should NOT
depend on the system of units used.
> time dependent or not
> IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE UNIT SYSTEM YOU CHOSE !!!!
All those numerical values are dependent on the system of measure .. except
you set f = 1.000 .. but you don’t say 1.000 what .. that can have different
physical quantities in different units of measure
> it is dependent on
> if you have some minimal brain in your dkull
> or not !!
> ishowed bythe
> photoelectris experiemnt
It shows nothing relevant
> that
> TH EAMOUNT OF ENERGY EMITTED BY A CONSTANT
> LIGHT SOURSE
> IS LESS IN HALF A SECOND
> THAT IN ONE SECOND !!!
Yet it appears you use 1.000 per second in your formulas for minimum photon
energy .. why would photons care about what happens in one second?
> TH ENUMBER OF ELECTRONS THAT ARE EMITTED
> IS HALF IN HALF A SECOND THAN IN ONE SECOND!
> 2
> the amount of energy needed to extract an electron
> of the photoelectric Cell)
> is dependent only on the
>
> BINDING ENERGY OF THAT
> ELECTRON TO THE ATOM
> AND IT IS THE SAME FOR ALL THOSE ELECTRONS
> and we see that the number of electrons at are emitted
> IS TIME DEPENDENT LINEARILY
> AGAIN LINEARLY TIME DEPENDENT !!!
That’s right .. that’s what I’ve been telling you
> iow
> in one second
> two times more electrons than in** half *** second
That’s right .. that’s what I’ve been telling you
> it means that
> that hf has to be multiplied by some REDUCTION FACTOR
No .. it doesn’t
> and i did it in my orriginal thread
> as
> E=hf n
> while
> 0 > n << the wrong way around AGAIN .. it should
be 0 you Nazipig folowed my explanation
Your failed ‘explanation’ you mean?
> and multiplied it by
> n = integers
> your monkey copy formula was
No copy involved.
> E = h f n
> while you indicated explicitly that
> n must be integers !!!
If you are talking about the total energy for n photons, then of course it
is. Photons are indivisible, so the number of photons must be an integer
> AND IT IS RECORDED
> YOU CANT CHEAT THE WRITTEN RECORD !!
I’m not cheating .. unlike you who REFUSES to even answer simple questions.
What do you have to hide, Porat?
> (ie a magnifier factor and not a diminishing factor as i did
> so
> how do you use your plank time
I don’t own planck time .. if any one did, it was Planck.
> as n bigger or equal to
> 1.000 ??
What are you talking about?
> WHILE TH E EXPERIMENT SHOWS IT SHOULD BE
> LESS THAN 1.000
No .. experiment shows E = hf for a single photon
> IF THE CELLS ARE ACTIVE LESS THAN A SECOND ??!!
That’s what *I* was telling *you* .. there is NOTHING special about one
second
> 2
> how can you **at all** multiply the hf by **any time factor **!!!!
I didn’t .. you did .. you multiplied by tP and end up with nonsense.
I multiplied it by the number of photons to get the total energy for those
photons.
> (AS NEEDED BY THE PHOTOELECTRIC EXPERIMENT LASTING LESS THAN A
> SECOND )
> we deal with the **amount of energy** emitted by the same light
> torch in case that **no one* of the photons there
> lasted (WAS ACTIVE ) one second BUT WAS ACTIVE ** less than one
> second !!*
Of course .. that’s what *I* was telling *you*
> IOW
> hf is time dependent( as an experimental fact )
No .. it is not. As an experimental fact.
> even for less than a second
It is not time dependent .. so it doesn’t matter WHAT time.
> while you claim that
> ****hf is NOT TIME DEPENDENT??!!!****
It isn’t
> and multiplied it by Plank time
I never did .. YOU did that. Stop attributing YOUR nonsense to me.
> or else
> what has that PLANK TIME
> ANYTHING TO DO WITH hf
NOTHING .. it is NOT time dependent.. that is why there is no plakcn time in
the formula for the nergy of a photon (unless you cheat eg E = tP.hf/tP)
> it is good and reasonable as
> MULTIPLYING THE ‘MAGNA CARTA’
> BY A TIME FACTOR !!!!
That’s the sort of thing you’re doing.
Now .. answer my questions that so far you have avoided:
You claim individual single photon energy is time dependent. What IS the
dependency you claim between individual single photon energy and time
duration .. is the energy:
a) linearly proportional to the time (ie E = kt, for some constant k) ?
b) proportional to the square of the time (ie E = kt^2, for some constant
k)?
c) inversely proportional (ie E = k/t, for some constant k) ?
d) none of the above (please provide the relationship in formula form)
Next .. consider three scenarios:
A) monochromatic light shining on a detector for 0.1 seconds
B) monochromatic light shining on the same size detector for 0.2 seconds
C) monochromatic light shining on a detector of twice the area of that in
scenario A, but also for 0.1 seconds
Questions:
How does the total energy received by the detector in case A compare to that
in case B
a) A has HALF the energy of case B
b) A has THE SAME the energy of case B
c) A has DOUBLE the energy of case B
Your answer:
How does the total number of photons received by the detector in case A
compare to that in case B
a) A has HALF the number of photons as case B
b) A has THE SAME number of photons as case B
c) A has DOUBLE number of photons as case B
Your answer:
How does the total energy received by the detector in case A compare to that
in case C
a) A has HALF the energy of case C
b) A has THE SAME the energy of case C
c) A has DOUBLE the energy of case C
Your answer:
How does the total number of photons received by the detector in case A
compare to that in case C
a) A has HALF the number of photons as case C
b) A has THE SAME number of photons as case C
c) A has DOUBLE number of photons as case C
Your answer:
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bose-Einstein Condensate is proof space is merely a phase aspect of
this Schrödinger frequency universe we are in.
* well here we go again, capitalists working against their own best self
interests:there are no rules in capitalism, except those enforced by
government:Moth forces wine country’s secret into the open:Suitcase smuggling -
1 messages, 1 author
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:19 pm
From: Yap
On Mar 29, 7:19 am, omprem wrote:
> On Mar 28, 7:04 pm, Immortalist wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 3:33 pm, John Jones wrote:
>
> > > There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> > > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy and
> > > leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering to
> > > onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of science in action.
>
> > > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler is
> > > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are
> > > impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden strengths of
> > > science.
>
> > [1] – A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in
> > a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that
> > engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of
> > thought or philosophy.
>
> > [2] – In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who
> > uses the scientific method. The person may be an expert in one or
> > more areas of science.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist
>
> > ————————–
>
> > ”One of the subordinate male chimpanzees
> > studied by Jane Goodall at the Gombe
> > Stream National Park in Tanzania learned
> > to bang two empty kerosene cans together.”
>
> > ”He then used the extraordinary movement and
> > noise to (augment) his threat_displays and,
> > as a result, rose to dominance in just a few
> > days over larger males in the troop.”
>
> > Chimpanzees have other, sometimes surprising talents. Under laboratory
> > conditions they can weave sticks and vines into simple patterns (but
> > cannot untie knots). They can classify and group objects into abstract
> > classes according to size and color, distinguish photographs of human
> > beings from those of all kinds of animals, and draw rough circles and
> > other elementary figures just short of representational images. When a
> > chimpanzee looks into a mirror he recognizes himself as something
> > distinct from other members of his own species. In the original test
> > of that capacity, the psychologist Gordon G. Gallup put spots of red
> > dye on the heads of chimpanzees under anesthesia and then allowed them
> > to see their reflections after awakening. The apes immediately
> > responded by touching their hand to the red spot. We may conclude that
> > if some habiline Narcissus ever looked into a pool of still water, he
> > understood that the face staring back was his own image and not that
> > of a second, ghostly primitive. Perhaps he also thought in some
> > wordless fashion: this is I, who exists apart from the clamorous band
> > and will someday die. Scientists, given enough time, might deduce
> > whether this is true and thereby have something to say about the
> > evolutionary history of the self and of the soul.
>
> > Biologists and psychologists alike speak of flexibility as an advanced
> > trait and, sure enough, chimpanzees and great apes have more varied
> > behavior than monkeys. When given a toy or some other novel object to
> > examine, they touch it with more of their body parts, hold and
> > manipulate it in a greater variety of ways, and are generally less
> > predictable in moment-to-moment responses. As a corollary, young
> > chimpanzees play and explore more than other animals, yet much less
> > than modern human children and adults. We can again assume that the
> > problematic habilines lay somewhere in between. Play extends the
> > variability of behavior mightily and opens numerous possibilities for
> > cultural innovation in both animals and man. John and Janice Baldwin
> > described a remarkable example involving a two-year-old squirrel
> > monkey named Corwin. Occasionally Corwin dropped food pellets, which
> > bounced off his cage floor. He turned the accident into a game in
> > which he deliberately dropped pellets and chased them as they bounced
> > around. One day as he was leaping upward a pellet flew out of his hand
> > and ricocheted through the upper part of the cage before settling to
> > the floor. Corwin then started to release pellets deliberately as he
> > jumped, making the game more complicated. Finally, he learned to toss
> > the pellets up into the air and catch them in his mouth.
>
> > Such antics can sometimes be turned to advantage. One of the
> > subordinate male chimpanzees studied by Jane Goodall at the Gombe
> > Stream National Park in Tanzania learned to bang two empty kerosene
> > cans together. He then used the extraordinary movement and noise to
> > augment his threat displays and, as a result, rose to dominance in
> > just a few days over larger males in the troop. Another, partially
> > crippled chimpanzee observed by Geza Teleki compensated for his lack
> > of mobility during hunting by dashing the head of a prey repeatedly
> > against tree trunks. How easy it would be to evolve to a more
> > humanlike behavior, to change from hitting a stick with a head to
> > hitting a head with a stick. The habilines or their immediate
> > ancestors almost certainly took this step. They inaugurated the long
> > and malevolent lineage of weaponry, which in its final nuclear form
> > could annihilate Homo and demonstrate—in a conclusive and unexpected
> > manner—that culture is indeed superior to heredity.
>
> > Promethean Fire – Reflections on the Origins of Mind
> > Charles J. Lumsdem – E.O. Wilson – 1983http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
>
> So you too are saying that scientists are monkeys who exhibit
> extraordinary movement and noise to get attention, tenure and to sell
> books.- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
Real scientist did work and published results/findings for the world,
to benefit mankind.
You did nothing.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:21 pm
From: Yap
On Mar 29, 5:25 pm, John Jones wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
>
> > [1] – A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in
> > a systematic activity to acquire knowledge
>
> That begs the question. It begs the question because the term
> “systematic” implies what is correct. And what is correct is what is at
> issue. Hence it begs the question of what a scientist is.
No.
You have a right to question the steps, or input further into the
systematics.
But you have no right to beg.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:22 pm
From: Yap
On Mar 29, 11:26 pm, omprem wrote:
> On Mar 29, 6:25 am, John Jones wrote:
>
> > Immortalist wrote:
>
> > > [1] – A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in
> > > a systematic activity to acquire knowledge
>
> > That begs the question. It begs the question because the term
> > “systematic” implies what is correct. And what is correct is what is at
> > issue. Hence it begs the question of what a scientist is.
>
> In addition, Atheists are not systematic but rather frightened beings
> howling their despair to the Moon.
Well, at least the moon is real.
Your god remains unreal, and you know that.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:23 pm
From: Yap
On Mar 30, 2:26 am, John Stafford wrote:
> In article
> ,
>
> omprem wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 6:25 am, John Jones wrote:
> > > Immortalist wrote:
>
> > > > [1] – A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in
> > > > a systematic activity to acquire knowledge
>
> > > That begs the question. It begs the question because the term
> > > “systematic” implies what is correct. And what is correct is what is at
> > > issue. Hence it begs the question of what a scientist is.
>
> > In addition, Atheists are not systematic but rather frightened beings
> > howling their despair to the Moon.
>
> That is simply childish innuendo. Doesn’t your god suggest that you make
> the best of his gift and use the brain he gave you?
That’s why the brainless can easily be spotted.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:27 pm
From: Yap
On Mar 29, 8:35 am, “THE BORG” wrote:
> “John Locke” wrote in message
>
> news:itvvq5ldilrqskov3hejohoe7gpa5j98n5@4ax.com…
>
> > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:33:57 +0100, John Jones
> > wrote:
>
> >>There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> > Only one kind. Employing reason and logic, adhering to
> > scientific
> > procedures and not entertaining even the slightest notion
> > of
> > supernatural control and design.
>
> In other words, the kind of men who want to know precisely
> where an egg came from without ANY reference to chickens.
Or where did the chicken come from without reference to the egg?
What is your answer?
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:31 pm
From: Yap
On Mar 29, 11:24 pm, omprem wrote:
> On Mar 28, 9:23 pm, John Locke wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:33:57 +0100, John Jones
>
> > wrote:
> > >There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> > Only one kind. Employing reason and logic, adhering to scientific
> > procedures and not entertaining even the slightest notion of
> > supernatural control and design.
>
> > —————————————————————
>
> > “”All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
> > or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to
> > terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
> > — Thomas Paine
>
> Scientific procedures are limited, flawed and subject to skewing by
> the presence and intent of the scientist.
You aren’t a scientist, yet you wish to define?
>
> If only Atheists knew enough about reason and logic and were able to
> conquer their fears sufficiently to examine their own belief system.
Not all atheists are scientists, but most are educated people, unlike
you who need the protection of a sky pixie.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do we feel aroused when two ideas contradict each other?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:21 pm
From: M Purcell
On Mar 29, 6:09 pm, Immortalist wrote:
> On Mar 25, 7:29 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 25, 6:40 pm, Immortalist wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 25, 6:24 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 25, 5:46 pm, Immortalist wrote:
>
> > > > > Cognitive Dissonance Theory
> > > > >.
> > > > >.
> > > > >.
>
> > > > A contradiction indicates a false premise. We apply Occams Razor.
>
> > > If we chose in favor of defending our ego so we feel like good and
> > > normal people are history and science really just means to those
> > > instinctual ends? This razor you mention may cut away at the truth so
> > > we can feel good about how we are and do decide.
>
> > > The Psychology of Inadequate Justification
>
> > > Attitude change as a means of reducing dissonance is not, of course,
>
> > > The Social Animal – Elliot Aronson – 8th Edition 1999http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
>
> > The contradiction is real, Joe was not honest. I have a problem with
> > tact but I believe people generally want to know the truth, or at
> > least your perception of it. Rationalizations or self justification
> > are another matter.
>
> Remember, people hold a multitude of cognitions simultaneously, and
> these cognitions form
>
> 1. irrelevant,
> 2. consonant
> 3. dissonant
>
> relationships with one another.
>
> 1. Cognitive Irrelevance probably describes the bulk of the
> relationships among a person¹s cognitions. Irrelevance simply means
> that the two cognitions have nothing to do with each other. Two
> cognitions are consonant if one cognition follows from, or fits with,
> the other.
>
> 2. People like consonance among their cognitions. We do not know
> whether this stems from the nature of the human organism or whether it
> is learned during the process of socialization, but people appear to
> prefer cognitions that fit together to those that do not. It is this
> simple observation that gives the theory of cognitive dissonance its
> interesting form.
>
> 3. Two cognitions are said to be dissonant if one cognition follows
> from the opposite of another. What happens to people when they
> discover dissonant cognitions? A person who has dissonant or
> discrepant cognitions is said to be in a state of psychological
> dissonance, which is experienced as unpleasant psychological tension.
> This tension state has drivelike properties that are much like those
> of hunger and thirst. When a person has been deprived of food for
> several hours, he/she experiences unpleasant tension and is driven to
> reduce the unpleasant tension state that results. Reducing the
> psychological sate of dissonance is not as simple as eating or
> drinking however.
>
> http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/stephens/cdback.html
I suspect it’s the drive towards self consistency, we don’t like to be
wrong, being wrong means we make bad survival decisions.
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:22 pm
From: Bret Cahill
> > > > > > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > > > > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > > > > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > > > > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > > > > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > > > > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > > > > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > > > > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > > > > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > > > > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > > > > > > nonsense.
>
> > > > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > > > Fuck McBeaner. We’re tired of linguini spined RINOS that think they
> > > > > > > need to “cross party lines” to get along with progressives. We want
> > > > > > > conservative candidates that are willing to use the same slash and
> > > > > > > burn tactics as progressives. Kill em’ all and let GOD sort em’ out !!
>
> > > > > > BREAKING NEWS:9 conservatives charged with conspiracy to kill police
> > > > > > officers in hopes of triggering a violent uprising against the
> > > > > > democratically elected government of the unites states of america:to
> > > > > > levy war against the United States
>
> > > > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_re_us/us_fbi_raids
>
> > > > > > 9 militia members charged in police-killing plot
>
> > > > > > By COREY WILLIAMS and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers –
> > > > > > 1 hr 1 min ago
> > > > > > DETROIT – Nine suspects tied to a Midwest Christian militia that was
> > > > > > preparing for the Antichrist were charged with conspiring to kill
> > > > > > police officers, then attack a funeral using homemade bombs in the
> > > > > > hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors
> > > > > > said Monday.
> > > > > > The Michigan-based group, called Hutaree, planned to use the attack on
> > > > > > police as a catalyst for a larger uprising against the government,
>
> > > > > Fortunately it was a blue state. Red state politicians won’t stop
> > > > > spree shooters and rightard terror bombers until the blood is already
> > > > > flowing.
>
> > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > we can only hope the southern poverty law center can keep tabs on
> > > > them and warn us.
>
> > > If nothing else, they can point out to the right-
> > > wing extremists who are hiding under your bed
> > > at night.
>
> > Did you get that from one of your LaRouche links?
>
> Glad you brought LaDouche up.
It was obvious you liked LaRouche when you were posting his links to
dowsers.
Now tell us, what do you adjust first?
Your divining rod or your tin foil hat?
Bret Cahill
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:35 pm
From: Shrikeback
On Mar 29, 8:19 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > > > > nonsense.
>
> > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > Considering your reputation as an extremist
> > > > > hater of the First Amendment, how can anyone
> > > > > take your daffynition of the words, “extremist,”
> > > > > or, “moderate?”
>
> > > > That is who can take your daffynition of those
> > > > words seriously? Seriously.
>
> > > Now that you know that your hero Dumbya Bush’s Patriot Act is now
> > > being used against rightard gun nutter militias and that you have no
> > > hope of popping off any Democrat politicians without getting a Third
> > > Eye you tell me your only option now is to spree.
>
> > I didn’t support the Patriot Act,
>
> But you voted for Dumbya Bush.
I didn’t vote in those elections. Anyway, since I am an
American, I have a right to vote for either the Giant
Douche or the Turd Sandwich, or not to vote for either.
> Why did you vote for Dumbya Bush if he effectively took away your
> “right” to plan assassinations and form violent right winger dinger
> militias?
I just told you above, I didn’t vote.
> > > But I tell you, try not to spree and if you must spree, try to spree
> > > local. Very local.
>
> > > Just shoot up your double wide.
>
> > Save the planet; kill yourself.
>
> Yea, shoot yourself _before_ you shoot anyone else.
And before you wind up pumping out that CO2 posting
horseshit to usenet.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:37 pm
From: Shrikeback
On Mar 29, 8:22 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > > > > > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > > > > > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > > > > > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > > > > > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > > > > > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > > > > > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > > > > > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > > > > > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > > > > > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > > > > > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > > > > > > > nonsense.
>
> > > > > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > > > > Fuck McBeaner. We’re tired of linguini spined RINOS that think they
> > > > > > > > need to “cross party lines” to get along with progressives. We want
> > > > > > > > conservative candidates that are willing to use the same slash and
> > > > > > > > burn tactics as progressives. Kill em’ all and let GOD sort em’ out !!
>
> > > > > > > BREAKING NEWS:9 conservatives charged with conspiracy to kill police
> > > > > > > officers in hopes of triggering a violent uprising against the
> > > > > > > democratically elected government of the unites states of america:to
> > > > > > > levy war against the United States
>
> > > > > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_re_us/us_fbi_raids
>
> > > > > > > 9 militia members charged in police-killing plot
>
> > > > > > > By COREY WILLIAMS and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers –
> > > > > > > 1 hr 1 min ago
> > > > > > > DETROIT – Nine suspects tied to a Midwest Christian militia that was
> > > > > > > preparing for the Antichrist were charged with conspiring to kill
> > > > > > > police officers, then attack a funeral using homemade bombs in the
> > > > > > > hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors
> > > > > > > said Monday.
> > > > > > > The Michigan-based group, called Hutaree, planned to use the attack on
> > > > > > > police as a catalyst for a larger uprising against the government,
>
> > > > > > Fortunately it was a blue state. Red state politicians won’t stop
> > > > > > spree shooters and rightard terror bombers until the blood is already
> > > > > > flowing.
>
> > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > we can only hope the southern poverty law center can keep tabs on
> > > > > them and warn us.
>
> > > > If nothing else, they can point out to the right-
> > > > wing extremists who are hiding under your bed
> > > > at night.
>
> > > Did you get that from one of your LaRouche links?
>
> > Glad you brought LaDouche up.
>
> It was obvious you liked LaRouche when you were posting his links to
> dowsers.
It is still obvious you are stuck on stoopid. What else
can anyone say?
> Now tell us, what do you adjust first?
I always adjust my crotch first, so it doesn’t
look like I’ve stashed horse apples in there.
> Your divining rod or your tin foil hat?
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:49 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 10:14 pm, Shrikeback wrote:
> On Mar 29, 8:13 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 7:10 pm, Shrikeback wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 4:29 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 4:59 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 29, 2:50 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 29, 2:14 pm, The PHANTOM wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 29, 11:08 am, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > > > > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > > > > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > > > > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > > > > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > > > > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > > > > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > > > > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > > > > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > > > > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > > > > > > nonsense.
>
> > > > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > > > Fuck McBeaner. We’re tired of linguini spined RINOS that think they
> > > > > > > need to “cross party lines” to get along with progressives. We want
> > > > > > > conservative candidates that are willing to use the same slash and
> > > > > > > burn tactics as progressives. Kill em’ all and let GOD sort em’ out !!
>
> > > > > > BREAKING NEWS:9 conservatives charged with conspiracy to kill police
> > > > > > officers in hopes of triggering a violent uprising against the
> > > > > > democratically elected government of the unites states of america:to
> > > > > > levy war against the United States
>
> > > > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_re_us/us_fbi_raids
>
> > > > > > 9 militia members charged in police-killing plot
>
> > > > > > By COREY WILLIAMS and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers –
> > > > > > 1 hr 1 min ago
> > > > > > DETROIT – Nine suspects tied to a Midwest Christian militia that was
> > > > > > preparing for the Antichrist were charged with conspiring to kill
> > > > > > police officers, then attack a funeral using homemade bombs in the
> > > > > > hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors
> > > > > > said Monday.
> > > > > > The Michigan-based group, called Hutaree, planned to use the attack on
> > > > > > police as a catalyst for a larger uprising against the government,
>
> > > > > Fortunately it was a blue state. Red state politicians won’t stop
> > > > > spree shooters and rightard terror bombers until the blood is already
> > > > > flowing.
>
> > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > we can only hope the southern poverty law center can keep tabs on
> > > > them and warn us.
>
> > > If nothing else, they can point out to the right-
> > > wing extremists who are hiding under your bed
> > > at night.
>
> > i live in michelle bachmans district.
>
> They’re watching you.
i bet they are.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:53 pm
From: “Sid9″
“Shrikeback” wrote in message
news:0629521f-a99d-412a-a808-e7af824d3bfc@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com…
> On Mar 29, 8:19 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> > > > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in
>> > > > > > all of
>> > > > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the
>> > > > > > wing a
>> > > > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>>
>> > > > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>>
>> > > > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only
>> > > > > > drives
>> > > > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>>
>> > > > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
>> > > > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to
>> > > > > > keep up
>> > > > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political
>> > > > > > parties,
>> > > > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
>> > > > > > nonsense.
>>
>> > > > > > Bret Cahill
>>
>> > > > > Considering your reputation as an extremist
>> > > > > hater of the First Amendment, how can anyone
>> > > > > take your daffynition of the words, “extremist,”
>> > > > > or, “moderate?”
>>
>> > > > That is who can take your daffynition of those
>> > > > words seriously? Seriously.
>>
>> > > Now that you know that your hero Dumbya Bush’s Patriot Act is now
>> > > being used against rightard gun nutter militias and that you have no
>> > > hope of popping off any Democrat politicians without getting a Third
>> > > Eye you tell me your only option now is to spree.
>>
>> > I didn’t support the Patriot Act,
>>
>> But you voted for Dumbya Bush.
>
> I didn’t vote in those elections. Anyway, since I am an
> American, I have a right to vote for either the Giant
> Douche or the Turd Sandwich, or not to vote for either.
>
>> Why did you vote for Dumbya Bush if he effectively took away your
>> “right” to plan assassinations and form violent right winger dinger
>> militias?
>
> I just told you above, I didn’t vote.
>
>> > > But I tell you, try not to spree and if you must spree, try to spree
>> > > local. Very local.
>>
>> > > Just shoot up your double wide.
>>
>> > Save the planet; kill yourself.
>>
>> Yea, shoot yourself _before_ you shoot anyone else.
>
> And before you wind up pumping out that CO2 posting
> horseshit to usenet.
.
.
Thank you for not voting!
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:57 pm
From: Shrikeback
On Mar 29, 8:53 pm, “Sid9″ wrote:
> “Shrikeback” wrote in message
>
> news:0629521f-a99d-412a-a808-e7af824d3bfc@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com…
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 8:19 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> >> > > > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in
> >> > > > > > all of
> >> > > > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the
> >> > > > > > wing a
> >> > > > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> >> > > > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> >> > > > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only
> >> > > > > > drives
> >> > > > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> >> > > > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> >> > > > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to
> >> > > > > > keep up
> >> > > > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political
> >> > > > > > parties,
> >> > > > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> >> > > > > > nonsense.
>
> >> > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> >> > > > > Considering your reputation as an extremist
> >> > > > > hater of the First Amendment, how can anyone
> >> > > > > take your daffynition of the words, “extremist,”
> >> > > > > or, “moderate?”
>
> >> > > > That is who can take your daffynition of those
> >> > > > words seriously? Seriously.
>
> >> > > Now that you know that your hero Dumbya Bush’s Patriot Act is now
> >> > > being used against rightard gun nutter militias and that you have no
> >> > > hope of popping off any Democrat politicians without getting a Third
> >> > > Eye you tell me your only option now is to spree.
>
> >> > I didn’t support the Patriot Act,
>
> >> But you voted for Dumbya Bush.
>
> > I didn’t vote in those elections. Anyway, since I am an
> > American, I have a right to vote for either the Giant
> > Douche or the Turd Sandwich, or not to vote for either.
>
> >> Why did you vote for Dumbya Bush if he effectively took away your
> >> “right” to plan assassinations and form violent right winger dinger
> >> militias?
>
> > I just told you above, I didn’t vote.
>
> >> > > But I tell you, try not to spree and if you must spree, try to spree
> >> > > local. Very local.
>
> >> > > Just shoot up your double wide.
>
> >> > Save the planet; kill yourself.
>
> >> Yea, shoot yourself _before_ you shoot anyone else.
>
> > And before you wind up pumping out that CO2 posting
> > horseshit to usenet.
>
> .
> .
> Thank you for not voting!
As the Dems used to say about Nadir, a vote for
a nobody is a vote for W. In hindsight, that’s true.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Which Newsgroups Rightard Wants To Be First To Be Taken Out By SWAT?
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:26 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:48:53 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2010 23:49:45 GMT, Michael Coburn wrote:
>>On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:17:06 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>>> On 27 Mar 2010 23:37:58 GMT, Michael Coburn
>>> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:08:27 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:18:16 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >> >The more time winger dingers spend posting here the less
>>>>>>> >> >> >time they have to shoot honest law abiding folk.
>>>>>>> >> >> The more time people spend reading Bret Cahill’s LIES the
>>>>>>> >> >> less they are inclined to read his posts ever again…
>>>>>>> >> >You really think you can beat out David Duke for the GOP Nat’l
>>>>>>> >> >Convention cross burning event?
>>>>>>> >> It’s not working…..
>>>>>>> >That’s why you need to go back to posting Rasmussen polls that
>>>>>>> >show Repugliars retaking both houses of congress with veto proof
>>>>>>> >majorities.
>>>>>>> >It’ll help keep the wingers from spree shooting so much.
>>>>>>> It’s still not working…..
>>>>>>If you don’t _try_ then it’s 100% certain you won’t get results.
>>>>> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
>>>>> different results. Albert Einstein, (attributed) US (German-born)
>>>>> physicist (1879 – 1955)
>>>>> http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26032.html
>>>>So if we run out and elect people that want to destroy government
>>>>while expecting good results then we must be total nut cases.
>>> Case in point: Buckwheat PresiChimp.
>>>>Perhaps the rational people will wake up to the fact that taxing the
>>>>rich in order to fund medical care for those who would otherwise be
>>>>bankrupted and those who would otherwise not be able to afford
>>>>insurance is a lot better solution than passing the costs of this care
>>>>to the middle class people who currently pay insurance premiums,
>>>>deductibles and co-pays.
>>> No, those aren’t “rational” people, they are Communists. Like YOU.
>>>>And while it is true that the insurance companies will do well from
>>>>the increase in their customer base funded by the rich, the middle
>>>>class will not be footing the bill as both the poor and the middle
>>>>will have gotten better care.
>>> Wrong. The Middle Class IS the Consumer Engine in our Economy and the
>>> Middle Class was told their AT&T Rates will be going up $1 BILLION to
>>> pay for BuckwheatCare in ONE YEAR.
>>> Wrong. The Middle Class was told the fruit, vegetable, dairy and meat
>>> prices will be gong up $100 MILLION to pay for BuckwheatCare in ONE
>>> YEAR. (Deere.)
>>> Wrong. The Middle Class was told virtually everything in America will
>>> cost more by another $150 MILLION to pay for BuckwheatCare in ONE
>>> YEAR. (Caterpillar.)
>>> That’s $1.25 BILLION in JUST THREE DAYS from JUST 3 Companies….
>>> Wrong. The Middle Class will NOT be getting “better care.” Initially
>>> they will be getting the SAME care at slightly HIGHER rates. As the
>>> 30,000,000 new customers enter the healthcare system the Middle Class
>>> will be getting WORSE care, waiting LONGER for WORSE care, and paying
>>> MORE to wait LONGER to get WORSE care.
>>>>Not bad at all.
>>> You mean ‘not all bad.’ It has ensured the Total Destruction of the
>>> DemocRATs beginning in November…
>>The Republican will find as many “nits” as possible and amplify them.
>
> “Nits!” “Nits?” hahahahahaha!!!
>
>>Medical care in the US is 16% of GDP
>
> Why do you Communist DemocRATs always lie?
>
> Medicare’s annual costs were 3.2% of GDP in 2008.
> http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
Nice dodge, lying pig.
>>So if…
>
> Your bullshit began with a LIE, so that’s where it ends…
>
> Try again, Commie.
–
“Senate rules don’t trump the Constitution” — http://GreaterVoice.org/60
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:48 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 3:52 pm, Patriot Games wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:50:25 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>
>
>
> wrote:
> >On Mar 28, 3:25 pm, Patriot Games wrote:
> >> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:44:42 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Mar 27, 4:08 pm, Patriot Games wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:18:16 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> >The more time winger dingers spend posting here the less time they
> >> >> >> >> >> >have to shoot honest law abiding folk.
> >> >> >> >> >> The more time people spend reading Bret Cahill’s LIES the less they
> >> >> >> >> >> are inclined to read his posts ever again…
> >> >> >> >> >You really think you can beat out David Duke for the GOP Nat’l
> >> >> >> >> >Convention cross burning event?
> >> >> >> >> It’s not working…..
> >> >> >> >That’s why you need to go back to posting Rasmussen polls that show
> >> >> >> >Repugliars retaking both houses of congress with veto proof
> >> >> >> >majorities.
> >> >> >> >It’ll help keep the wingers from spree shooting so much.
> >> >> >> It’s still not working…..
> >> >> >If you don’t _try_ then it’s 100% certain you won’t get results.
> >> >> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
> >> >> different results. Albert Einstein, (attributed)
> >> >> US (German-born) physicist (1879 – 1955)http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26032.html
> >> > its because einstein wrote a piece called the case for socialism, in
> >> >his paper, he said that conservatives keep doing the same thing over
> >> >and over again, expecting a different outcome or result. you can
> >> >easily see what he was speaking about.
> >> Feel free to CITE your claim:
> >> Why Socialism? By Albert Einstein
> >> New York, May, 1949
> >>http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm
> > gee, he must have believed it, because its his quote, and he wrote
> >the piece:)
>
> Then WHY did YOU FAIL to CITE it?
>
> Answer: BECAUSE YOU LIED.
boy you really hard hard up, and a nit picker. did you even read the
paper, or did you just scan it for the exact statement?
here is a blown up version of the statement.
“If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural
attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as
satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact
that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As
mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical
purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and
demographic developments of the last few centuries have created
conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled
populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued
existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized
productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking
back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively
small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight
exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary
community of production and consumption.’
now condensed
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results.
he was showing us that we have to change. something that
conservatives are unable to do.
i read a lot. so i am not perfect. however, for you to quote him,
when he had such disdain for conservatism, is a joke.
the article below is all about the statement.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php
Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein
This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly
Review (May 1949).
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social
issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a
number of reasons that it is.
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of
scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential
methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists
in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a
circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection
of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in
reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of
general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the
circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by
many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition,
the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-
called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been
largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means
exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states
of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples
established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged
class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly
of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own
ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division
of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values
by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously,
guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we
really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of
human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase
and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to
other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to
overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development,
economic science in its present state can throw little light on the
socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science,
however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human
beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain
certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities
with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but
vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human
beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of
society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate
science and scientific methods when it is a question of human
problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who
have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the
organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human
society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been
gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that
individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small
or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let
me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an
intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in
my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I
remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer
protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and
coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the
disappearance of the human race?”
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly
made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has
striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more
or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful
solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in
these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with
any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although
I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are
often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in
easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being.
As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that
of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and
to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain
the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in
their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve
their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied,
frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character
of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to
which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can
contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the
relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by
inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely
formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself
during his development, by the structure of the society in which he
grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of
particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to
the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect
relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier
generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work
by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical,
intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think
of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is
“society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of
work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of
thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the
accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all
hidden behind the small word “society.”
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon
society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the
case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants
and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary
instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings
are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to
make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made
possible developments among human being which are not dictated by
biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in
traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in
scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This
explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence
his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious
thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution
which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural
urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition,
during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he
adopts from society through communication and through many other types
of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the
passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very
large extent the relationship between the individual and society.
Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation
of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human
beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns
and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on
this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground
their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their
biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the
mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural
attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as
satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact
that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As
mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical
purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and
demographic developments of the last few centuries have created
conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled
populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued
existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized
productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking
back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively
small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight
exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary
community of production and consumption.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me
constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the
relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become
more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does
not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie,
as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights,
or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society
is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly
being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature
weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their
position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration.
Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure,
lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated
enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as
it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in
my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge
community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving
to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by
force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally
established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that
the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity
that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional
capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private
property of individuals.
For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall
call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the
means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the
customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in
a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the
means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the
property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is
the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid,
both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is
“free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value
of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the
capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of
workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in
theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his
product.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly
because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because
technological development and the increasing division of labor
encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense
of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of
private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively
checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is
true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political
parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private
capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate
from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of
the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the
underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing
conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or
indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education).
It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite
impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective
conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership
of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means
of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of
them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course,
there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In
particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and
bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat
improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of
workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ
much from “pure” capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no
provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a
position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always
exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since
unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market,
the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship
is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more
unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all.
The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists,
is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization
of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited
competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of
the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism.
Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated
competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to
worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils,
namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied
by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society
itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which
adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the
work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a
livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the
individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would
attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men
in place of the glorification of power and success in our present
society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is
not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the
complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism
requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political
problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching
centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy
from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the
individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to
the power of bureaucracy be assured?
Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest
significance in our age of transition. Since, under present
circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has
come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this
magazine to be an important public service.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Various notable critics of capitalism
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:28 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 4:12 pm, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On Mar 30, 1:26 am, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > hey, i grew up, matured, walk in others shoes.
>
> You are a fucking liar, you have never read Rand, and are doing
> nothing more than repeating the nasal chants of other envy ridden
> leftist retards.
>
> MG
you are almost correct, i almost died of laughter trying to read her.
rand is like the tobacco companies, you got to hook’em whilst they are
young and stupid:)
“Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord
of
the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
deal
with the real world. The other involves orcs.”
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Media ignores democrat violence, as usual
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:31 pm
From: “Killing, Inc.”
On Mar 29, 9:43 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > > Looks like the meia is ignoring sick democrats commiting violence and
> > > > making threats. Tea Patriots demonstrate peacefully while the left
> > > > throws eggs…..
>
> > > It’s very difficult to compete against rightard violence:
>
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> > > Next question?
> > Oh, you mean that “rightard” violence that never happened?
>
> Thank God for the Patriot Act!
B-b-b-b-b-but Bush!!!
> Many lives were saved!
>
> Who wants to be the next militia group to get busted?
>
> . . .
>
> > Democrats and other “progressive” fascists are still the dumbest
> > creatures on the planet.
>
> They seem to be smart enough to stay out of prison.
Yes that explains why the prisons are LOADED with them, and why
Democrats want to give them back their voting rights.
Democrats and other “progressive” fascists are still the dumbest
creatures on the planet.
> Can you say the same about right wing militias?
>
> Bret Cahill
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:33 pm
From: “Killing, Inc.”
On Mar 29, 10:15 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Mar 29, 7:03 pm, “Killing, Inc.”
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 5:09 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > > Looks like the meia is ignoring sick democrats commiting violence and
> > > > making threats. Tea Patriots demonstrate peacefully while the left
> > > > throws eggs…..
>
> > > It’s very difficult to compete against rightard violence:
>
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> > > Next question?
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > Oh, you mean that “rightard” violence that never happened?
> > For all you know they could have been framed, and considering how
> > Democrats have no shortage of made-up stories and lies about the right
> > and tea party protesters, a frame-up is more likely than not.
>
> > Next question.
>
> > Democrats and other “progressive” fascists are still the dumbest
> > creatures on the planet.
>
> liberals and progressives cannot be fascist. all fascism is, is
> conservatism in decay.
Keep trying to convince yourself that lie is true, m’kay?
Democrats and other “progressive” fascists are still the dumbest
creatures on the planet.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:53 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 10:33 pm, “Killing, Inc.”
wrote:
> On Mar 29, 10:15 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 7:03 pm, “Killing, Inc.”
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 5:09 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > > > Looks like the meia is ignoring sick democrats commiting violence and
> > > > > making threats. Tea Patriots demonstrate peacefully while the left
> > > > > throws eggs…..
>
> > > > It’s very difficult to compete against rightard violence:
>
> > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> > > > Next question?
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > Oh, you mean that “rightard” violence that never happened?
> > > For all you know they could have been framed, and considering how
> > > Democrats have no shortage of made-up stories and lies about the right
> > > and tea party protesters, a frame-up is more likely than not.
>
> > > Next question.
>
> > > Democrats and other “progressive” fascists are still the dumbest
> > > creatures on the planet.
>
> > liberals and progressives cannot be fascist. all fascism is, is
> > conservatism in decay.
>
> Keep trying to convince yourself that lie is true, m’kay?
>
> Democrats and other “progressive” fascists are still the dumbest
> creatures on the planet.
i have proven it to you before. keep posting your stupidity, i will
always respond.
hitler hated liberals, he killed over 6.5 million jews because most of
them are liberal. he killed communists, socialists, trade unionists,
the mentally retarded, the physical disabled, the unemployed, whom he
all considered useless eaters.
liberals would not kill for your political and economic beliefs, the
constitution is a liberal document, that grants you those rights.
liberals would house the retarded, help the disabled, and provide
unemployment benefits for the unemployed. once again you have proven
that propaganda can work on the truly stupid.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:54 pm
From: Shrikeback
On Mar 29, 7:38 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > If you want
> > the revolution to succeed, you can’t be a
> > free-rider.
>
> You want a revolution? OK but try not to spree and if you must spree,
> try to spree local. Very local.
I thought _you_ did. You can’t fight the corpwhore conspiracy
to flouridate your tinfoil hat by being an armchair suicide
bomber.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pictures Just In
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:38 pm
From: Bret Cahill
> > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> > > > > > What could be a more convincing argument for banning same-race
> > > > > > marriage?
>
> > > > > Well, that’s one way to cut down on the number
> > > > > of lily-white readers of the New York Times.
>
> > > > If you believe there’s some 2nd Amend. right to spree shoot or terror
> > > > bomb innocent people you really ought to move to a red state like OK
> > > > or TX where the authorities won’t stop you until after the blood
> > > > starts flowing.
>
> > > Okay. Good job staying on topic, by the way.
>
> > Thanks.
>
> > Now you need to reciprocate:
>
> > If you believe there’s some 2nd Amend. right to spree shoot or terror
> > bomb innocent people you really ought to move to a red state like OK
> > or TX where the authorities won’t stop you until after the blood
> > starts flowing.
>
> If you believe there’s some First Amendment right to talk
> like Goebbels
The First Amendment isn’t really about corp. money being used to
Goebbelize the political debate.
Just because the 5 corp. shills on the bench look silly exposing their
corp. interests and getting nothing in return — independent voters
will be turned off by all the corp the spam and pop up boxes –
doesn’t change that fact.
Bret Cahill
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:47 pm
From: Shrikeback
On Mar 29, 8:38 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> > > > > > > What could be a more convincing argument for banning same-race
> > > > > > > marriage?
>
> > > > > > Well, that’s one way to cut down on the number
> > > > > > of lily-white readers of the New York Times.
>
> > > > > If you believe there’s some 2nd Amend. right to spree shoot or terror
> > > > > bomb innocent people you really ought to move to a red state like OK
> > > > > or TX where the authorities won’t stop you until after the blood
> > > > > starts flowing.
>
> > > > Okay. Good job staying on topic, by the way.
>
> > > Thanks.
>
> > > Now you need to reciprocate:
>
> > > If you believe there’s some 2nd Amend. right to spree shoot or terror
> > > bomb innocent people you really ought to move to a red state like OK
> > > or TX where the authorities won’t stop you until after the blood
> > > starts flowing.
>
> > If you believe there’s some First Amendment right to talk
> > like Goebbels
>
> The First Amendment isn’t really about corp. money being used to
> Goebbelize the political debate.
Are you complaining about MSNBC, or something?
Well, you can relax, because in spite of billions in
largesse from the corpwhore Congress and the corpwhore
whitehouse, their veiwership is shrinking. See? It’s a
free marketplace of ideas. Let the losers lose.
> Just because the 5 corp. shills on the bench look silly exposing their
> corp. interests and getting nothing in return — independent voters
> will be turned off by all the corp the spam and pop up boxes –
> doesn’t change that fact.
So now the First Amendment is a corp shill affair. Well,
welcome to America, comrade. If you don’t like our regime
of speech that is as free as speech can be, you can always
hop on the next floating sharkbait to Cuba.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Time to disarm all the Christo-fascist terrorist ‘ militia’ retards
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:55 pm
From: Gunner Asch
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:14:36 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
wrote:
>> > > These morons are proof positive that religious fanatics and mental
>> > > defectives must not have access to guns & ammo. These loons can’t even
>> > > be trusted with butter-knives and scissors.
>>
>> > Why doncha hop on your bicycle and come on over and try.
>>
>> > –
>> > To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation
>> > of their women.
>>
>> Got an address for the FBI tough guy?
>
>The FBI, Secret Service, BATF and Homeland security _already have_ his
>address because of Dumbya Bush’s Patriot Act.
>
>If he tries anything there’ll be a you tube video of his sinuses
>exploding out of the back of skull along with a 9mm slug paid for with
>taxpayer money.
>
>Nutters don’t have any brains so all you’ll see are his sinuses.
>
>Of course like 99.99% of nutters he won’t do jack except sit in front
>of his bathroom mirror oiling his AK-47 practicing his Hollywood actor
>NRA president Charlton Heston hiss.
>
>And even that fantasy is out of date as BATF now has microwave beam
>vehicles and can take his gun out of his live warm hands.
>
>
>Bret Cahill
Hold that thought Bret. Because if it ever started to happen (and it
will…the Great Cull is coming)…you will be among the dead.
Im sure someone close to you has been tasked with taking you out along
with the rest of the Far Leftwing Extremist Fringe Kooks in your area.
So lets hope it never happens, else its gonna be awfully lonely without
all you Leftards posting on Usenet ever again.
Gunner
“First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject.” Grey Ghost
==============================================================================
TOPIC: well here we go again, capitalists working against their own best self
interests:there are no rules in capitalism, except those enforced by
government:Moth forces wine country’s secret into the open:Suitcase smuggling
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:59 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 8:46 pm, Michael Price wrote:
> On Mar 29, 4:00 am, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > alt.philosophy, sci.econ, alt.anarchism, alt.politics.libertarian,
> > alt.politics.economics
>
> Still think North Korea is a free market, idiot?
>
did you miss the part where they signed a free trade agreement with
south korea:) shooting the messenger will not change the truth of the
header.
”
well here we go again, capitalists working against their own best self
interests:there are no rules in capitalism, except those enforced by
government:Moth forces wine country’s secret into the open:Suitcase
smuggling”
obtw, greedy capitalists also clear cut forests in america, till
there were almost none in many states.
obtw, greedy capitalists almost fished out the waters of many states,
and have almost fished out the oceans.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: We will NEVER forget!!!
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:07 pm
From: tooly
This will be the true legacy of this health care bill and “Obama-
Pelosi-Reid” process to cram it down our throats.
At least HALF this country will NEVER forget how this has been
‘thrust’ upon us; now at least HALF this country will have their
incomes ‘confiscated’ to whatever degree, to REDISTRIBUTE to Obama’s
people.
What this Health Care LAW has done is create a PERMANENT divide in
this land that will never mend.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:31 pm
From: “JosephKK”
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:22:10 -0500, “krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz” wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:29:21 -0700, Jon Kirwan
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:06:04 -0700,
>>”JosephKK” wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>It all starts with Amdahl’s Law. Double the speed of one thing and if none
>>>of the rest of the system can use the speed increase you get nothing.
>>>(slightly overstated)
>>
>>Sounds like the famous “weakest link” phrase, “A chain is no
>>stronger than its weakest link,” which apparently traces back
>>to the English clergyman Charles Kingley’s letter, dated
>>December 1, 1856, where he wrote “The devil is very busy, and
>>no one knows better than he, that ‘nothing is stronger than
>>its weakest part.’”
>>
>>Others have also written similarly, since. See very near the
>>bottom of page 433 here, for example:
>>http://www.archive.org/stream/workslife10bageuoft#page/432/mode/2up
>>
>>I guess we can add Amdahl to a long list of many stating the
>>exact same thing in slightly different words.
>
>Ahmdahl’s Law is more quantitative than that:
>http://www.search.com/reference/Amdahl%27s_law
>
Thanks. If i weren’t distracted i might have provided a similar link.
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:32 pm
From: dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
On Mar 29, 1:49 pm, Charlie E. wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:16:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb…@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 29, 11:03 am, Charlie E. wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:58:52 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb…@yahoo.com
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> Exactly. And now American industry is reacting to the effect
> >> >> on them, stating, like AT&T did ( and Caterpillar, and Verizon, and
> >> >> many others, even in the few days since it passed ) that they will be
> >> >> taking HUGE write-downs ( $ 1 BILLION for ATT ), laying people off,
> >> >> cutting health benefits for employees and retirees, etc, because of
> >> >> the expenses Brobama and the Dems have invented for them.
>
> >> >Note: That $1B AT&T charge is against this quarter’s profits. So, the
> >> >new, better health care is costing them $4B a year, to start. The
> >> >costs scream skyward later, as the plans start paying benefits.
>
> >> >$4B, hmmm. At $100K / per job, that’s 40,000 jobs, destroyed.
>
> >> >
>
> >> Actually, as I heard it analyzed, the $1B was a total charge over 30
> >> years of additional costs due to changes in the bill, and doesn’t
> >> start till 2013 when those changes occur…
>
> >That doesn’t add up either. AT&T’s health care costs are increased at
> >least $250M per year just for retirees (i.e., $1B every four years for
> >that one item alone).
>
> >AT&T will certainly have higher costs for their 283,000 employees too,
> >so $1B a year is entirely possible, or more.
>
> >We’ll see.
>
> >So the good news is $1B AFA(we)CT, and that only destroys 10,000
> >jobs. That’s 30,000 jobs created or saved, right?
>
> Ok, full explanation as I heard it…
>
> This charge is only for a change in the prescription drug benefits.
> Presently, the gov. lets them write off 100% of the cost of drugs by
> its employees, PLUS there is a 25% (exact percentage not in memory…
> ) subsidy payment from the gov. What is changing is that they can
> have one, or the other, but not both. (in 2013!) So, this is the
> charge that they can see now. They don’t know yet what other changes
> will happed…
>
> Charlie
Yes, that’s about right. Here’s the footnote on pg. 82 of AT&T’s 2009
Annual Report:
“1. During 2009, 2008 and 2007, the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 reduced
postretirement benefit cost by $255, $263 and $342. [...]”
(numbers are millions of dollars)
That deduction is going away. It was meant as an incentive for
employers to continue offering Rx benefits for retirees, thus saving
Medicare from paying those same benefits.
Getting rid of subsidies is fine with me. This change is, however,
part of the uncounted cost of Obamacare–they’re shifting the full
retiree Rx cost to the private sector, who will now have to pay 100
cents of every Rx benefit rather than the 70-odd cents they used to
pay.
So, the cost of doing business is *higher*, but it counts as a
*savings* (to the government) in the CBO figure.
One assumes that AT&T has to apply this to the pension funds of
current workers too, if Rx benefits are part of their retirement
packages, and set aside additional reserves for the increased future
cost anticipated. Or, just chop the benefit.
–
Cheers,
James Arthur
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:57 pm
From: “krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz”
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:32:02 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
>On Mar 29, 1:49 pm, Charlie E. wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:16:21 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb…@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Mar 29, 11:03 am, Charlie E. wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:58:52 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb…@yahoo.com
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Exactly. And now American industry is reacting to the effect
>> >> >> on them, stating, like AT&T did ( and Caterpillar, and Verizon, and
>> >> >> many others, even in the few days since it passed ) that they will be
>> >> >> taking HUGE write-downs ( $ 1 BILLION for ATT ), laying people off,
>> >> >> cutting health benefits for employees and retirees, etc, because of
>> >> >> the expenses Brobama and the Dems have invented for them.
>>
>> >> >Note: That $1B AT&T charge is against this quarter’s profits. So, the
>> >> >new, better health care is costing them $4B a year, to start. The
>> >> >costs scream skyward later, as the plans start paying benefits.
>>
>> >> >$4B, hmmm. At $100K / per job, that’s 40,000 jobs, destroyed.
>>
>> >> >
>>
>> >> Actually, as I heard it analyzed, the $1B was a total charge over 30
>> >> years of additional costs due to changes in the bill, and doesn’t
>> >> start till 2013 when those changes occur…
>>
>> >That doesn’t add up either. AT&T’s health care costs are increased at
>> >least $250M per year just for retirees (i.e., $1B every four years for
>> >that one item alone).
>>
>> >AT&T will certainly have higher costs for their 283,000 employees too,
>> >so $1B a year is entirely possible, or more.
>>
>> >We’ll see.
>>
>> >So the good news is $1B AFA(we)CT, and that only destroys 10,000
>> >jobs. That’s 30,000 jobs created or saved, right?
>>
>> Ok, full explanation as I heard it…
>>
>> This charge is only for a change in the prescription drug benefits.
>> Presently, the gov. lets them write off 100% of the cost of drugs by
>> its employees, PLUS there is a 25% (exact percentage not in memory…
>> ) subsidy payment from the gov. What is changing is that they can
>> have one, or the other, but not both. (in 2013!) So, this is the
>> charge that they can see now. They don’t know yet what other changes
>> will happed…
>>
>> Charlie
>
>Yes, that’s about right. Here’s the footnote on pg. 82 of AT&T’s 2009
>Annual Report:
>
> “1. During 2009, 2008 and 2007, the Medicare Prescription Drug,
> Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 reduced
> postretirement benefit cost by $255, $263 and $342. [...]”
> (numbers are millions of dollars)
>
>That deduction is going away. It was meant as an incentive for
>employers to continue offering Rx benefits for retirees, thus saving
>Medicare from paying those same benefits.
>
>Getting rid of subsidies is fine with me. This change is, however,
>part of the uncounted cost of Obamacare–they’re shifting the full
>retiree Rx cost to the private sector, who will now have to pay 100
>cents of every Rx benefit rather than the 70-odd cents they used to
>pay.
Not necessarily. Many employers will simply discontinue coverage and
Obamacare will have to pick up the whole deal.
>So, the cost of doing business is *higher*, but it counts as a
>*savings* (to the government) in the CBO figure.
>
>One assumes that AT&T has to apply this to the pension funds of
>current workers too, if Rx benefits are part of their retirement
>packages, and set aside additional reserves for the increased future
>cost anticipated. Or, just chop the benefit.
…or discontinue retirement benefits.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:40 pm
From: “David L. Jones”
D from BC wrote:
> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so…
> Time for another mega-troll.
>
> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering?
There appears to be no evidence that delusion and electronics design ability
are mutually exclusive.
Dave.
–
================================================
Check out my Electronics Engineering Video Blog & Podcast:
http://www.eevblog.com
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:57 pm
From: MadManMoon
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:47:33 -0500, “RogerN” wrote:
>
>sources:
It was all just thinnings of the gene pool, and a refilling of the hall
of souls.
Got one coming up soon.
You know not the hour.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:26 pm
From: AZ Nomad
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:45:38 -0700, D from BC wrote:
>Are you saying that death by Spanish Inquisition, Crusades and witch
>hunts were ok because there’s so much more death throughout history?
>Do you realize the reasoning you’re using can be used to tone down any
>atrocity.
There is no behavior so bizzare, so heinous or nasty that it can’t
be rationalized in the mind of a believer.
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:49 pm
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:30:14 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
>In , Archimedes’ Lever wrote:
>>On 30 Mar 2010 01:29:31 +0 UTC, don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>>
>>>In , Archimedes’ Lever wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> Funny how I had to explain to a guy at work the other day how the three
>>>>colors add up to black on a printer and white on a display. I had to
>>>>explain to him the differences between additive and subtractive color
>>>>mixing and how an opaque “color” will add together to form black.
>>>>
>>>> He acted like he still didn’t believe me as he went back to his
>>>>workstation. I did not have time from my work to go into any great depth
>>>>of show him how a display adds up the same three colors differently than
>>>>the printer does. Most all printers use opaque inks, not transparent
>>>>inks
>>>
>>> If that is true, than Canon BJC600 and i560 printers are other than
>>>”most all printers”, at least as far as the colored inks go.
>>>
>>> However, transparent inks follow subtractive color mixing well.
>>>
>>> – Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
>>
>> Stacking the three bases overlapped makes what color in the center
>>overlapped area from a jet printer?
>
> It makes what they call “composite black”, which appears to me to be
>a quite dark and very slightly greenish gray.
THAT is subtractive color mixing.
>
>> And then from a laser?
>
> That I have yet to try,
It/they are color sources. It is 100% additive color mixing and the
addition results in WHITE light. Laser printers, however, are another
story.
> since all color printers I have ever owned
>are/were inkjet printers. Same for everyone else in my family where I
>know what kind of printer they have.
>
>> Are toner powders transparent dyes, not opaque fine powders?
>
> My experience is that toners are powders that appear to me at least
>somewhat opaque. But what does that have to do with “most all printers”,
>since inkjet printers don’t use powdered toners but liquid dyed inks?
You sure you have a handle on additive and subtractive color mixing
schemas?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:55 pm
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:44:49 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
>In , Archimedes’ Lever wrote:
>>On 30 Mar ’10 01:48:14 +0 UTC, don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>>
>>>In , Archimedes’ Lever wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT), osr@uakron.edu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>With 8 bit RGB alone, I have a theoretical 16.8 million color
>>>>>system. In reality, we would use 32 or 64 color palettes. More then
>>>>>that is overload.
>>>>
>>>> We cannot even see what a modern display is capable of. They can all
>>>>pretty much produce colors that we are not able to discern. Our useable,
>>>>readable, “seeable” “color space” is INSIDE of what they can produce
>>>>already.
>>>
>>> At least nearly all red laser pointers, many red LEDs and a fair number
>>>of red traffic signals (mainly incandescent ones and the GaAlAsP LED ones
>>>common in Philadelphia but not anywhere else I have been) have a red color
>>>that I easily find to be a deeper, more pure shade of red than the red
>>>phosphor in CRT monitors and TV sets, the main reddish wavelength of most
>>>CCFL lamps, and the usaul InGaAlP red LEDs.
>>>
>>> And how about a usual green InGaAlP LED filtered by a layer or two of
>>>green Plexiglas or the like? I have yet to see any monitor or TV set
>>>produce a green like that, let alone the nice deep emerald green of the
>>>514.9/515.3 nm line pair of high pressure sodium or the deep blue-green
>>>of the 497.9/498.3 line pair of high pressure sodium, or the vivid deep
>>>blue-greenish turquoise of the 486.1 nm line of hydrogen.
>>> Heck, I have yet to see a monitor or TV set achieve the deep lime
>>>green of 532 nm laser pointers, but sometimes some look close. And
>>>turquoise-side blue InGaN LEDs have a color that I have yet to see in a
>>>monitor or a TV set, so does a 473 nm turquoise blue laser.
>>>
>>> – Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
>>
>> You look into lasers?
>
> What, you think I have to look into one to see the color of its light?
>
> What’s wrong with looking at the spot that one gets when shining a laser
>of around a hundred microwatts to several milliwatts onto a wall? Or
>looking at translucent objects irradiated by such lasers? (As in doing
>the trick of examining the filament of a frosted incandescent lamp for
>breakage?)
>
> – Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Actually, it would require a very special, white colored surface to
‘reflect’ diffusely and accurately, all of the color presented to it. An
off color white would obviously absorb some of the spectrum and throw off
“what you see”..
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Capacitance versus voltage for X7S caps?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:03 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article , JosephKK wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:47:48 -0700, Joerg wrote:
>
>>JosephKK wrote:
>>> On 25 Mar 2010 08:05:08 -0700, Joerg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jon Kirwan wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:41:39 -0700, Joerg
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jon Kirwan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:22:59 -0700, Joerg
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tried the major mfgs and the typical datasheet looks like this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.avx.com/docs/Catalogs/cx7s.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quote “Capacitance for X7S varies under the influence of electrical
>>>>>>>> operating conditions such as voltage and frequency.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then under diagrams … nada, zip, zilch. Great.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One paper listed X7S with the same voltage coefficient as X7R but
>>>>>>>> that doesn’t sound right. Anyone have a link to some hard data,
>>>>>>>> with a graph in there and preferably no marketing hype?
>>>>>>> I seem to recall reading that C0G and NP0 dielectrics have
>>>>>>> the lowest cap-vs-temp dependance and that pretty much
>>>>>>> everyone “understands” that X7R dielectrics have large
>>>>>>> coefficients and are pretty much unsuitable where it matters.
>>>>>>> They pack a lot of capacitance into a small space and that
>>>>>>> makes them great for decoupling jobs and not so much else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I don’t know remember reading anything about X7S,
>>>>>>> specifically. If they are the same as X7R, they are crap if
>>>>>>> what else I read was right.
>>>>>> The lousy ones are Y5V and Z5U. X7R is actually pretty good.
>>>>> X7R is bad enough that it distorts like hell in an audio
>>>>> amplifier (used as the Miller cap) and I know I certainly
>>>>> can’t even come close to using them in integrators, from
>>>>> actual (hilarious, for a moment) experience. Decoupling is
>>>>> what they are good for.
>>>>>
>>>> That’s what I am needing them for
>>>
>>> That is relatively easy. Polystyrene, polyethylene, or
>>> polyethylenterephthalate [PET / Mylar] are normal materials of
>>> choice. Of course if you have atypical size constraints you may
>>> have real difficulty obtaining any parts of reasonable price.
>>
>>Atypical? A 4.7uF/100V film cap is going to be humongous.
>
>About 1/2 cubic inch any way you pack it.
>Alternatively i might try the aluminum polymer electrolytics.
“Electrolytic” makes an alarm bell go off in my head against
expectation of capacitance refusing to vary with voltage.
Is there a reason for polymer to fix this for aluminum electrolytics?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:01 pm
From: Bitrex
messianic light wrote:
> On 29 Mar, 23:35, “Joel Koltner” wrote:
>> “messianic light” wrote in message
>>
>> news:90e5ab9d-3cfa-4834-a4d5-cfbaf5bbca3a@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com…
>>
>>> I am just starting with idea to design a digitally controlled analogue
>>> synthesizer
>>> does anyone have basic analogue synthesizer circuits to get me going
>>> with breadboard design?
>> Tell us what kind of frequency ranges you’d like to cover, if you just need a
>> sine wave output or modulation or other waveforms, etc…
>
> I am only just learning about synthesisers
> apparently there is sinewave, sawtooth and squarewave plus others you
> may know of
> I am looking for a simple circuit to start off with to produce a range
> of sounds that I can build on
> once I understand them
> I am more proficient at digital electronics than analogue electronics
>
> thanks for all the quick replies
> any more help would be greatly appreciated
If you can find a copy, try to get a hold of the book “Musical
Applications of Microprocessors” by Hal Chamberlin – copies show up on
Ebay from time to time. Though it’s a couple decades old, the book has
lots of analog synth circuits, and most importantly good explanations of
exactly how the circuits work.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Reverse or inverse ARP from windows/linux – no way (!?!?)
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:07 pm
From: “JosephKK”
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:16:49 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>In comp.protocols.tcp-ip Didi wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 7:37?am, “JosephKK” wrote:
>(snip)
>
>>> APR lower level than UDP? ?I don’t think so. ?Same
>>> level at best, below UDP is MAC and PHY only.
>
>> Uhm, not so sure. Same level as UDP in that they both have the
>> Ethernet protocol type set to “internet”, perhaps; but the
>> data inside a UDP packet are encapsulated into that level,
>> whereas the ARP data are purely Ethernet encapsulated.
>> This should put it one level lower – at least unofficially?
>
>MAC at layer 2 (ethernet switch level), IP at layer 3,
>TCP and UDP at layer 4.
>
>Sometimes I think that ICMP should be layer 4 (as in ping),
>other times in layer 3. It does go inside an IP packet.
>
>ARP does not have the IP (X’0800′) ethernet type, so it
>seems that it should also be layer 3.
>
>– glen
First off the TCP/IP stack is 4 levels, and the ISO model is 7 layers.
Thus there is intrinsic mismatch. Much of the TCP/IP model tools span
two or more layers in the ISO model. The real deal for TCP/IP protocol
definitions comes from the IETF RFC library.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html
Please note that this RFC information is freely available for any use.
Wikipedia tries to allocate levels but fails sometimes:
Personally i place IP and UDP at the ISO link layer and ISO the transport
layer. After all they are sending the message. (R)ARP is about different
network functions and talks to the same layer (going towards Phy) as TCP
and IP; however it functions in link, transport, and network ISO layers.
So where do you want to place it?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:15 pm
From: “JosephKK”
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:44:16 +0200, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
>Didi wrote:
>
>> I tried today to figure out a simple way to give users of our
>> new netmca ( http://tgi-sci.com/tgi/nmcatb.htm ) to locate its
>> IP address once it gets one via dhcp when there is no internet
>> at the moment
>
>I believe that, strictly speaking, that can’t happen. If you have no
>internet at the moment, you don’t have DHCP either. Remember that DHCP
>itself is a UDP service. UDP in turn works on top of IP, and that, for
>better or for worse, is “internet”.
No. UDP does not use IP all. It operates in parallel with IP, and provides
a different service. Al least that is what the RFCs say.
>
>> Turned out there is nothing like an easy way to do that!
>
>Well, the problem is nowhere near as easy as it appears at first sight.
> It’s called a “network” because it’s _work_ to set up a properly
>functioning net.
>
>> How on Earth is that possible?!
>
>You’ll want to look up “zero config networking”. That’s what the big
>guys came up with to address this very same issue. You’ll see Apple
>mentioned rather a lot, for their “Rendezvouz”/”Bonjour” project.
>
>And let me point out I’m completely flabbergasted that nobody mentioned
>this before me — not over here in c.a.embedded, anyway. I mean, come
>on guys: not a single owner of an Apple Airport base station speaking
>up, wondering what all these people keep talking about for days, when a
>”normal” WLAN box just does the job???
==============================================================================
TOPIC: we prefer net/30
was just wondering if there is any way of returning all the map
overlays currently being displayed on the map.
Thanks in advance,
Jonathan
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Google Maps API” group.
To post to this group, send email to google-maps-api@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-api+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
was just wondering if there is any way of returning all the map
overlays currently being displayed on the map.
Thanks in advance,
Jonathan
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Google Maps API” group.
To post to this group, send email to google-maps-api@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-api+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
On Mar 29, 10:10 pm, JuKKi wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> was just wondering if there is any way of returning all the map
> overlays currently being displayed on the map.
Not as part of the API. But there is nothing to keep you from coding
it yourself.
But what do you mean by “being displayed on the map”?
1. have been addOverlay’d to the map (but might not be in the
viewport)
2. have been addOverlay’d to the map and are not hidden
3. have been addOverlay’d to the map (are not hidden) and some part of
which appears in the viewport
4. have been addOverlay’d to the map (are not hidden) and all of which
appear in the viewport
…
Are you using a marker manager?
— Larry
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Jonathan
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Google Maps API” group.
To post to this group, send email to google-maps-api@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-api+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
* “jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” ”
jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.
blogspot.com/ – 1 messages, 1 author
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:07 pm
From: tooly
This will be the true legacy of this health care bill and “Obama-
Pelosi-Reid” process to cram it down our throats.
At least HALF this country will NEVER forget how this has been
‘thrust’ upon us; now at least HALF this country will have their
incomes ‘confiscated’ to whatever degree, to REDISTRIBUTE to Obama’s
people.
What this Health Care LAW has done is create a PERMANENT divide in
this land that will never mend.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:35 pm
From: Sir Frederick
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:07:26 -0700 (PDT), tooly wrote:
>This will be the true legacy of this health care bill and “Obama-
>Pelosi-Reid” process to cram it down our throats.
>
>At least HALF this country will NEVER forget how this has been
>’thrust’ upon us; now at least HALF this country will have their
>incomes ‘confiscated’ to whatever degree, to REDISTRIBUTE to Obama’s
>people.
>
>What this Health Care LAW has done is create a PERMANENT divide in
>this land that will never mend.
Dictators do not care about such.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:43 pm
From: “Mark Earnest”
“tooly” wrote in message
news:1d1d5a8e-d33a-4edb-98fc-cb3b46a9f495@8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com…
> This will be the true legacy of this health care bill and “Obama-
> Pelosi-Reid” process to cram it down our throats.
>
> At least HALF this country will NEVER forget how this has been
> ‘thrust’ upon us; now at least HALF this country will have their
> incomes ‘confiscated’ to whatever degree, to REDISTRIBUTE to Obama’s
> people.
>
> What this Health Care LAW has done is create a PERMANENT divide in
> this land that will never mend.
**The world is being turned upside down.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What else can we be required to buy?
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:09 pm
From: “Clave”
“Poetic Justice” wrote in message
news:4bb16782$0$12745$ec3e2dad@unlimited.usenetmonster.com…
> On 3/27/2010 8:21 PM, Clave wrote:
>> “Immortalist” wrote in message
>> news:64568b34-8feb-4b57-afb1-7debf9dcc373@g28g2000prb.googlegroups.com…
>> On Mar 27, 5:09 pm, Michael Gordge wrote:
>>> On Mar 24, 12:55 pm, “Clave”
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yep. Trips to the Bahamas and the French Riviera.
>>>
>>> And where the fuck do politicians go with money they steal (tax) from
>>> productive human beings?
>>>
>>> At least with banks you have a choice (notwithstanding the dopey
>>> regulations that ewe fucking brain dead lefturdian and right wing
>>> conservative morons invent to control them), there is no choice
>>> between republican and democrat, ewe fucking moronic Kantian idiot.
>>>
>>> MG
>>
>> Do Randroids get Hemroids!?
>
> Government employees claim hemorrhoids as workers comp(Job place injury)
Watch your goddamn attributions. I didn’t write what you’re replying to.
Jim
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:53 pm
From: tooly
On Mar 27, 8:17 pm, Immortalist wrote:
> On Mar 27, 5:09 pm, Michael Gordge wrote:
>
> > On Mar 24, 12:55 pm, “Clave”
> > wrote:
>
> > > Yep. Trips to the Bahamas and the French Riviera.
>
> > And where the fuck do politicians go with money they steal (tax) from
> > productive human beings?
>
> > At least with banks you have a choice (notwithstanding the dopey
> > regulations that ewe fucking brain dead lefturdian and right wing
> > conservative morons invent to control them), there is no choice
> > between republican and democrat, ewe fucking moronic Kantian idiot.
>
> > MG
>
> Do Randroids get Hemroids!?
>
> Anyway if there is a tax to fix pot holes in front of your house the
> money goes to gas and repair supplies. Else everyone has to fix their
> own holes in front of their own houses in the Randian nightmare. If
> someone wants to feel free and leave the pot hole in front of their
> house everyone who goes by needs to hit the hole and mess up their
> suspension; hey isn’t libertarian freedom great?
A few millage points on the penny is not the same as 1/6th of the
economy.
One is maintenance for infrastructure while the other is a power grab.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: NASA’s Grace Sees Rapid Spread in Greenland Ice Loss— NOT
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:32 pm
From: Last Post
On Mar 29, 10:31 pm, Arindam Banerjee
wrote:
> On Mar 30, 1:33 am, Last Post wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 9:24 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > chances are you dont have the brain capacity to remember what you did
> > > yesterday, now run along.
>
> > ø ROTFLMAO
> > All that data from GRACE has been
> > debunked by teams on the ground
>
> >
>
> Climate change is being caused by pollution of the upper layers of the
> atmosphere by the exhausts from the jet engines.
ø NONSENSE:— All of the jet trails fall to earth in minutes
> Relentlessly,
> thousands of tons of carbon dioxide and water vapour are getting
> poured into the upper layers of the atmosphere, where they remain for
> ever.
ø Have you ever heard of gravity?
Your ignorance is manifest.
> Because of their heaviness, carbon dioxide would have come down
> in due course, but no, because of daily flights this level is not
> going down, but is increasing.
ø You are denying gravity
> This is the real reason for global
> warming -
ø There is no global warming!!!!
> the radiation from the earth is getting reflected back down,
> as the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are acting as a
> mirror. This never happened before in human history. This is an
> absolutely new event, and very real.
ø “This never happened before” and is not
happening now.
ø The issue is really irrelevant.
Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.
Get used to it!!
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The point.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:37 pm
From: Les Cargill
retrogrouch wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:27:58 -0400, Les Cargill
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Govertnemtn employees can invariably make more money in the private
>>> secotr. Govet. needs benefits to make the compensation at all
>>> attractive.
>>
>> Why should government employment be attractive *at all*?
>
>
> You don’t want good people?
>
I figure a sense of public service is probably
more important than money. We don’t seem to have too much
trouble attracting military officers, yet compensation
for the level of responsibility there is far
below what it is in the private sector.
> Where’d al that captialist fervor about talent following money?
Why do you think that applies to government?
–
Les Cargill
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What makes a good scientist?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:45 pm
From: “Mark Earnest”
“Yap” wrote in message
news:b30fbeb9-e529-449f-9f69-75b70803420a@n20g2000prh.googlegroups.com…
On Mar 29, 5:58 am, “Mark Earnest” wrote:
> “John Jones” wrote in message
>
> news:hoolgj$3k9$1@news.eternal-september.org…
>
> > There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy and
> > leaps
> > from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering to onlookers, who
> > are awestruck by this real-time display of science in action.
>
> > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler is
> > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are
> > impressed
> > by this display as it reminds them of the hidden strengths of science.
>
> A scientist is an esteemed colleague that patronizes other scientists
> in order to have the same returned to himself, with little regard
> for reality.
A reply from delusional plateform.
**Oh right, take out the word scientist and insert the word atheist.
Works just as well.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: “jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa
” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://
jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:45 pm
From: Naeem
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for
pakistanis” “jobs in saudi” “saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi
job visa” “saudi job consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on
http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ “jobs in saudi arabia
universities” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi”
“saudi jobs” “saudi job vacancies” “saudi job visa” “saudi job
consultants” “saudi jobs site” “jobs site” on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
v
==============================================================================
TOPIC: THE MYSTERY OF THE CARNOT THEOREM
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:52 pm
From: Pentcho Valev
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm
Athel Cornish-Bowden: “Is the 2nd law of thermodynamics true? There is
probably no law in science that has been tested so thoroughly, by so
many people, over such a long period. (Why? Because lots of people
would like it to be wrong, and if they could find a loophole it might
well make them very rich; as Benno ter Kuile pointed out, an instant
Nobel prize would be only a minor part of the rewards). None of them
has been able to disprove it, so the only reasonable interpretation
for the reasonable person is that it is true. Mr Valev thinks
otherwise, and there was a great deal of discussion of this during May
to September 1997, during which period Mr Valev’s scheme for tangling
the threads was so successful that you will have great difficulty
trying to follow any of the arguments. Suffice it to say that if Mr
Valev really believed what he was saying he would not be writing
nonsense on this news group, he would be building the machine that
would make him the richest man in Bulgaria (or even the world).”
“Bulgaria” is the key word. Athel Cornish-Bowden is a decent person
and would never use the same argument against a US professor:
“Clean-cut and middle-aged, a tenured professor at a conservative
Catholic university, Sheehan is hardly a rebel. Yet for years, he and
a few other physicists have been pressing peers to re-examine the
Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the most celebrated and cherished
tenets of physics. (…) But Sheehan suggests big things are possible
if even the tiniest of violations can be proven, and ultimately
exploited in an economically feasible way. For example, it might
become possible to convert ambient heat into an infinite energy
source, he said.”
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein’s relativity is not the first “theory” that just silently
died. Classical thermodynamics has had a similar heyday but now even
epitaph-like texts are difficult to find:
Athel Cornish-Bowden: “The concept of entropy was introduced to
thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for
it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to
“energy”. In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same
to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked,
he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to
everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult
concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished
mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own
major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of
entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to
the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is
absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical
equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to
scientists who need the concept for their work.”
(Here Athel Cornish-Bowden denounces thermodynamics but elsewhere he
fiercely defends it: http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm )
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
Jos Uffink: “The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made
a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in
the period 18221854. He characterises the theory, even in its present
state, as ‘a dismal swamp of obscurity’ and ‘a prime example to show
that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds’. He is
outright cynical about the respect with which nonmathematicians treat
the Second Law: “Clausius’ verbal statement of the second law makes no
sense [. . . ]. All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition; a century of
philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment; a
century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
the unclean. Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to
follow the argument Clausius offers [. . . ] and seven times has it
blanked and gravelled me. [. . . ] I cannot explain what I cannot
understand.” [...] What is it that makes this physical law so
obstreperous that every attempt at a clear formulation seems to have
failed? Is it just the usual sloppiness of physicists? Or is there a
deeper problem? And what exactly is the connection with the arrow of
time and irreversibility? Could it be that this is also just based on
bluff? Perhaps readers will shrug their shoulders over these
questions. Thermodynamics is obsolete; for a better understanding of
the problem we should turn to more recent, statistical theories. But
even then the questions we are about to study have more than a purely
historical importance. The problem of reproducing the Second Law,
perhaps in an adapted version, remains one of the toughest, and
controversial problems in statistical physics. [...] This summary
leads to the question whether it is fruitful to see irreversibility or
time-asymmetry as the essence of the second law. Is it not more
straightforward, in view of the unargued statements of Kelvin, the
bold claims of Clausius and the strained attempts of Planck, to give
up this idea? I believe that Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was right in her
verdict that the discussion about the arrow of time as expressed in
the second law of the thermodynamics is actually a RED HERRING.”
ftp://ftp.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/SISTA/markovsky/reports/06-46.pdf
“From the pedagogical point of view, thermodynamics is a disaster. As
the authors rightly state in the introduction, many aspects are
“riddled with inconsistencies”. They quote V.I. Arnold, who concedes
that “every mathematician knows it is impossible to understand an
elementary course in thermodynamics”. Nobody has eulogized this
confusion more colorfully than the late Clifford Truesdell. On page 6
of his book “The Tragicomical History of Thermodynamics” 1822-1854
(Springer Verlag, 1980), he calls thermodynamics “a dismal swamp of
obscurity”. Elsewhere, in despair of trying to make sense of the
writings of some local heros as De Groot, Mazur, Casimir, and
Prigogine, Truesdell suspects that there is “something rotten in the
(thermodynamic) state of the Low Countries” (see page 134 of Rational
Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1969).”
Only a few profiteers in science are still making career and money by
publishing anything (there is no one in the world who would care about
whether the concept of entropy was VALIDLY deduced from “heat will
flow into cold but not the opposite”):
“In 1988, Stephen Hawking gave the world A Brief History of Time. Now
Sean Carroll goes From Eternity to Here. [...] There are many ways to
think about entropy. The concept was initially expressed in terms of
thermodynamics: heat will flow into cold but not the opposite. It has
also been thought of as a trend toward chaos, and many people may want
to say that their lives increase in entropy, but this is also an
inadequate expression since chaos can be low-entropy too. Neither is
entropy just a state of equilibrium. Perhaps a good way to describe it
without invoking a long, scientific explanation is the uselessness and
inability to do work. Once a bottle of perfume opens, it will settle
into the air, which is its most likely state of configuration, and
everything about our experience tells us that it will not flow back.
But entropy is merely a tendency, and if time were an inscrutable
thing, having no affect upon us so that we may observe its passage in
years that can only be expressed in large exponents, the perfume may,
in fact, go back into the bottle. Because the perfume is initially in
the bottle, and because the rest of the universe does not seem to
exist in a state of maximum entropy, it most likely evolved from a
state of low entropy, which accounts for every moment since the Big
Bang. It is the thing before the Big Bang that galvanizes physicists
to search for more complete theories of the universe. Carroll cannot
answer every question (I’d like to think that our universe is alone,
and in lieu of that I’m partial to the baby universe explanation), but
readers should also feel stimulated and enthralled when he asks them.
After reading the book, maybe eternity won’t feel so long after all.”
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do we feel aroused when two ideas contradict each other?
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:00 pm
From: “Rod Speed”
Immortalist wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Immortalist wrote
>>> bigflet…@gmail.com >>> Immortalist wrote
>>>>> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>>>> More a case of ‘know thyselve’s.
>>> That would be more like “relax and know thyself and get eaten alive” theory.
>>> Being disturbed/aroused by inconsistency is probably a survival instinct.
>> Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
>> Its MUCH more likely that it actually helps with survival
>> if you can handle congitive dissonance effortlessly.
> I agree. But also it would also help one’s survival to recognize
> arousal arising from conflicting sense data and memories.
You havent established that.
> This probably would apply to animals also,
Cant see they get cognative dissonance.
> these instincts are some of the oldest.
You dont know that.
> Section IX of the Enquiry is a short section entitled “Of
> the Reason of Animals.” Hume suggests that we reason
> by analogy, linking similar causes and similar effects.
Thats very arguable indeed, most obviously with rigorous science.
> He suggests that his theories regarding human understanding
> might then be well supported if we could find something
> analogous to be true with regard to animal understanding.
Its very far from clear that animals actually have any real understanding at all.
> He identifies two respects in which this analogy holds.
> First, animals, just like humans, learn from experience
> and come to infer causal connections between events.
Yes.
> Second, animals certainly do not learn to make
> these inferences by means of reason or argument.
Yes.
> Nor do children,
Thats very arguable indeed.
> and nor, Hume argues, do adults or even philosophers.
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
In spades with the adults involved in rigorous science.
> We infer effects from causes not by means of human reason,
Plenty of the time we do just that, most obviously with fault diagnosis.
> but through a species of belief, whereby the imagination comes to
> perceive some sort of necessary connection between cause and effect.
That isnt even possible when diagnosing a fault you have never seen before.
> We often admire the innate instincts of animals that help them get by,
And anyone who has had anything to do with animals
knows that it can get them into one hell of a mess too.
It can even see them die when they follow their innate instincts when that is not appropriate.
Humans are quite capable of reasoning past innate instincts when they choose to or need to.
> and Hume suggests that our ability to infer causal connections is a similar kind of instinct.
He’s wrong.
And thats got nothing to do with cognative dissonance anyway.
> Of The Reason Of Animals
> David Hume (1711�76).
> An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
> ALL our reasonings concerning matter of fact are founded on a
> species of Analogy, which leads us to expect from any cause the
> same events, which we have observed to result from similar causes.
He’s just plain wrong, most obviously with the diagnosis of
a complex fault that you havent seen anything like before.
> Where the causes are entirely similar, the analogy is perfect,
> and the inference, drawn from it, is regarded as certain and
> conclusive: nor does any man ever entertain a doubt, where he
> sees a piece of iron, that it will have weight and cohesion of parts;
> as in all other instances, which have ever fallen under hit observation.
Plenty do, most obviously when matching a magician
and when what you see makes no sense etc.
> But where the objects have not so exact a similarity, the analogy is
> less perfect, and the inference is less conclusive; though still it has
> some force, in proportion to the degree of similarity and resemblance.
And sometimes there is no analogy at all, even a less than perfect one.
> The anatomical observations, formed upon one animal, are,
> by this species of reasoning, extended to all animals; and it is…
Thats not reasoning, thats just association, a different animal entirely.
> http://www.bartleby.com/37/3/13.html
>>> You don’t want to forget the cave man.
>> You aint established that they are relevant.
> The relevance to me is the attention to arousal. And particularly the
> evolution of “inference” between cognition in animals and humans.
Irrelevant to what is being discussed, cognative dissonance.
> I might sound scatter brain on this because I have been
> trying to invent a way to talk about it for many years.
>>> Error Management Theory
>>> Humans live in an uncertain world. We rely on our senses to pick up
>>> information from the world, and then use our information processing
>>> capacities to make inferences about the true state of the world.
>>> Real threats to our survival and relationships are not always readily
>>> apparent, given the ambiguity and uncertainty of the information.
>> Thats hardly ever the case and has no relevance to cognative dissonance anyway.
> I was thinking of the relation of arousal to the evolution of
> inference neurons in brains, sorry, a little deep and off topic.
>>> Consider a relatively simple problem of walking through
>>> the woods and fleetingly sensing a slithering object scurry
>>> underneath some leaves in the path directly in front of you.
>> Its almost certainly of no significance what so ever.
>>> There are two possible states of reality: either there is a
>>> dangerous snake in your path
>> Nope, if its slithering away, its not a problem, just let it leave.
> Just let it there seems like a pathetic response,
Nope, its what anyone with any clue about snakes does.
They dont slither up and savage things the sized of humans, they try to get away.
They dont slither up to anything they are going to bite either,
they strike instead, because that is much more effective.
> does it imply some skill learned along the way or something vague?
Just a knowledge of how snakes operate.
> Are you claiming that phobias are not hard wired instinctual drives we are born with?
Didnt say a word about phobias.
And your line cant explain phobias about mice etc which dont run up and savage people very much.
> Phobias hooked up with or evolutionarily modified from “food
> avoidance” instincts, modified from smell disgust and the small
> “freeze” between fight and flight and the recent discovery of the
> “worry circuit” in the brain all this stuff has it wiring from, leads
> to all the new frontier of “human nature” and its wiring?
> Is that sentence a Gordian knot or what!?
Just a steaming turd.
> Disgust is an emotion, typically associated with
> things that are perceived as unclean or inedible.
Thats wrong too, most obviously with disgust about the obscenely obese.
Or disgust about someone who picks their nose and eats what they get out of their nose.
And this has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed anyway, cognitative dissonance.
>>> or there is not a dangerous snake in your path. Given
>>> the incomplete and uncertain information that you have
>>> percieved, there are also two inferences you could make.
>> Or you might get real radical and see if you can see any snake
>> and if you can, see if it looks like one of the rare poisonous ones.
> These is some real cause and effect empirical evidence about
> these neural structures we are born with called phobias.
Thats not a phobia, thats doing what makes sense.
> Are you promoting the idea that there is no human nature pre-wired into us,
Nope, in fact I have said the exact opposite, most obviously with little
kids that very quickly exhibit an instinct for what is and is not fair,
before they can even speak or understand what is said to them.
> that there are no biases that humans have because they are human,
I wouldnt be that stupid.
> or are you just jerkin around here with a strange sounding subject, good buddy?
Just exposing your wank for what it is.
>>> There is indeed a dangerous snake, and you act to avoid it.
>> Dont need to if its slithering away, its already leaving, stupid.
>>> Or you could conclude that there is no snake and continue walking down the path.
>> Or you might take the precaution of waiting till whatever it is has left etc.
>> Nothing to do with cognative dissonance.
> I admit my orientation is the evolution of an entire package or
> suite of instincts, many related in seemingly paradoxical ways.
Your orientation is actually to mindless rave on about complete irrelevancys.
>>> There are also two possible ways that you could be wrong.
>> There are a hell of a lot more than just two.
>>> You could believe that there is a snake when in fact no
>>> snake exists. Or you could believe that no snake when
>>> in fact a venomous rattler is lurking right in your path.
>> They dont slither around when something approaches, stupid.
> The author is trying to distinguish between false-positive and false-negative errors.
And fucked up very comprehensively indeed and flaunted the fact
that he doesnt have a fucking clue about how snakes operate.
>>> The costs of these two types of errors, however, are vastly different.
>> Not necessarily, most obviously when you let it leave or just wait till it leaves, whatever it is.
>>> In the first case, your belief causes you to incur the trivial
>>> metabolic cost of taking an unnecessary evasive action.
>> You dont need to do that either, just let whatever it is leave.
>>> By giving a wide birth to the area that you believe
>>> harbors a snake, you have merely gone out of your
>>> way a little, incurring a minor delay in your walk.
>> And you dont even do anything except pause and let it leave if you have a clue.
>>> In the second case, however, failing to detect a snake
>>> that is in fact lurking in your path can cost you your life.
>> Hardly ever.
>>> THe two ways of being wrong carry substantially different costs.
>> There is no need to be wrong at all if you just let whatever it is leave.
> Look I don’t want to make you look ignorant
Not even possible for you to do that.
> because I think your a very smart guy but your common
> sense folk psychology is bleeding over into a folk science,
Like hell it is. Its completely trivial to work out how snakes operate.
> the kind that got people tortured in the Middle Ages
> because it all sounded so logical and persuasive.
Pigs arse it ever did.
>>> Now imagine that this scenario not only repeats itself
>>> thousands and thousands of times in your liftime,
>> That doesnt happen.
>>> but billions and billions of times over human evolutionary history.
>>> Those who made the first kind of mistake tended to survive,
>>> whereas those who made the second kind of mistake tended to die.
>> It aint that binary, fool.
> How is he making it sound binary when he is describing two statistical
> population with each individual having more or less of some traits?
Like hell he is doing anything of the kind.
>>> As a result, modern humans have descended from a line of
>>> ancestors whose inferences about the uncertain world erred in
>>> the direction of believing that snakes existed more than they do.
>> Wrong when the evolving happened were there are no poisonous snakes.
>>> These can be called adaptive errors.
>> Only by wankers.
>>> Consider uncertainty about whether your romantic partner is having an
>>> affair or is likely to have an affair…. Continued on page 76 The Dangerous
>>> Passion – Why jealousy is necessary as love and sex – David M Buss
>> Wota fucking wanker.
>>> The Dangerous Passion:
>>> Why Jealousy Is As Necessary As Love and Sex
>> Just another wanker with a title designed to flog his shit.
>>> by David M. Buss
>>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684850818/
>> Just another completely mindless steaming turd.
> Oh ya, David Buss created the very first textbook and
> class in evolutionary psychology some years back.
So fucking what ?
> There are other textbooks now, but that guy started the revolution
> that has taken over more than 80% of evolutionary science.
Pigs arse he did.
>> Why are you into completely mindless steaming turds ?
> Because I like to understand what evolutionary theory offers
> to guide life than some fake religious or social dogma?
Pity its completely irrelevant to what was being discussed.
>>>> The part of the brain that responds to actions resulting in well
>>>> being is often countered by the part that wants inactivity and
>>>> laziness. We use a common term to ‘tame’ such contradictions, but
>>>> most do not really grasp what they are saying. The term is ‘self
>>>> discipline’ ,
>>>> more accurately ‘selfs disciplined.
>>>> Either aspects can dominate, which leads to inbalance. The ‘bits of
>>>> the brain’ do not negotiate. “You” officiate.The ‘self’ is not
>>>> being disciplined, but disciplining.
>>>> Of course there are also ‘parts of the brain’ that, not
>>>> understanding such basic principles, come up with all sorts of
>>>> weird and wonderful theories.Not ‘full proof’ he states….Id
>>>> never have guessed!!! (that comes from the sarcastic part of my
>>>> brain, but ‘I’ decided to use it
>>>> to emphasise a useful insight.)
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:02 pm
From: “Rod Speed”
M Purcell wrote:
> On Mar 29, 6:09 pm, Immortalist wrote:
>> On Mar 25, 7:29 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 25, 6:40 pm, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mar 25, 6:24 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 25, 5:46 pm, Immortalist wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> .
>>
>>>>> A contradiction indicates a false premise. We apply Occams Razor.
>>
>>>> If we chose in favor of defending our ego so we feel like good and
>>>> normal people are history and science really just means to those
>>>> instinctual ends? This razor you mention may cut away at the truth
>>>> so
>>>> we can feel good about how we are and do decide.
>>
>>>> The Psychology of Inadequate Justification
>>
>>>> Attitude change as a means of reducing dissonance is not, of
>>>> course,
>>
>>>> The Social Animal – Elliot Aronson – 8th Edition
>>>> 1999http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
>>
>>> The contradiction is real, Joe was not honest. I have a problem with
>>> tact but I believe people generally want to know the truth, or at
>>> least your perception of it. Rationalizations or self justification
>>> are another matter.
>>
>> Remember, people hold a multitude of cognitions simultaneously, and
>> these cognitions form
>>
>> 1. irrelevant,
>> 2. consonant
>> 3. dissonant
>>
>> relationships with one another.
>>
>> 1. Cognitive Irrelevance probably describes the bulk of the
>> relationships among a person¹s cognitions. Irrelevance simply means
>> that the two cognitions have nothing to do with each other. Two
>> cognitions are consonant if one cognition follows from, or fits with,
>> the other.
>>
>> 2. People like consonance among their cognitions. We do not know
>> whether this stems from the nature of the human organism or whether
>> it is learned during the process of socialization, but people appear
>> to prefer cognitions that fit together to those that do not. It is
>> this simple observation that gives the theory of cognitive
>> dissonance its interesting form.
>>
>> 3. Two cognitions are said to be dissonant if one cognition follows
>> from the opposite of another. What happens to people when they
>> discover dissonant cognitions? A person who has dissonant or
>> discrepant cognitions is said to be in a state of psychological
>> dissonance, which is experienced as unpleasant psychological tension.
>> This tension state has drivelike properties that are much like those
>> of hunger and thirst. When a person has been deprived of food for
>> several hours, he/she experiences unpleasant tension and is driven to
>> reduce the unpleasant tension state that results. Reducing the
>> psychological sate of dissonance is not as simple as eating or
>> drinking however.
>>
>> http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/stephens/cdback.html
> I suspect it’s the drive towards self consistency, we don’t like to
> be wrong, being wrong means we make bad survival decisions.
Its hardly ever about survival decisions.
We dont like being wrong because being wrong produces a less than
the best outcome that we would have got if we had not been wrong.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9DVJE_bhVUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hSW67ySCio
>
> Oldies but goodies.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Save the Children
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:11 pm
From: The Black Monk
On Mar 29, 10:50 pm, Nate wrote:
> On 3/29/2010 8:24 AM, The Black Monk wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 7:51 pm, Nate wrote:
> >> On 3/28/2010 3:31 PM, RVG wrote:
>
> >>> Nate a écrit :
> >>>> On 3/27/2010 6:49 PM, The Black Monk wrote:
> >>>>> Demogoguery. The percentage of Roman Catholic priests having sexual
> >>>>> relations with minors is about the same as the percentage of teachers
> >>>>> doing the same. Yet there is no mass outrage and threats to pull kids
> >>>>> out of schools.
>
> >>>> The teaching profession doesn’t claim to represent God. Very big
> >>>> difference.
>
> >>> Plus a certain percentage of cathobears are teachers, which increases
> >>> the total amount of perverts in the profession.
>
> >> One would expect an institution that preaches morality and compassion
> >> for the weak would exercise a higher degree in discerning good and evil,
> >> and then make every effort to root out that evil in its midst, than our
> >> secular institutions which they rail against for being “Godless.” Given
> >> a choice between a Godless agency that fires and prosecutes pedophiles
> >> versus a supposedly God-fearing organization that does neither, I’ll
> >> side with the former any day. The latter could at least pretend to give
> >> a sh*t about child safety but they can’t even do that.
>
> > Schools have a long history of coverups and shuffling around teachers
> > who abuse minors.
>
> Maybe a long history before *recent* history, i.e. the last several
> decades.
No, the Oregon stuff was happening a couple of years ago, not several
decades ago.
> That was before it was recognized that diddling kids and using
> one’s authority to rape employees was wrong and should be prosecuted.
One would think people hadn’t just figured this out 5 years ago?
> That the RC remains decades behind secular institutions on the issue of
> sexual assault is an indictment on its on authority on matters of morality.
Is it behind? Teachers unions and school boards continued to cover up
and shuffle around teachers a couple of years ago.
>
> > See here:
>
> We’re not interested in anecdotal cut and paste stories from the
> internet. Finding a singular exception
Those two articles prove that sexual relationships with minors and
coverups of those violations are widespread among the large Orthodox
Jewish community in New York and within the entire State of Oregon
school systems. These are hardly “singular exceptions” and anyone can
finds hundreds more articles about non-RC organizations dealing with
minors to prove they are not “singular exceptions.”
> of the “other guy’s doin’ it” [a
> logical fallacy, BTW] doesn’t excuse, nor minimize, the widespread and
> institutional pattern within the modern RC hierarchy to cover up and
> protect pedophile clergy.
No, it does not, nor did I ever imply that it excuses it. What it
does do is show that RC hierarchy has been no worse than that of other
organizations made up of people and that the massive media circus
surrounding this is very selective in its choice of target.
> The RC claims to teach and promote the will of
> God. The teaching profession doesn’t.
Are you suggesting that pedophilia to some degree more acceptable
among those that don’t teach and promote the will of God? Don’t you
think it should be universally and equally unacceptable no matter by
whom?
> If RC clergy believed in what they
> would have others do, one would expect they would have a much better
> record than secular organizations in actually doing it.
Given the fact that the ranks of the RC priesthood have far more
people struggling with sexual problems than does the general
population the RC church’s record is clearly superior to that of
secular organizations which are not staffed by celibates who are
struggling with sexual issues. This does not mean that the RC Church
ought to be complacent or that serious disgusting crimes did not occur
or that the RC church should not improve. It merely means that its
problems should be seen in perspective, and that perspective is that
given the background of its human material it’s doing a much better
job than most other organizations.
> That they don’t says much. At the very least it shows they don’t fear, perhaps don’t
> believe in, their Maker.
>
> > —————-
> > The interesting question is, why does the American media seem to
> > single out the Roman Catholic Church, particularly during the
> > holidays? An expression of typical Anglo-Saxon anti-Catholic bigotry?
>
> They’re not. One hears of pedophilia on the news all the time.
I suspect that for the general public the word “priest” is now more
often associated with the word “pedophile” than are the words
“teacher” or “coach” even though those professions are about as likely
to engage in illegal acts with minors as are priests. Do you
disagree?
Why do you think that is, given that the rates of offending are about
the same?
> The
> question is why a religious organization in the 21st still pretends they
> can get away with cover ups while expecting the independent minded to
> not ask questions.
Who knows. Not as technologically savvy?
regards,
BM
> It’s hardly an “American” media thing. The RC pedophilia scandals are
> widely reported in the news across Europe and Latin America. This latest
> episode broke out in Europe. I suppose that qualifies as a… heh…
> conspiracy.
>
> Nate- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Abortion improves and increases the value of life!
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:29 pm
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
yarrido@aol.com wrote:
>On Mar 22, 11:01�pm, rfisc…@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> yarr…@aol.com wrote:
>> >On Mar 20, 11:29�am, Rob Par wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:35:02 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
>>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Mar 19, 7:34�pm, Rob Par wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:42:06 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Mar 19, 1:20�pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mar 18, 6:59�pm, Rob Par wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:54:23 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
>>
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> > >On Mar 17, 1:48�pm, Rob Par wrote:
>> >> >> >> > >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:34:04 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
>>
>> >> >> >> > >> >where you state that a person is considered guilty in opposition of
>> >> >> >> > >> >presumption of innocence. That was when I realized how wrong I was.
>> >> >> >> > >> >During an investigation, the investigator follows the evidence where
>> >> >> >> > >> >it leads without consideration of guilt or innocence. He does so if he
>> >> >> >> > >> >is a good investigator. If he is a lousy and incompetent one, then he
>> >> >> >> > >> >does what you describe. �Mind you, I am not disagreeing with you that
>> >> >> >> > >> >there are some of those out there, but such an assumption is unfair
>> >> >> >> > >> >and downright rude to those who are good honest investigators working
>> >> >> >> > >> >with great care and diligence to discover the truth behind the crimes
>> >> >> >> > >> >they investigate.
>>
>> >> >> >> > >> >Having said what I said, what does all this have to do with my topic
>> >> >> >> > >> >of how we determine the value of human life?
>>
>> >> >> >> >Nor should you have any right to deny me the right
>> >> >> >> > to assistance in ending my own life.
>>
>> > it in neatly and quickly and
>> >> >> >with a minimum of fuss. �I want someone to have as much compassion for
>> >> >> >*me* as they would have for a terminally ill pet.
>>
>> >> >> I concur heartily.
>>
>> >> >Why wait until then. You have just set a case for treating you like an
>> >> >animal.
>>
>> >> Yarrido are you naturally stupid, are do you work at it? Many of us
>> >> want our right to control of our own bodies to include the right to a
>> >> simple painless death.
>>
>> >No one is guaranteed a painless death. Why are you so special that you
>> >should be?
>>
>> Nobody has any right to torture other people. �Why do you think that
>> you should have such a right?
>
> Never said I had a right to torture people.
Sure looks like you do, but if you say you don’t then you clearly have
no business telling people that they must suffer in pain rather than
use medication to manage their own lives.
–
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:30 pm
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
yarrido@aol.com wrote:
>On Mar 23, 10:14 am, Rob Par wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:48:48 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
>>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>> >>When I no
>> >> longer am, I plan to end it, one way or the other. But it will be on
>> >> *my* say-so, not that of the gubmint nor any religion.
>>
>> >> And as far as being “treated like an animal” goes, when it comes to
>> >> end-of-life issues, we treat animals far, far better than we treat
>> >> humans. We enable terminal animals to be put out of their suffering.
>> >> We make humans drag it out as long as it takes to die “naturally,”
>> >> with no thought to their pain or their personal wishes.
>>
>> >> My hope for you is that you live a long, long life – with esophageal
>> >> cancer.
>>
>> >Actually, that’s a pretty good call. Due to my genetics, I am prone to
>> >that. It may be a good call, but it is not a very nice thing to say.
>> >Would you like to take it back?
>> >Just because we disagree, we don’t have to be disagreeable.
>>
>> You are easily the most disagreeable lying son of a bitch on this
>> group. A shit head like you doesn’t deserve any respect, because of
>> your behavior. You want respect, have respect for others.
>
> Lies are easily shown to be such and I have not seen anything
>like that shown about the positions I have taken here.
“Positions” aren’t lies. Statements are lies.
–
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Research Showing Carbon Emissions at All Time High — And Accelerating
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:30 pm
From: Bret Cahill
> http://www.energyboom.com/emerging/research-showing-carbon-emissions-…
>
> March 29, 2010
>
> Research Showing Carbon Emissions at All Time High — And Accelerating
>
> By Harry Tournemille
>
> Data taken at at Norway’s Zeppelin station on the Arctic Svalbard
> archipelagohttp://www.svalbard-images.com/indicates an increase in
> carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere — in spite of 2009′s economic
> downturn, and efforts to improve global emissions.
>
> Researchers from the Norwegian Polar Institutehttp://npiweb.npolar.no/and Stockholm University — where the
> aforementioned data was examined — found carbon dioxide levels rose
> to a median 393.71 parts per million of the atmosphere in the first
> two weeks of March from 393.17 in the same period of 2009, extending
> years of gains.
>
> More Bad News:
>
> But perhaps what is most disconcerting about the information is how
> carbon emissions appear to be accelerating, which is surprising many.
>
> “Looking back at the data we have from Zeppelin since the end of the
> 1980s it seems like the increase is accelerating” Johan Stroem, of the
> Norwegian Polar Institute, said of the data compiled with Stockholm
> University.
>
> The rise in concentrations, close to an annual peak before
> carbon-absorbing plants start to grow in the northern hemisphere
> spring, was below the average gain over the year of around 2 parts per
> million.
>
> “It still confirms the rise,” Stroem said of the data from the first
> two weeks of March.
>
> Concentrations vary from week to week depending on the source of
> Arctic winds.
>
> Not What Was Expected:
>
> Due to the global recession in 2009, which also meant a decline in
> industrial activity, The International Energy Agency estimated in
> September that emissions of carbon dioxide would fall about 2.6
> percent.
>
> However, this new information may require them to change their tune.
>
> Since every carbon molecule emitted into the atmosphere tends to hang
> around for several years, the trend towards increase is likely not
> over.
>
> The data “seem to show that we continue to emit as if there was no
> tomorrow,” Kim Holmen, director of research at the Norwegian Polar
> Institute, said of the carbon readings.
>
> ____________________________________________________
>
> Harry
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:34 pm
From: Sir Frederick
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:12:55 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist wrote:
>On Mar 29, 2:23�pm, “White bird” wrote:
>> If you have imaginary friends as a child, it is considered
>> quite normal and healthy.
>>
>> If you have imaginary friends as an adult, it is considered
>> schizophrenia.
>
>[E] – GODS/SPIRITS AS PARTNERS: IMAGINARY COMPANIONS/FRIENDS
>
>Although we are not aware of it, the inference systems that manage our
>interaction with other people are full-time workers. We constantly use
>intuitions delivered by these systems. Indeed, we also use them when
>we are not actually interacting with people. All inference systems can
>run in a decoupled mode, that is, disengaged from actual external
>inputs from the environment or external output in behavior. A crucial
>human capacity is to imagine counterfactuals-What would happen if I
>had less meat than I actually have? What would happen if I chose this
>path rather than that one?-and this applies to interaction too. Before
>we make a particular move in any social interaction, we automatically
>consider several scenarios. This capacity allows us, for instance, to
>choose this rather than that course of action because we can imagine
>other people’s reactions to what we would do.
>
“inference systems” in coupled mode = ‘virtual reality’
Qualia are the representations of those inferences.
Then ‘we’ are evolved to consider those qualia as ‘real’.
Deceit works, even ‘self’ deceit.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Irrational financial choices were once rational (Evolutionary Economics)
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:37 pm
From: Day Brown
Les Cargill wrote:
> But maybe that’s more important to him than the object itself. Thing is,
> who am I to call him a fool? Or anybody?
By that logic, all recreational drugs should be legal. If the drug makes
the customer feel good for only a while, but bad for the rest of his
life, that’s his problem, not the govt’s.
The fact that some drugs actually change the thinking process is not a
problem for law enforcement until they actually harm someone else.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OK, Maybe Liberdopia Ain’t Breaking Out In Michigan . . .
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:41 pm
From: Bret Cahill
> > > > > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > > > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > > > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > > > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > > > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > > > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > > > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > > > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > > > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > > > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > > > > > nonsense.
>
> > > > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > > > Considering your reputation as an extremist
> > > > > > hater of the First Amendment, how can anyone
> > > > > > take your daffynition of the words, “extremist,”
> > > > > > or, “moderate?”
>
> > > > > That is who can take your daffynition of those
> > > > > words seriously? Seriously.
>
> > > > Now that you know that your hero Dumbya Bush’s Patriot Act is now
> > > > being used against rightard gun nutter militias and that you have no
> > > > hope of popping off any Democrat politicians without getting a Third
> > > > Eye you tell me your only option now is to spree.
>
> > > I didn’t support the Patriot Act,
>
> > But you voted for Dumbya Bush.
>
> I didn’t vote in those elections.
It’s not necessary to vote if you are waiting for liberdopia to break
out.
Just oil your gun and be ready to shoot them evil feds just like in an
excitin’ Hollywood movie.
Bret Cahill
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Media ignores democrat violence, as usual
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:44 pm
From: Bret Cahill
> > > > > Looks like the meia is ignoring sick democrats commiting violence and
> > > > > making threats. Tea Patriots demonstrate peacefully while the left
> > > > > throws eggs…..
>
> > > > It’s very difficult to compete against rightard violence:
>
> > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> > > > Next question?
> > > Oh, you mean that “rightard” violence that never happened?
>
> > Thank God for the Patriot Act!
> B-b-b-b-b-but Bush!!!
Kind of ironic that the Patriot Act is now putting “patriots” in the
slammer.
> > Many lives were saved!
>
> > Who wants to be the next militia group to get busted?
No answer?
Bret Cahill
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Time to disarm all the Christo-fascist terrorist ‘ militia’ retards
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:47 pm
From: Bret Cahill
> >> > > These morons are proof positive that religious fanatics and mental
> >> > > defectives must not have access to guns & ammo. These loons can’t even
> >> > > be trusted with butter-knives and scissors.
>
> >> > Why doncha hop on your bicycle and come on over and try.
>
> >> > –
> >> > To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation
> >> > of their women.
>
> >> Got an address for the FBI tough guy?
>
> >The FBI, Secret Service, BATF and Homeland security _already have_ his
> >address because of Dumbya Bush’s Patriot Act.
>
> >If he tries anything there’ll be a you tube video of his sinuses
> >exploding out of the back of skull along with a 9mm slug paid for with
> >taxpayer money.
>
> >Nutters don’t have any brains so all you’ll see are his sinuses.
>
> >Of course like 99.99% of nutters he won’t do jack except sit in front
> >of his bathroom mirror oiling his AK-47 practicing his Hollywood actor
> >NRA president Charlton Heston hiss.
>
> >And even that fantasy is out of date as BATF now has microwave beam
> >vehicles and can take his gun out of his live warm hands.
>
> >Bret Cahill
>
> Hold that thought Bret. Because if it ever started to happen (and it
> will…the Great Cull is coming)…you will be among the dead.
>
> Im sure someone close to you has been tasked with taking you out along
> with the rest of the Far Leftwing Extremist Fringe Kooks in your area.
>
> So lets hope it never happens, else its gonna be awfully lonely without
> all you Leftards posting on Usenet ever again.
You think you can work that into the 2012 GOP Nat’l Convention Keynote
Speech?
Maybe fit in between the two cross burnings . . .
Bret Cahill
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The U.S. Is Now “Declinestan” Writes Mark Steyn. Here’s How It Happened.
The Nation’s Sad Condition Is Terminal
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:49 pm
From: Day Brown
Lisa Lisa wrote:
> Of course this country is in a decline. Europe rebuilt, Asia is
> catching up with the West…What did want?
Only fools are not worried. But the dollar has risen against the Euro
because the global market thinks the EU economy is being mishandled even
worse. They have social safety nets that are even less sustainable than
in the US, even considering the recent health bill.
And as for the Asians, if their customers in the White cultures go
broke, so will they. They are sitting on trillions in dollar denominated
securities that’d be worthless, and destroy their own economies.
Both Liberals and Conservatives seem to think that only if the policy
they support is enacted, will things straighten out, when in fact, it is
the opinion of the global market, which holds so much US debt, and
compares that risk to the risk of other systems, that determines what
good policy will be. Its not upta us.
There are steps that could be taken but the power elites lack the
imagination to see them. Neither the Left nor the Right really gets what
has been going on, and that fact is a major risk.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Will the 2012 GOP Nat’l Convention Feature One or 2 Cross Burnings?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:52 pm
From: Bret Cahill
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> > > What could be a more convincing argument for banning same-race
> > > marriage?
>
> > > -tg
>
> > Wow. So THAT’S what conservatives look like!
>
> Yeah.. they don’t look like mexican illegals at all !
True. The militiateers look worse than meth heads.
Is there anyway we can deport the native born wing a ding dingers and
keep the illegals?
Actually im not using a marker manager, and my overlays are polygons.
Dunno if it might make a difference. All the overlays (in this case
polygons) aren’t hidden and should be in the same viewport, but i
wouldnt like to assume that. In other words, every polygon (be it in
or out of the viewport) should be returned. So i guess from the choice
u gave me, 3. suits best!
On Mar 30, 7:27 am, “geocode…@gmail.com”
wrote:
> On Mar 29, 10:10 pm, JuKKi wrote:
>
> > Hey guys,
>
> > was just wondering if there is any way of returning all the map
> > overlays currently being displayed on the map.
>
> Not as part of the API. But there is nothing to keep you from coding
> it yourself.
> But what do you mean by “being displayed on the map”?
> 1. have been addOverlay’d to the map (but might not be in the
> viewport)
> 2. have been addOverlay’d to the map and are not hidden
> 3. have been addOverlay’d to the map (are not hidden) and some part of
> which appears in the viewport
> 4. have been addOverlay’d to the map (are not hidden) and all of which
> appear in the viewport
>
> …
>
> Are you using a marker manager?
>
> — Larry
>
>
>
>
>
> > Thanks in advance,
>
> > Jonathan
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Google Maps API” group.
To post to this group, send email to google-maps-api@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-api+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
However, when I try to use more markers, nothing appears. Note: I am
able to produce over 1000 markers. However, the issues seems to be
with the info window. See link below. The only difference is in the
number of Markers. Any suggestions would be great.
function load() {
if( GBrowserIsCompatible() ) {
var map = new
GMap2( document.getElementById( "map" ) );
map.setCenter( new GLatLng(0, -3), 1 );
map.addControl( new GSmallMapControl() );
map.addControl( new GMapTypeControl(), new
GControlPosition( G_ANCHOR_TOP_RIGHT ), new GSize( 250, 5 ) );
map.enableScrollWheelZoom();
map.enableContinuousZoom();
var point#id# = new GLatLng( #latitude#,
#longitude# );
var marker#id# = new GMarker( point#id# );
var infowindow1html#id# = "#latitude# #longitude#";
map.addOverlay( marker#id# );
GEvent.addListener( marker#id#, "click",
function() {
marker#id#.openInfoWindowHtml( infowindow1html#id# );
} ); // This line was the problem, it was outside
of the end cfoutput tag
}
}
//]]>
Thasnks
Jeffery Raskin
702-688-1299
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Google Maps API” group.
To post to this group, send email to google-maps-api@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-api+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
thanks for reply.
Sorry, I haven’t used google map api yet.
Can polyline be drawn via api programming giving two ports locations ?
or it is something I have to draw manually ? If manual, then this
method won’t help me.
I need a feature where I will enter multiple port names and will get
distances between these ports.
On Mar 29, 5:57 pm, “geocode…@gmail.com”
wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2:20 pm, pmhooda wrote:
>
> > is there way to find distances betweentwoseaports?
> > I understand google maps helps to find distance between one land point
> > to other land point. But I need to find distance sailed via a ship.
>
> Do you know the route it took?
> If you can draw a polyline along that, you can find the length of the
> polyline.
>
> — Larry
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Google Maps API” group.
To post to this group, send email to google-maps-api@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-api+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
I am thinking about entering development on a website idea that I
have. I cannot talk in too much detail what exactly my idea is,
obviously, but It does rely heavily on using Google Maps API.
Basically. My website will offer a service. Google Maps will be
integrated into my site and it will acquire the image of a street map
based around an address a user types in. This image will then be
taken and incorporated into the UNIQUE service my website will offer.
I plan on charging my user a fee to use this service (which relies on
Google Maps)
If this is illegal then I will make the service free but will make my
money with advertising.
Let me know if I am being too vague. My question is if this sounds
legal to you? I read the terms and conditions but can’t get a
definite answer.
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Google Maps API” group.
To post to this group, send email to google-maps-api@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-api+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
My apologies for being a complete javascript noob.
The page I am working on is supposed to allow the user to geolocate a
place by right-clicking on the map, then dragging the marker or right-
clicking in a different spot if they decide that the first marker
isn’t where they want it. This much I’ve got working.
What I need to do next is to get the lat long from the marker, but the
marker is being created in an event function; can I get the marker
object from the map object?
Or can I re-arrange my code so that the marker object isn’t hidden
inside a function?
Or do I have to save the lat/long every time the marker is recreated
or dropped?
Here is my page:
http://zyada-stuff.com/SpreadingRoots/temp.html
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Google Maps API” group.
To post to this group, send email to google-maps-api@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-api+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
On Mar 30, 12:08 am, mynicejob wrote:
>
> However, when I try to use more markers, nothing appears. Note: I am
> able to produce over 1000 markers. However, the issues seems to be
> with the info window. See link below. The only difference is in the
> number of Markers. Any suggestions would be great.
>
> http://www.saferoutes.com/ZZmapitnow-info8.cfm?hit_it=themap
So your data needs cleansing. You might also consider reducing your
repeated code to a function call which you only have to define once –
that will reduce the time it takes to download your page. However,
more than 200 markers is not recommended as many browsers find it
difficult to cope with that many.
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Google Maps API” group.
To post to this group, send email to google-maps-api@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-api+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
* Murdeer-suicide in Georgia: Well-known, long-time “christian conservative”
couple — he shoots her then shoots himself — rightwing family values at work
- 1 messages, 1 author
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:52 pm
From: Bret Cahill
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> > > What could be a more convincing argument for banning same-race
> > > marriage?
>
> > > -tg
>
> > Wow. So THAT’S what conservatives look like!
>
> Yeah.. they don’t look like mexican illegals at all !
True. The militiateers look worse than meth heads.
Is there anyway we can deport the native born wing a ding dingers and
keep the illegals?
Bret Cahill
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:58 pm
From: Bret Cahill
> > > > > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> > > > > > > > What could be a more convincing argument for banning same-race
> > > > > > > > marriage?
>
> > > > > > > Well, that’s one way to cut down on the number
> > > > > > > of lily-white readers of the New York Times.
>
> > > > > > If you believe there’s some 2nd Amend. right to spree shoot or terror
> > > > > > bomb innocent people you really ought to move to a red state like OK
> > > > > > or TX where the authorities won’t stop you until after the blood
> > > > > > starts flowing.
>
> > > > > Okay. Good job staying on topic, by the way.
>
> > > > Thanks.
>
> > > > Now you need to reciprocate:
>
> > > > If you believe there’s some 2nd Amend. right to spree shoot or terror
> > > > bomb innocent people you really ought to move to a red state like OK
> > > > or TX where the authorities won’t stop you until after the blood
> > > > starts flowing.
>
> > > If you believe there’s some First Amendment right to talk
> > > like Goebbels
>
> > The First Amendment isn’t really about corp. money being used to
> > Goebbelize the political debate.
>
> Are you complaining about MSNBC, or something?
I’m laughing at a gun nutter trying to “mainstream” himself by citing
Lyndon LaRouche links and a dowser AGW denier and by waiting for
liberdopia to break out.
It doesn’t get any more bat crap insane than that.
Bret Cahill
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The U.S. Is Now “Declinestan” Writes Mark Steyn. Here’s How It Happened.
The Nation’s Sad Condition Is Terminal
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:06 pm
From: Day Brown
Strabo wrote:
> No nation/country/culture is actually on the rise. We just see
> fluctuations in political and monetary power on the downward curve.
> None will rise after the decline since all nations are today
> inextricably tied to the American monetary/industrial model.
>
> Once the US reaches the point of dissolution, a ‘dark ages’ will set in
> as happened with the fall of Rome. The last Dark Ages was so-called to
> contrast the period with the preceding high points of civilization -
> art, building and commerce. This dark age will be characterized by
> a power vacuum, collapsed commerce, communications, breakdowns in
> utility infrastructure and decentralized national power. With no
> effective commerce, distribution and a diminished medical capacity,
> starvation and disease will remove a third to half the planet’s
> populations within a few years.
Its worth remembering that in the darkest time there were places, like
Kiev, where trade was booming and life was good. The Khazar elite was
running a northern branch of the Silk Road from Astrakhan across what is
now Ukraine to connect with the Vikings. which was why so many hordes
have been found in Scandinavia with Muslim coins.
Byzantine coins have been found all over China. The Silk Road cities
like Kucha, Khotan, & Urumchi were booming.
Christian Europe had witch hunts; cats were regarded as ‘familials’, a
sure sign of a witch, so everyone got rid of their cats. The rats got
out of control, and bubonic plague resulted. But The Khazar elites were
not Christian, in fact converted to Judaism in order to maintain
profitable neutrality in the chronic wars among Christians, and made
tons of money. Also trading with the pagan Vikings. The East end of the
Silk Road was Buddhist.
So, they all kept cats, and didnt have bubonic plagues. I spoze there’ll
be parts of the USA and western world that’ll be anarchic; but then we
can expect some parts to see how asinine Levantine religions are and
stay out of it while they have at each other. Yet again.
Christianity didnt get anywhere til it made a deal with Constantine to
let him select the bishops. Since, its always cooperated with tyranny,
and even today, the federal govt is run by Christians. So, if the fed
system collapses, the churches will go down with it. The habit of it
trying to cover asses, as the pope did for pedophiles, and loosing that
power, will destroy it, and its megachurches.
Paganism was always local, run by local people; in a new kind of
medieval system, it’ll emerge again, as it has already with Native
Americans. The other thing to remember about ‘pagans’ is that the
original Latin term only meant country people. Who knew how to live off
the land they lived on. Christians were urbanites who sucked up to the
power elites. Which will be no more.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:11 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 00:49:22 -0500, Day Brown wrote:
> Lisa Lisa wrote:
>> Of course this country is in a decline. Europe rebuilt, Asia is
>> catching up with the West…What did want?
> Only fools are not worried. But the dollar has risen against the Euro
> because the global market thinks the EU economy is being mishandled even
> worse. They have social safety nets that are even less sustainable than
> in the US, even considering the recent health bill.
You really should steer clear of areas where you have no knowledge. The
problem is Greece and maybe Spain. And as to the nets, the Europeans
will not see a problem.
–
“Senate rules don’t trump the Constitution” — http://GreaterVoice.org/60
==============================================================================
TOPIC: LSD and Gods
PS: Jensen Interceptor in air-conditioned storage.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 12:14 am
From: Shocking China Blue
In article ,
Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> Yap, ye bat-fowling giant traitor, thou art a knave, and I will
> aggravate thy style, ye regurgitated:
>
> > I did not understand
>
> You don’t understand a fucking thing.
Latter Saints Day?
–
Damn the living – It’s a lovely life. I’m whoever you want me to be.
Silver silverware – Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
Oval swimming pool – Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Damn the living – It’s a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rising racial tensions: Who are the true villains?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 12:04 am
From: Ilya Shambat
lordy wrote:
> Do you have a problem with an ethnic group which wishes to control its
> own affairs?
You mean, abusive scumbags who claim to speak for their ethnic groups
exercising totalitarian control over people who have the misfortune of
sharing ethnicity with them?
Damn straight I’m against that.
The people who claim to speak for their ethnicity, are the worst
people who are in that ethnicity.
And the more people operate according to that logic, the worse the
state of affairs of people for the ethnicity and the worse the state
of affairs of their country and the worse the state of affairs of the
world.
Freedom means choice. Nobody chooses their ethnicity. The more people
identify with ethnicity, the more they identify with the unchosen, the
less the freedom and the more the slavery.
The more identification is made by people with the unchosen factors
such as ethnicity, the less the freedom and the worse the world.
> Or do you demand that foreigners control them?
I demand that people be free to work with other people whatever their
ethnicity.
> It’s a simple question.. please answer.
Just did.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A housefly found in a meteorite
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 12:07 am
From: Wretch Fossil
A housefly found in a meteorite
Figure 1 below shows a common housefly found in a thin section cut
from a meteorite. The photo was taken by an award-winning photographer
and meteorite expert (Mr. Tom Phillips). It could not be a terrestrial
contaminant or artifact or a mineral.
The photographer himself identified it as a housefly trapped in a
meteorite. So, it should have originated from Mars, just like all
other fossils found in meteorites.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Murdeer-suicide in Georgia: Well-known, long-time “christian
conservative” couple — he shoots her then shoots himself — rightwing family
values at work
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 12:16 am
From: Michael Gordge
On Mar 30, 7:44 am, Bret Cahill wrote:
> There’s still a silver lining to this. At least rightard wing a ding
> dings are spreeing local.
Hey dopey, why do ewe speak of rightards as if they are more than a
gnat’s left testicle philosophically different to lefturds, when in
reality, these days, there is no difference?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:43 am
From: “Robakks”
“Zerkon”
news:pan.2010.03.29.14.27.00@erkonx.net…
> The phrase ‘A is A’ apparently sums up Aristotle’s Law of Identity or
> “Everything that exists has a specific nature”. Everything is self
> defining therefore any assigned attributes (eg: “A is Round”) violates
> the specificity or identity of A.
>
> “A is A” therefore is a dumbed down version of the more accurate “A is”
> or the still more accurate definition of A as being “A”, finally reaching
> the most accurate unspoken A as existing without need for any definition.
> However since neither “A is” or “A” nor a silent A conveys clear meaning,
> “A is A” is commonly used among Objectivists and those who want to
> impress others with their deep wit. Deep in what exactly remains
> uncertain.
>
> Tragically, sadly and most horribly this becomes self-defeating if it is
> used to affirm a pure objective reality because an abstract precondition
> must immediately be met.
>
> ‘A’ is forced, whipped and enslaved into represent some thing it is not.
> Or, first let ‘A’ represent any idea of any object. After this A is A.
>
> ‘A’, the written or typed physical entity, can not define itself and
> remain “A is A” true. A, the first ‘A’ typed, can not be also ‘A’ since
> it is the second ‘A’ typed. It is only a by a leap in logic, disguised as
> coherent reason of course, the two ‘A’s become as one. Only a small step
> away from a trinity “A is A is A” which opens to the infinity “Rose is a
> rose is a rose is a rose.”
>
> I, for one, prefer “Everything that exists has a specific nature” and be
> done with it. Until, of course, the topic of existence itself arises,
> arises, arises, arises.
Be and to exist.
The horse to be in the real world.
The image of a horse exists in the psyche.
Identity = compliance
what IS and what exists.
Edward Robak* from Nowa Huta
~>°<~ http://translate.google.com/ #
lover of wisdom and not only:)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do atheist deny that atheism is a relegion.
>
> > I will ask them to produce it
>
> So, even though you tacitly acknowledge that it is irrational for you to
> ask for it, you will continue to ask for it. That too is irrational.
>
> >, in an attempt to get them to either put-up or shut-up. They
> > seem to ‘think’ that their beliefs are evidence.
>
> They don’t have evidence. They have something that lies beyond proof.
> Furthermore it is not in the form that your atheistic and over-simplified
> views call the mere believing of a belief. The issue goes deep into the
> nature of truth. And again, I doubt you have the wherewithal to even
> begin to understand the nature of truth.
>
> I look forward to being shown to be wrong about you. But since you
> arbitrarily paint all theists as “irrational, illogical theists” without
> trying to expand your own understanding you are not only acting from your
> own set of silly, illogical beliefs, which is what you accuse theists of
> doing, you are also proving my assertion that you don’t have what it
> takes to understand anyway.
This corroborates my experience of talking to militant atheists.
>
> I don’t see your wilful decision to remain ignorant about the nature of
> reality and truth as being my problem. I see your problem with reality
> and truth as being my opportunity to give you the pillorying and ridicule
> that your unthinking mind so richly deserves.
>
> It is you who is in control of choosing to be enlightened or ridiculed.
> I’ve made the offer to try and show you the problem. The ball is in your
> court.
>
> –
> I have defined no god. And when I do need to define some god for the
> purposes of discussing its nature with atheists I always define the
> supposed some god in the very same concrete and arbitrary terms, without
> variation:
>
> God = Metaphysical X
>
> Watching you idiot atheists witlessly pinning your own lunatic
> assumptions and irrational perceptions onto it then attempting to argue
> against your very own deranged Frankenstein-like creation with utterly
> b0rked illogic is a never-ending source of great hilarity.
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:49 am
From: Maggsy
Nothing wrong with the Discovery Channel. Why do you have a problem
with it?
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:54 am
From: Maggsy
On Mar 11, 2:59 am, “Smiler” wrote:
> Maggsy wrote:
> > On Feb 24, 1:32 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> >> [snips]
>
> >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 06:01:34 -0800, Maggsy wrote:
> >>>> Atheism isn’t a religion. There is no worship of a god or
> >>>> supernatural force.
>
> >>> Your definition of religion is not correct.
>
> >>> something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter
> >>> of ethics or conscience
>
> >> Ah, yes. A devoted adherence to _not_ believing in gods. Indeed, I’m
> >> almost as devoted to that as my hobby of _not_ collecting stamps.
>
> >> Good grief but you people are stupid.
>
> > If you guy’s were not devoted to it you wouldn’t spend so much time
> > trying argue against theists.You put this much time and effort into
> > not collecting stamps do you?
>
> If you demented theists would leave us alone, you’d not hear from us.
Feel free not to respond. No one is forcing you to respond.Unless you
don’t believe in free will. Do you believe in free will?
> As you seem to like disrupting a.a. with your delusions,
I am not disrupting any thing.a.a is a newsgroups for people that want
to discuss atheism and theism. Why do you have a problem with that?
we’ll keep pointing
> out how stupid they are.
You haven’t pointed any thing out. You just keep making bold , crude
assertions that don’t have any evidence to back them up.
>
> –
> Smiler
> The godless one
> a.a.# 2279
> All gods are bespoke. They’re all made to
> perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:01 am
From: Maggsy
On Mar 11, 2:12 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:33:01 -0800, Maggsy wrote:
> >> Ah, yes. A devoted adherence to _not_ believing in gods. Indeed, I’m
> >> almost as devoted to that as my hobby of _not_ collecting stamps.
>
> >> Good grief but you people are stupid.
>
> > If you guy’s were not devoted to it you wouldn’t spend so much time
> > trying argue against theists.You put this much time and effort into not
> > collecting stamps do you?
>
> Do you see a lot of stamp collectors trying to force everyone not just
> into collecting stamps, but collecting stamps *their* way, changing laws
> to adhere to their beliefs about collecting stamps
All groups do this. Not just Christians.
, inflicting their
> weird stamp collecting behaviours and ideas onto other peoples’ kids,
Most if not all people do this. It’s called bringing your kids up as
you see fit. This is protected by law.
> against those other peoples’ wishes, and often at those other peoples’
> expense?
>
What are you trying to say?
Like I said before this is why the stamp collectors analogy was a bad
example.
> No. Thus there is no need to fight to keep the stamp collectors at bay;
> they’re content to just collect and leave others out of it.
>
Of course. Collecting stamps is just a hobbie. What you believe or
don’t believe is much more important.
> See if you’re smart enough to figure out how that applies to you.
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:03 am
From: Maggsy
On Mar 11, 2:13 pm, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> [snips]
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:25:43 -0800, Maggsy wrote:
> >> What does evolution have to do with atheism, is all I want to know.
>
> > Nothing. Although some seem to think it proves God doesnt exist.
>
> Well, it’s true that a lot of god-addled nitwits claim that evolution
> somehow suggests gods don’t exist,
And many more atheists. You forgot them.
but then, they believe in invisible
> magic sky pixies, so you can’t really trust anything they say, as they
> are fundamentally (pardon the pun) not sane.
So you say. So according to you they should be sectioned then? Are you
a qualified psychiatrist?
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:05 am
From: Maggsy
On Mar 14, 5:50 am, “Pink Freud” wrote:
> “Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking head” wrote in message
>
> news:5b73b562-0a82-4a32-a7af-76c965fb3e5e@k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com…
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 12:21 am, Richo wrote:
> >> On Feb 27, 12:10 pm, Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking
>
> >> head wrote:
> >> > > > They deny that it is a religion, because that’s part of the
> >> > > > practiced
> >> > > > religion.
>
> >> > > Atheism isn’t a religion. There is no worship of a god or
> >> > > supernatural force.
>
> >> > There are actually several religions that fit this. [So Atheism is a
> >> > religion]
>
> >> Here is more of the same “thinking”:
> > No, it’s not the same…It’s just you being a moron.
>
> Fucking idiot.
>
> >
> > Atheism has churches,
>
> Lie #1.
>
> > has religious books,
>
> Lie #2.
>
> > has members working to
> > convert everyone in earshot,
>
> Lie #3.
>
> > has members suing left and right so they
> > can go to Atheist church groups in schools and prisons
>
> Lie #4.
>
> >…It has
> > everything a religion has
>
> Lie #5.
>
> > because it is a religion.
>
> Lie #6.
>
> > [And you can't
> > prove different]
>
> Lie #7.
>
> Impressive. Tell me, fuckhead, is that a personal best?
Your “lovely”.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:05 am
From: Maggsy
On Mar 14, 5:44 pm, Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking
head wrote:
> > Fucking idiot.
>
> Nice self examination…And it only took everyone(including me)
> pointing out that fact from day one.
>
>
> Since you have to resort to lying and insults, it’s clear I’ve proven
> my case.
valid.
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:11 am
From: Maggsy
On Mar 15, 11:12 am, Errol wrote:
> On Mar 15, 5:21 am, The Chief Instigator wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:44:47 -0700 (PDT), Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking head wrote:
>
> > >> Fucking idiot.
> > > Nice self examination…And it only took everyone(including me)
> > > pointing out that fact from day one.
>
> > >
> > > Since you have to resort to lying and insults, it’s clear I’ve proven
> > > my case.
>
> > It’s just an annoying coincidence that you’re clueless to the reality that
> > if there are any atheist churches, they’re figments of your imagination.
> > (Not one has surfaced in this metro area of 4.9 million.)
>
> > –
> > Patrick L. “The Chief Instigator” Humphrey (patr…@io.com) Houston, Texas
> > www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI’s 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
> > LAST GAME: Rockford 3, Houston 2 (SO, March 14)
> > NEXT GAME: Saturday, March 20 vs. Milwaukee, 7:35
>
> From Google
>
> using keywords: atheist churches houston texas
>
> Atheist Church
> The Houston Church of Freethought was founded by former members of the
> North Texas Church of Freethought and provides a monthly service for
> nonbelievers. …www.acfnewsource.org/religion/atheist_church.html- Cached – Similar
>
> North Texas Church of Freethought – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Dr. Newdow has also founded a secular church, the First Atheist Church
> of True Science (FACTS). The NTCOF participated in the inaugural Texas
> Freethought …
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Texas_Church_of_Freethought – Cached -
> Similar
>
> Pity about the facts huh! They tend to get in the way of a good denial.
Bingo.They are not interested in facts.Their mantra seems to be. I’ve
made my mind up .Now don’t confuse me with the facts.Talk about
burying your head in the sand.Militant atheists are great at it. Come
on guy’s take the blind fold off.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:12 am
From: Maggsy
On Mar 15, 11:26 am, “Pink Freud” wrote:
> “Errol” wrote in message
>
> news:483eaf24-5399-400d-9d33-345fc62b4831@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com…
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 5:21 am, The Chief Instigator wrote:
> >> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:44:47 -0700 (PDT), Anonymous Infidel – the
> >> anti-political talking head wrote:
>
> >> >> Fucking idiot.
> >> > Nice self examination…And it only took everyone(including me)
> >> > pointing out that fact from day one.
>
> >> >
> >> > Since you have to resort to lying and insults, it’s clear I’ve proven
> >> > my case.
>
> >> It’s just an annoying coincidence that you’re clueless to the reality
> >> that
> >> if there are any atheist churches, they’re figments of your imagination.
> >> (Not one has surfaced in this metro area of 4.9 million.)
>
> >> –
> >> Patrick L. “The Chief Instigator” Humphrey (patr…@io.com) Houston,
> >> Texas
> >> www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php(TCI’s 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
> >> LAST GAME: Rockford 3, Houston 2 (SO, March 14)
> >> NEXT GAME: Saturday, March 20 vs. Milwaukee, 7:35
>
> > From Google
>
> > using keywords: atheist churches houston texas
>
> > Atheist Church
> > The Houston Church of Freethought was founded by former members of the
> > North Texas Church of Freethought and provides a monthly service for
> > nonbelievers. …
> >www.acfnewsource.org/religion/atheist_church.html- Cached – Similar
>
> > North Texas Church of Freethought – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> > Dr. Newdow has also founded a secular church, the First Atheist Church
> > of True Science (FACTS). The NTCOF participated in the inaugural Texas
> > Freethought …
> > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Texas_Church_of_Freethought – Cached -
> > Similar
>
> > Pity about the facts huh! They tend to get in the way of a good denial.
>
> I dunno. Got any relevant facts to offer?
Yes he just posted them. You ignored them as usual.
>
> “Sticking feathers up your butt does NOT make you a chicken.”
> Tyler Durden, Fight Club- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:16 am
From: Maggsy
On Mar 17, 7:27 pm, Jimbo wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2:24 pm, Maggsy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 26, 11:53 pm, “Smiler” wrote:
>
> > > Maggsy wrote:
> > > > On Feb 21, 6:11 pm, Kilmir wrote:
> > > >> On 21 feb, 15:01, Maggsy wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Feb 21, 8:13 am, Chaos out of Order wrote:
>
> > > >>>> On Feb 20, 11:40 pm, Sir Frederick wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:12:05 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
> > > >>>>> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> Some crap.
>
> > > >>>>>> Bret Cahill
>
> > > >>>>> They deny that it is a religion, because that’s part of the
> > > >>>>> practiced
> > > >>>>> religion.
>
> > > >>>> Atheism isn’t a religion. There is no worship of a god or
> > > >>>> supernatural force.
>
> > > >>> Your definition of religion is not correct.
>
> > > >>> something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter
> > > >>> of ethics or
> > > >>> consciencehttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
>
> > > >>> This is what atheists do with their atheistic beliefs.Some one
> > > >>> should tell Richard dawkins.
>
> > > >>> Beliefs aren’t held on by faith. Most atheists
>
> > > >>>> are such because of the lack of evidence for the existence of gods
> > > >>>> or supernatural forces.
>
> > > >>> So they say.If you ignore,deny and dismiss the evidence then of
> > > >>> course there is no evidence for them. For those who are not
> > > >>> prejudice against the evidence there is evidence.
>
> > > >> What, you claim to have evidence of god(s) ?
> > > >> Many here would love to see that.
>
> > > > I doubt it. It has been presented here many times before by many
> > > > different people and rejected with out any good rational reason.
>
> > > >> Remember, objective evidence only so others could verify. There is no
> > > >> point in “evidence” that can’t be distinguished from a delusion.
>
> > >
>
> > > Beliefs, opinions and ‘holy’ books are not evidence.
>
> > > Now try presenting some REAL objective evidence, the sort that would stand
> > > up in a court of law.
>
> > You mean like the gospels. Based on eyewitness reports.
>
> Can you independently verify the authorship of the gospels?- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
Independent of what the church?Why should I need too?You don’t trust
the Church fathers. Why?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What makes a good scientist?
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:51 am
From: Zerkon
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:33:57 +0100, John Jones wrote:
> What makes a good scientist?
Adherence to a science method
Illustrating…
> There are only two kinds of (good) scientist(s).
Those that are boring to most and those that are even more boring to even
more. A good scientist will show up at a protest with a sign that reads
“This is a tricky gray area!!!” the exclamations inserted to make them
seem part of the moment and hopefully get invited to the party after.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:22 am
From: omprem
On Mar 28, 8:52 pm, “THE BORG” wrote:
> “omprem” wrote in message
>
> news:9092bfcc-c859-4f98-a3a8-669721597f91@h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com…
> On Mar 28, 6:33 pm, John Jones
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is
> > noisy and
> > leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and
> > gibbering to
> > onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of
> > science in action.
>
> > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The
> > bone-rattler is
> > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry.
> > Onlookers are
> > impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden
> > strengths of
> > science.
>
> There is a third kind of scientist, a good kind of
> scientist, and
> that is the scientist who initially uses empirical means to
> explore
> the unknown possibilities of existence and is prepared to
> allow his
> prejudices to be dispelled, his learning modes to be refined
> and
> changed, and his consciousness expanded. These scientists
> are among
> the leading astro-physicists.
>
> Your other two types of scientist can be likened to a
> steward who is
> content to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic while it
> is
> sinking. They can make major changes in very minor areas.
> The third
> kind that I mentioned can eventually know the face of God,
> so to
> speak.
>
> ******
> Cosmology is also interesting.
> Here is a snippet on Esoteric Cosmology which is quite
> enlightening.
>
> Here in this snippet you can see that he states there is no
> God, or
> concept of God, no concept of sin or salvation, merely that
> in eternity, it is the goal of all life to work with one
> aim, and that is to alleviate boredom.
>
> *****
> Michael Sharp in The Book of Light elucidates a Kabbalistic
> cosmology where “consciousness is the root” of all things
> including (and perhaps especially) the physical universe and
> all its dimensions. According to Sharp, consciousness
> “unfolds” from the original, monadic I (the single point) to
> the current state of trillions upon trillions of monads
> which exist in multiple dimensions and in multiple
> universes. As consciousness unfolds through the twelve
> levels of The Unfolding, dimensions are added as a sort of
> epiphenomenon (i.e., they emerge because of the peculiar
> state of consciousness). First there is perspective, then
> chance, then time, space, etc. All told there are twelve
> “dimensions” of existence that correspond to the twelve
> levels in The Unfolding. Not all of these dimensions
> correlate directly to physical aspects of the physical
> multiverse but all of them are rooted in the changing
> composition (state) of consciousness.
>
> Sharp’s cosmology is particularly interesting because no
> matter how complex the universe gets, it is ultimately all
> an aspect or a state of the grand creator consciousness. It
> is also interesting because the cosmology does away, for
> better or worse, with traditional esoteric canon regarding
> “soul evolution” and replaces it with the collective
> alleviation of boredom. That is, it is not our purpose to
> advance towards God, work towards redemption, or redeem
> ourselves from sin. Like the artist who paints a canvas or
> the musician that plays a song, it is our purpose to create
> in an interesting and entertaining fashion.
Sharp is getting close.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:24 am
From: omprem
On Mar 28, 9:23 pm, John Locke wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:33:57 +0100, John Jones
>
> wrote:
> >There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> Only one kind. Employing reason and logic, adhering to scientific
> procedures and not entertaining even the slightest notion of
> supernatural control and design.
>
> —————————————————————
>
> “”All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
> or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to
> terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
> — Thomas Paine
Scientific procedures are limited, flawed and subject to skewing by
the presence and intent of the scientist.
If only Atheists knew enough about reason and logic and were able to
conquer their fears sufficiently to examine their own belief system.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Obamas must die!
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:52 am
From: tooly
On Mar 29, 10:21 am, GLOBALIST wrote:
> I always get a kick out of folks who are ‘still’ hunting down
> communists. Oh well ..they need something to keep them busy, so they
> don’t have to face reality
Hugo Chavez stated at the Copenhagen GBW conference in december that
‘Capitalism was the problem’…and he got the loudest ovation of the
conference. It clearly demonstrated how the Environmental movement
has been taken over by old world communists.
But, there are synonyms here. Liberals; progressives; social
democrats. If one reads about cultural marxist strategy [and Marx's
original manifesto], one understands that the Communist Party, per se,
is supposed to remain SMALL in scope; a core body of fully commited
acolytes but who then work ‘behind the scenes’ to bring about the
Marxist goal of world socialism [and then, eventually, communism].
Antonia Gramsci, key designer of the Cultural Marxist manifesto, said
that a NEW proletariat would need to be formulated by this ‘behind the
scenes’ agitation [if marxist goals were to ever be realized in
western civilization]. That new proletariat would be comprised of
Women, Minorities, criminals and outcasts. The idea has always been
to ‘enrage’ those with a natural interest in ‘anti-establishment’,
that they might ‘rise up’ and take over the old establishment [just as
bolsheviks enlisted the rage of peasants to rebel against Tsarist
forces in 1917 (before he then turned on the peasants their use up).
It is always hard to say exactly the depth of 'behind the scenes'
agitation real bonfide communists are at work in the various social
movements that have slowly made their 'GRAND MARCH' through our
institutions since civil rights days. Martin Luther King, for example,
had real communists in his entourage [for which, J. Edgar Hoover had
him monitored]. Everything from the SDS [which had over 200 chapters
on American University campuses] to modern progressive movements
[Obama is rife with socialist and marxist connections; Chicago poltics
is rife with it as the apparent domocile of many social activists from
the turbulent 60's, like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn]. Most all
liberal universities have major marxist influences in their social
departments. A conference on Marxist Ideals and Goals held in the
Northeast several years ago drew well over 150 college professors
before it was sold out for attendance. Even Eugene McCarthy was
somewhat exonerated [after he was villified in the press], as it was
proven there had existed real communist agitation in Hollywood.
It is always clandestine; behind the scenes; the small but devoted
force of activists who work to INFLUENCE those with liberal,
progressive, and social democratic leanings to combine, and act
against the ruling establishment [essentially what has become seen as
white/european males;...hmm...curious isn't it]. I mean, look at how
our political structures have ‘migrated’ over the years. I mean, what
is the Democrat Party now if not that NEW PROLETARIAT that Antonion
Gramsci called for [awfully close; all them agitated women and
minorities all riled up...hell bent for glory to bring down the evil
White guy].
It should be noted that first on the Cultural Marxist list to bring
down was Christianity. Hmm…any spidey senses tingling yet? I mean,
what relgion has been attacked relentlessly for more than 40 years
now; everything from Christmas being ‘eliminated’, to golden rules and
ten commandments and ‘In God we Trust’ being attacked to ‘erase’ it
from our culture. You don’t see the venom and vitriole being directed
toward any other religon [save for Muslim because of 9-11 of
course...but that is popular while the war against Christianity is
directed from the highest levels of influence and authority...our
courts and public media].
No…there is most definitely SOMETHING going on. I know I ‘m not the
only one that has sat back in amazement and disbelief for about 50
years now as one insanity after another has kept winning out…mainly
through our court system [not by majoritave legislative action]. We
know AFFIRMATIVELY who some of the culprits are by WORD:
Liberals…most assuredly. Progressives…YEA MAN, guilty. Social
Democrats…well, that is pretty much what the Democrat party IS now
[they should change their name to better identify themselves]. Are
Socialists to blame for this culture’s undermine as well? Well, what
is a progressive except a socialist working for a specific cause?
But, now…can we jump from there to label this undermine as being
Communist in scope? At this juncture, isn’t only a matter of
semantics? We learn of organizations like ACORN, Tides Foundation,
Appollo group..each a conglomerate of hundreds of organizations
themselves [like a giant spider web with thousands of capillaries and
branches and community organizing of one sort or another]. And one
starts to research the founders, the council heads, the department
overseers, the influencial members of these groups. Green
Peace…just off my head; that one influential group; they were a
bunch of draft dodgers who went to Canada in Viet Nam years…card
carrying marxists one and all. I mean, who founded ACORN
anyway…Wade Rathke…we’ve all heard of him; a 60′s anti-war agitato
and bonifide marxist socialist. There’s simply not enough room
here…but when one starts researching all these organizations…well,
yea…it is not the wild eyed conspiracy nutter argument after
all…but REAL…Communists are alive and well in America and are
working ‘behind the scenes’ to undermine this culture and way of
life. But then, these are the scourge ‘in the open’…identifiable.
Cultural Marxism came here not to enlist…but to INFLUENCE.
Universities like Columbia and UC at Berkley started graduated new
professors, who then took up residence at other schools graduating
even more ‘like in mind’ liberal, progressive, even marxist ‘anti
American’ mindsets; and slowly, they’ve expanded into our
institutions…education, media, newspapers, television; no, not many
would see themselves as ‘communists’ per se, but not realizing how
they have been ‘influenced’ to become part of a new insurrection in
the land.
And then we come to Obama, a direct result of all this GRAND MARCHING
through our institutions. His ties are plain to see; he searched out
‘marxist professors’ while in school; taught Saul Alinsky methods in
the classroom. His is rife with attachments and associations…Bill
Ayers [SDS founder], Bern. Dorhnc[SDS], Van Jones[Communist], Valerie
Jarrett, Mark Lloyd [Chavez admirer], Robert McChesney [Marxist], Andy
Stern ['Worker's Unite'], Anita Dunn [Maoist], Rev. Wright [marxist
liberation theology]…
No. You say you laugh when you hear someone railing on about ‘hunting
down communists’. Ok, have your laugh. But something has happened in
America and it has been happening for several decades now. It was not
‘natural’, but FORCED…like political correctness and all them
‘rules’ you see plastered over workplace walls anymore. The ‘rights
of men’ being stomped on by the ‘Rights of MAN’ crowd.
This financial crisis is right out the marxist play book as well, and
all Obama has done so far. And how about global warming and peak
oil…am I so paranoid as to not see how so damn convenient these
issues are to soclalism?
I read, and I learn how Communists work. Nothing is out in the open
for them. They are always ‘behind the scenes’…a small, but
effectively agitating force, whose only aim is to bring down
capitalism. It is not about serving women, minorities, or any NEW
PROLETARIAT…but only about bringing down capitalism to raise
socialism.
Sleep away to your own peril.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rising racial tensions: Who are the true villains?
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:53 am
From: Bret Cahill
> As racial tensions are rising in America, and both black racists and
> white racists are profiting from them in their desire to assert
> totalitarian control over the respective races, it is about time to
> put things into perspective for both groups.
>
> While the white racists continue to claim that the white race is the
> superior race, and the black racists claim that white people are
> oppressors against black people, history shows that neither is true.
> China had great cities and half the world’s GDP at the time that
> Europe was a feudal backwater. At about the same time, Africa had a
> city of one million people, when Europe did not have a settlement
> larger than one tenth that size. As for the claim of white people
> being oppressors of black people: The African leaders collaborated in
> the slave trade. As for the present white people, the ones that live
> in the cities are the ones that are sympathetic to black people and
> have fought for civil rights, de-segregation, social inclusion, and
> election of Barack Obama. And while there are many white people who
> are in fact racist and hateful of black people, most vote Republican
> and live in the country. So if you are black, and serious about
> standing up for your people, the Democrats in the cities are not the
> people you want to get.
>
> The ones you do want to get are people such as the Fatherhood
> Foundation, which wants to exile black people. The people you do want
> to get are people such as the Church of Christian Identity, which
> thinks that white race is angelic and that black race is satanic. The
> people you do want to get are skinheads, neo-Nazis, white
> supremacists, and their sympathizers. You will not find them in DC or
> New York or Los Angeles. You will find them in Republican hinterland,
> and if you are the real men you believe you are then they are the
> people you’ll go after, not the liberal city white people who are
> sympathetic to black people, who have voted for Obama, who have
> supported civil rights and social justice, and who for the most part
> want to see black people do well.
>
> There is no such thing as a superior race or an inferior race; but
> there is such a thing as superior and inferior conduct, and this is
> found in every race. There are inferior white people who have nothing
> to be proud of except their ethnicity and who go around raping,
> maiming, and killing people who aren’t white. There are also superior
> white people such as Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, the
> Kennedys, Steven Jobs, Nobel Prize-winning scientists, and people who
> put man in space and on the Moon. There are inferior black people who
> shoot up their neighborhoods and rape and batter black women; and
> there are superior black people, such as Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama,
> Julius Nyerere and Wangaari Maathai, who do great and heroic deeds.
> There are inferior Asian people such as the Japanese soldiers who in
> the Second World War slaughtered 20 million Chinese civilians and the
> Chinese Red Guards who executed millions of people without trial
> during China’s Cultural Revolution; and there are superior Asian
> people who run Buddhist monasteries, who create magnificent artifacts,
> who made your cars and your home appliances and your computer, and who
> had great civilizations when white people were powerless barbarians.
> The white racists and the black racists are both inferior specimen of
> their races, and there is no reason why anyone, white, black or other,
> should listen to them.
>
> Gangsters are not the true black people they claim to be; they are an
> embarrassment to black people and leeches on black people. Nor are
> white racists the true white people they claim to be, or militia types
> the true Americans that they claim to be; they are the vilest
> specimens among populations for which they claim to speak. Both races
> are poorly represented by these worst elements among them ridiculously
> portraying themselves as the genuine article and using this claim to
> bully the people of their races into supporting them when they
> shouldn’t; and it is time that better people begin to speak for both
> races and influence both of them toward superior conduct – both to
> their own people and toward the other races of their country and of
> the world.
>
> The Obama administration received votes from both black people and
> white people. The white people who voted for Obama went out on a limb,
> and it is time that black people acknowledge that. It is not easy for
> someone to break with coercion by people who want to claim you a
> traitor for voting for a black president, who say that you’ve helped
> elect a thug, who call you before the election to tell you that Obama
> is a Muslim terrorist, or who compare Obama to Hitler. The white
> Democrats are the people whom black people should honor, especially
> after Obama’s election. And if they really want to pick a fight with
> the people who’ve done them wrong, then they should be going after the
> real villains, such as political organizations that want them exiled,
> religious sects that see the white race as angelic and black race as
> Satanic, and brutes and louts who claim that they are true white
> people or true America and use this false claim to bully white people
> from reaching out to and working alongside black people in America.
>
> So if you are black, and have been swept up in the racial tensions:
> Take a breath, calm yourself, and put things into perspective. Your
> white neighbors are not the bad guys; they are your friends. There are
> white people who hate you, but they are in a different part of the
> country. Be good to your neighbor, work with your neighbor, and
> together defeat the real villains of the white race.
>
> Who are these villains? The groups that I’ve mentioned already, but
> also and more generally the Bush-Reagan Republicans. These people, and
> their whole ideology, is a Big Lie. They claim to love America, then
> they put it $10 trillions in debt. They claim to have family values,
> then they poison the planet and aggressively deny the reality of the
> damage they do, leaving the place uninhabitable for their children and
> wanting the world to end before their children have reached maturity.
> They claim to be ethical, then they use lies, fraud and corruption to
> impose on America a corrupt and disastrous regime that takes America
> into the worst crisis that it has seen in generations. They claim to
> value life, then they kill a million Iraqi civilians and send
> thousands of Americans to their deaths. They claim to be good for
> money and for the economy, as they put America in the worst economic
> shape it has been since 1930s. They claim to be responsible and
> ethically upstanding people when they do this horrible wrong -
> destroying the living environment for their children, bankrupting the
> country in order to pay for irresponsible tax cuts, using lies and
> fraud to impose on America an unelected regime, killing vast numbers
> of civilians for trumped-up reasons, putting America in a terrible
> economic condition, and wanting the world to end before the bills for
> these and related wrongs have come due.
>
> It is time that Bush Republicanism be seen for the horror of what it
> is and be never again allowed in power. The people should be educated
> on this matter to the point that they are no longer vulnerable to
> brainwashing by the villains responsible for this abomination.
>
> Meanwhile it is time to take this great historic opportunity and
> maximize its benefits. To create real workable clean energy solutions
> – to make health care available and affordable – to improve the inner
> city and the lives of its people – and, for black people, to achieve
> up to all that they can achieve politically, socially, academically
> and economically and vanquish forever the hideous myth of their racial
> inferiority. With Barack Obama in power, all this is possible. To
> waste this great opportunity on abusing city white Democrats is
> extremely shortsighted and irresponsible. Think of the needs of your
> children and what kind of a world you would like to bequeath them, and
> work on bringing about such a world.
>
> http://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatwritingshttp://bettermillenium.blogspot.com
When it was becoming clear the GOP was going to lose Congress some
Tennessee Repug ran a campaign ad about white women going wild about
black men or something and Eleanor Clift said it best:
The GOP is finally being forced to “return to its racist roots.”
As the extremists continue to purge the moderates from the GOP as they
are doing in Florida and Arizona right now it is 100% certain that the
GOP will become more racist.
They are still trying to conceal it but with tactics that are less and
less convincing.
Last week rightards gave a homeless black man some pocket change or
beer to go on camera saying he was against tax hikes on the rich and a
few months ago the tea baggers went to Kinkos and had a $60 banner
sign printed that said “Obamaville” and placed it in front of a
homeless camp.
This phase will not last very long. Eventually they’ll drop the
pretenses altogether and become openly racist.
Bret Cahill
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:08 am
From: lorad
On Mar 26, 4:09 am, Ilya Shambat wrote:
> On Mar 21, 3:23 am, lorad wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 20, 6:46 am, Ilya Shambat wrote:
>
> > > As racial tensions are rising in America, and both black racists and
> > > white racists are profiting from them in their desire to assert
> > > totalitarian control over the respective races, it is about time to
> > > put things into perspective for both groups.
>
> > > While the white racists continue to claim that the white race is the
> > > superior race, and the black racists claim that white people are
> > > oppressors against black people, history shows that neither is true.
> > > China had great cities and half the world’s GDP at the time that
> > > Europe was a feudal backwater. At about the same time, Africa had a
> > > city of one million people, when Europe did not have a settlement
> > > larger than one tenth that size. As for the claim of white people
> > > being oppressors of black people: The African leaders collaborated in
> > > the slave trade. As for the present white people, the ones that live
> > > in the cities are the ones that are sympathetic to black people and
> > > have fought for civil rights, de-segregation, social inclusion, and
> > > election of Barack Obama. And while there are many white people who
> > > are in fact racist and hateful of black people, most vote Republican
> > > and live in the country. So if you are black, and serious about
> > > standing up for your people, the Democrats in the cities are not the
> > > people you want to get.
>
> > > The ones you do want to get are people such as …
>
> > Internationalists/New Word Orderists/Traitors who want to break down
> > national sovereignty by means of impugning ‘racism’ as a scourge to
> > any and all attempts by a nationality to exert authority over their
> > own internal affairs…
>
> > Hoping by such action to break down societal cohesion and consensus by
> > immigrating foreign factions that are detrimental to national
> > democratic processes… so that they can impose their own
> > internationalist authority instead.
>
> That’s something one might hear from a small-time despot who wants to
> dominate the people in the community in which he operates, and for
> these people to have no options except putting up with his domination.
Do you have a problem with an ethnic group which wishes to control its
own affairs?
Or do you demand that foreigners control them?
It’s a simple question.. please answer.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lead me not to temptation?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 8:59 am
From: Zerkon
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:16:12 +0100, TruthSlave wrote:
> I have an idea for an Hollywood movie on temptation.
>
> Set in an alternative reality where a kind of stock market deals in a
> counter currency of human lives, and reputations.
Uhh sorry for the buzz kill here but your alternative reality movie idea
has been eclipse by the only alternative but reality of here and now..
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:02 am
From: “Bigdog”
Zerkon wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:22:51 +0100, Bigdog wrote:
>
>> Zerkon wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:12:28 +0000, Bigdog wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> The first being, existence is not dependent upon human
>>>>> consciousness.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know this?
>>>
>>> Logic and history.
>>
>> I can’t see how logic or history could possibly inform anybody that
>> anything exists independently of human consciousness. This sounds
>> like metaphysical realism to me, and as such, it has been debated
>> fruitlessly by philosophers for centuries (if not millennia).
>
> Traditional Science has found physical proof that a physical universe
> existed long before the human being and so, logically, human
> consciousness.
Traditional Science (being a process going on in human consciousness) has
found physical proof (physical being a category of phenomena appearing
within human consciousness) that a physical universe (a model appearing
within human consciousness) existed long before the human being (an idea
appearing in human consciousness of an object that somehow mysteriously
hosts human consciousness) showed up in that model. The question is how
would it be possible to gain a view of this system (ie get outside human
consciousness) in order to test this model? Can’t be done.
> Common Scientific understanding also suggest this will still exist
> long after humans become extinct as a species.
> This informs me, at least, as this condition existed before and will
> exist afterwards, it is not dependent on human beings
Common Scientific understanding (appearing in human consciousness) also
suggests that the phyiscal universe (a model appearing within human
consciousness) will still exist long after humans (an idea appearing in
human consciousness of objects that somehow mysteriously host human
consciousness) cease to participate in that model. This informs me that the
model is internally consistent (except for the mysterious way in which the
human being is supposed to host its consciousness), but not that there is a
precise correspondence between the model and what it is supposed to be
modeling. The question remains that of how it would be possible to gain a
view of this system (ie get outside human consciousness) in order to compare
the model with the modeled. Can’t be done.
>>>>> Secondly that there is such a thing as existence. Not how it is
>>>>> defined, what it means or what it is but simply that it is.
>>>>
>>>> Existence is? What on earth does that mean?
>>>
>>> It is self-defining. It can not be modified by any word following
>>> ‘is’.
>>>
>>> Example: “That car is…”
>>>
>>> … the next word will define that ‘car’ as having some sort of
>>> specific attribute or applied meaning.. ‘fast’ or ‘small’ or ‘hers’
>>> and so forth. Whereas ‘that car is.’ states that it exists. After
>>> this then attributes and meanings can be assigned or not.
>>
>> Putting aside the copulative use of the word ‘is’ leaves the
>> existential use – as you say, ‘that car is’ states that it exists.
>> So ‘existence is’ states that existence exists. What on earth does
>> that mean?
>
> A “in and of itself” is another way to put it. Is form a problem?
>
> A person stating “GO!” if taken as is(!) means nothing, however it
> does have meaning within a given unspoken condition.
>
> If pointing to a triangle, I ask you to prove this is a triangle you
> may give a perfect definition of why it is a triangle.
> I then argue this is circular reasoning, you can counter with ‘no’
> because your definition defines the exclusive attributes of a
> triangle, essentially saying it is a triangle because it is not a
> circle which is defined in another way, nor is it a square as a
> square has a different definition. Your argument is established as
> non circular reasoning. A triangle is understood first because of
> uniqueness among other uniqueness.
>
> This can not be done with existence since it is not unique and so not
> distinguished by anything it is not.
What on earth does it mean to say that ‘existence is not unique’? These
sorts of claim are examples of our use of language becoming pathological.
>>> “A is A”, is a classic illustration of “A is”.
>>
>> “A is A” is utter nonsense.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. It conveys a valid concept to me but too digressive
> here so I apologize for bringing in this monster.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: One way of recognising one’s spirituality.
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:06 am
From: omprem
On Mar 27, 11:50 pm, “The BORG” wrote:
> wrote in message
>
> news:363a927a-30a2-4b8e-8068-833a69da1437@s20g2000prm.googlegroups.com…
>
>
>
> > When you can see that atheism, religiosity, and the
> > different shades
> > between, are valid states of consciousness, that they are
> > ‘group rites
> > of passage’, from which individual consciousness and
> > awareness
> > emerges, then you are looking from a spiritual
> > perspective.
>
> > Often confirmed by being ‘accused’ from one side or the
> > other, as
> > belonging to their particular opposite, as happens with
> > all growth
> > into ‘individuality’.
>
> > A favorite anecdote being Sting’s dad (who was a milkman)
> > told his
> > sone, even when he was succesful…”yes, but thats not a
> > ‘propper’
> > job…Just delightful !
>
> > Groups do not take kindly to what they describe as
> > ‘radicals’, and we
> > all know the power of ‘free radicals’ have over the
> > organism.
>
> > Something that the ‘group’ tries to stop at the
> > intellectual level ,
> > and ‘cure’ at the physiological level.
>
> > And the beat goes on ….
>
> > BOfL
>
> SUFFERING is one of the best ways to cause anyone’s
> individual conscious and awareness to emerge.
> Those who never suffer, never become “deep” in the way that
> those who suffer do.
> It is strange how suffering causes you to think and ask deep
> and meaningful questions about the nature of life and
> existence.
> There are two kinds of suffering.
> Physical suffering, and mental suffering.
>
> The Christian Church and the Bible cause a lot of mental
> suffering to people, and many are those tormented by words
> written in the Bible, of a mean, petty, violent, prejudiced,
> and punishing God. And of a so called “beloved son” who was
> not beloved at all if God had him crucified.
>
> Physical suffering can often be relived by pain killers.
>
> But for mental anguish, and mental torments, there is no
> relief, no assistance.
> And when no God can be found, and no one anywhere can give
> you the reassurance you need, then no belief in Jesus can
> help, if it means embracing the violent, petty, prejudiced
> and punishing God who is his so called father.
>
> On Earth, the only escape from these religious nightmares
> and torments that emanate from the Bible is really to
> embrace Hinduism.
> There, Krisna is viewed as God or the Supreme Being.
> And there you will find no words on hell or damnation or
> purgatory or punishments, as those that exist in the nasty
> violent religion on Earth called Christianity.
> And no talk of prejudice or pettiness or violence as exist
> in the Old Testament.
>
> For those who are sensitive and frightened.
> EMBRACE KRISNA.
> The One True God, our Dear Lord and Saviour.
> Who speaks only of peace and kindness and love.
>
> Once you embrace Krisna, you can leave all the nastiness and
> violence and ugliness of the Bible behind and below, forget
> the nasty crucifixion stuff, and rise up in the spirit to
> the Supreme Being, the Greatest and highest God of all.
> The one who is ALL good and kind, the one who is PERFECT.
>
> This is the ONLY answer for the more sensitive people on
> Earth, for those who suffer the fears and insanities
> generated from the Bible.
>
> The dumbfucks and numbskulls and idiots and insensitive
> creeps can have their Jesus and their horrible Old Testament
> God.
> Once you find Krisna, there is no turning back.
>
> THE BORG
The ‘mental suffering’ suffered by Atheists who attempt to read the
Bible and understand Christianity is due to their being brought into
acute awareness of their willful and invincible ignorance. They are
torn between wanting to stay addicted to their ignorance and being
impelled forward and upward by their dim intuitive awareness of
Divinity.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:07 am
From: omprem
On Mar 28, 7:16 am, Mike Jones wrote:
> Responding to bigflet…@gmail.com:
>
>
>
> > When you can see that atheism, religiosity, and the different shades
> > between, are valid states of consciousness, that they are ‘group rites
> > of passage’, from which individual consciousness and awareness emerges,
> > then you are looking from a spiritual perspective.
>
> > Often confirmed by being ‘accused’ from one side or the other, as
> > belonging to their particular opposite, as happens with all growth into
> > ‘individuality’.
>
> > A favorite anecdote being Sting’s dad (who was a milkman) told his sone,
> > even when he was succesful…”yes, but thats not a ‘propper’ job…Just
> > delightful !
>
> > Groups do not take kindly to what they describe as ‘radicals’, and we
> > all know the power of ‘free radicals’ have over the organism.
>
> > Something that the ‘group’ tries to stop at the intellectual level , and
> > ‘cure’ at the physiological level.
>
> > And the beat goes on ….
>
> > BOfL
>
> > BOfL
>
> Except the whole concept of “spirituality” is bullshit designed to create
> an inner mindset that will be vunerable to “god shaped space” propaganda.
> Its like a teenager getting to first base on a date. Get her blouse open,
> distract with romantic lies, then slowly…
>
> Get ‘em to accept “spirituality”, then drip feed doubt and fear until…
>
> And you just re-promoted that particular toxic meme. Oops!
>
> –
> *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
> *=( For all your UK news needs.
MJ is the living embodiment of invincible ignorance.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do we feel aroused when two ideas contradict each other?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:06 am
From: Anarcissie
Les Cargill wrote:
> Anarcissie wrote:
> > M Purcell wrote:
> >> On Mar 27, 2:55 pm, *Anarcissie* wrote:
> >>> M Purcell:
> >>>> On Mar 26, 8:03 am, Anarcissie wrote:
> >>>>> M Purcell wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mar 26, 6:36 am, Anarcissie wrote:
> >>>>>>> Zerkon wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:36:26 -0700, *Anarcissie* wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> My view is that “doublethink”, as George Orwell called it in
> >>>>>>>>> 1984 — the ability to maintain two or more contradictory
> >>>>>>>>> models of the world more or less continuously — is of
> >>>>>>>>> considerable advantage to life and reproduction. Our faculty
> >>>>>>>>> for this behavior is derived from evolutionary pressures.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> de-evolutionary, I’d say.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> Double-think was made possible by Newspeak. Newspeak was an
> >>>>>>>> eradication of existing concepts. Opposition to the CorpState
> >>>>>>>> became impossible because the concept ‘opposition to state’ was
> >>>>>>>> removed so thought about this was impossible.
> >>>
> >>>>>>> Doublethink appeared in nature long, long before _1984_. A
> >>>>>>> medium-sized carnivore prowling through the brush hears something
> >>>>>>> rustling. Is it lunch or a larger-sized carnivore? The m.s.c.
> >>>>>>> must simultaneously entertain both contradictory possibilities
> >>>>>>> until something happens to fill out one pattern or the other and
> >>>>>>> then will have only a fraction of a second to act. It will not have
> >>>>>>> time to construct a new model of the world because the previous one
> >>>>>>> failed. Hence it constructs two (or more) provisional models and
> >>>>>>> keeps them both in mind, however contradictory they may be.
> >>>
> >>>>>> You seem to have a contradictory equivocation of doublethink with the
> >>>>>> fight or flee responce (resulting from ignorance of the enviornment)
> >>>>>> and cognative dissonance (an internal conflict). From what I
> >>>>>> understand, doublethink is a willful contradiction.
> >>>
> >>>>> A necessary contradiction, although in the case of Big Brother (a many
> >>>>> modern politicians) much of the difficulty is self-caused, such as
> >>>>> simultaneously creating libertarian and authoritarian rhetoric which
> >>>>> the public is expected to consume. So what is contradictory in my
> >>>>> equivocation, if that’s what it is? I said that animals (including
> >>>>> humans) are ignorant, so that they need the ability to maintain
> >>>>> contradictory views of the world. Our small predator is in exactly
> >>>>> this situation. If the s.p. took the time to work out things
> >>>>> logically, it would probably wind up missing lunch or being lunch.
> >>>
> >>>> There are different types of contradictions, doublethink is not the same
> >>>> as cognitive dissonance and neither are the same as an adrenaline rush.
> >>>
> >>> I suppose one could get an adrenaline rush
> >>> from either. But you are certainly correct that
> >>> doublethink and cognitive dissonance are not the
> >>> same. Cognitive dissonance is a sort of mental
> >>> excitement which doublethinkers experience, or are
> >>> suppose to experience, when their contradictory
> >>> ideas rub up against one another. It’s probably
> >>> a sort of intellectual taste — as I said, most
> >>> people have no trouble entertaining contradictory
> >>> ideas about the world.
> >>
> >> You seem to find it exciting. I suppose there is an excitement in
> >> discovering a contradiction which can lead to new knowledge but I
> >> don’t believe that is considered cognitive dissonance while
> >> “doublethink” is deliberate.
> >
> > To my observation, the practice of holding two or more
> > contradictory ideas of the world with no apparent
> > evidence of discomfort is the default case (and this is
> > borne out by polls on political issues, as I have
> > mentioned). This is what I’m calling “doublethink”.
> > It doesn’t need to be practiced intentionally if it’s
> > naturally the default. People just do it. In order to
> > be uncomfortable with cognitive dissonance, they have
> > to expect cognitive consonance, and I’m guessing that
> > is the result of a specific kind of training reserved
> > for intellectuals and intellectual-wannabes. George
> > Orwell, for example. The guy wrote books — how many
> > people ever write a book? Once you learn about how
> > your ideas ought not to contradict one another, you can
> > enjoy getting all excited and bent out of shape because
> > you discover that some of them do contradict each other.
> First, on Orwell, here’s two prominent Orwell scholars wrestling with
> him :
> +Facing+Unpleasant+Facts+and+All+Art+Is+Propaganda+interviewed+by+Christopher+
> Hitchens.aspx>
>
> (sorry, long-arse URL, but good stuff)
>
> Indeed, the picture that emerges with Orwell is:
> - a preference for physical risk
> - an abhorrence of inconsistency in his own behavior.
> - intolerance of hypocrisy at the visceral level
>
> he emerges as a bit vain and egocentric. Not that bad a trade,
> I think. He extends the fundamental premise of Liberalism – that
> the individual is the irreducible unit – to a much higher plane.
>
> But there’s more to it than that. The (arguably) greatest rising
> technology of the last 60 years is entertainment. Entertainment
> depends completely on the willing suspension of disbelief – on
> pure cognitive dissonance. Of course, we expect that tension
> to be resolved at the end. The point is that people are
> possibly “addicted” to increasing levels of cognitive dissonance.
That’s an interesting hypothesis, one which I think
the evidence bears out. Indeed, many kinds of
entertainment (including the arts low and high) not
only present a special world at odds with the greater
world around them, but also conflicts within themselves
between interests, emotions, perceptions and ideas. I
think this would follow from my hypothesis that
doublethink (my meaning) is advantageous to survival
of the individual; nature sees to it that its exercise
is pleasurable.
So then the question arises, who has a problem with
cognitive dissonance, and why, when doublethink is
such an excellent thing? My guess is that it is an
intellectuals’ quirk. While doublethink is
advantageous to perception and cognition, the exercise
of will and power is usually best when it is unitary.
In most of the more complex societies, the role of the
intellectual is to subordinate oneself to and serve
the rulers, that is, to serve power as a tool. The
doublethinking intellectual is unpredictable,
unreliable, a bad tool for power. Therefore, the
intellectual-wannabe is taught in school to be
consistent so that he or she will be a good tool
for the rulers. The intellectual earnestly sweats to
iron out contradictions, while the folk go on merrily
playing with them.
However, I agree that a fondness for cognitive
dissonance may become a dangerous addiction,
as witness American politics.
> > Of course I find it exciting — I am cursed with
> > reason, which sets me at odds with most of the human
> > race. Recently I’ve come to the conclusion that I must
> > be from another planet.
> >
>
> But you still have this thing, too. No escaping it. Your
> mid and hindbrain are just as much a part of
> reason as your frontal lobes.
That depends on how the Neptunians constructed me.
They may have gotten a few things wrong.
> The logic parts are nothing but handmaidens of the
> unconscious/id.
As Hume said, although with a more elegant 18th-century
vocabulary.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Extremists Now Purging Moderates From Arizona and Florida GOP
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:08 am
From: Bret Cahill
McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
nonsense.
Bret Cahill
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Three levels of meaningful logic.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:11 am
From: Zerkon
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 05:06:44 -0700, bigfletch8@gmail.com wrote:
> Physio-logical. The body following a “set of rules” at the physical
> level, which can be stimulated by the psycho-logical (psychosomatic
> being the interaction of both), both being subordinate to spiritual
> logic.
spiritual logic?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Various notable critics of capitalism
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:23 am
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 12:16 am, M Purcell wrote:
> On Mar 28, 9:59 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 7:13 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 28, 4:35 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 28, 5:53 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>
> > > > > Gotta wonder, A couple of months ago the enviornmentalists were
> > > > > protesting the grape growers water usage.
>
> > > > then its looking quite likely that those capitalists are not
> > > > operating in their own best long term interests. in my state, clear
> > > > cutting was done by robber barons before government intervened. my
> > > > state was 2/3rds covered by tree’s. there were large area’s, hundreds
> > > > of square miles of forest, were hardly a tree was left standing. then
> > > > government stepped in to limit what was left of the forests. during
> > > > the great depression, government subsidized tree plantings, and the
> > > > great northern forests came back, minus the clear cutting from the
> > > > private sector. today the forests are well managed by the state, and
> > > > the lumber and paper mills are quite stable.
>
> > > Closing the National Forests closed a lot of mills in the northwest,
> > > the Forest Service was unable to practice sustainability. I suspect
> > > you are refering to state forest. Some companies (such as Medicino
> > > Redwood Company) are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as
> > > practicing sustained yield whereas there is some contraversy with
> > > Sierra Pacific Industries owed by “Red” Emmerson. The problem with
> > > clearcuts is there are no seed trees left and it needs to be replanted
> > > and there are still a lot of clearcuts in National Forests that
> > > haven’t been replanted. Redwoods on the other hand have several ways
> > > of reproducing theirselves and often grow from stumps.
>
> > it was a common practice in the good old unregulated days of america.
> > it matters not what state. capitalists cut, slashed, and burned down
> > much of americas forests, till government stepped in. the same thing
> > is going on with the fisheries today. the fishing industry would fish
> > the seas, till every last fish is gone. we saw that happen in alaska.
>
> There are ethical capitalists as well as the unethical ones who need
> to be regulated. But the main reason there are fewer resources is that
> there are more people. Now that most of mills in the northwest are
> closed, we import lumber from Canada.
of course there are a few ethical ones. responsible wealth has a few.
but they are outnumbered by the many. there is plenty for all if the
resource is managed properly. and that has been by governments world
wide, some bad, some good, some really good. finland provides the
world with about 25% of the worlds paper products, yet has about 2% of
the worlds forests. and finlands forests are heavily regulated by
government.
left onto their own, markets almost always fail. they cannot self
regulate, self police, self right, self correct. they almost always
end in failure.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:24 am
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 2:32 am, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On Mar 29, 1:32 am, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > the cult of ayn rand advocates murder and genocide:
>
> Just shows how fucking desperate and pathetic ewe lefturdian retards
> can get, what a fucking losing knuckle-dragging wanker ewe are.
>
> MG
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:24 am
From: omprem
On Mar 28, 9:23 pm, John Locke wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:33:57 +0100, John Jones
>
> wrote:
> >There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> Only one kind. Employing reason and logic, adhering to scientific
> procedures and not entertaining even the slightest notion of
> supernatural control and design.
>
> —————————————————————
>
> “”All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian,
> or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to
> terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
> — Thomas Paine
Scientific procedures are limited, flawed and subject to skewing by
the presence and intent of the scientist.
If only Atheists knew enough about reason and logic and were able to
conquer their fears sufficiently to examine their own belief system.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:26 am
From: omprem
On Mar 29, 6:25 am, John Jones wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
>
> > [1] – A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in
> > a systematic activity to acquire knowledge
>
> That begs the question. It begs the question because the term
> “systematic” implies what is correct. And what is correct is what is at
> issue. Hence it begs the question of what a scientist is.
In addition, Atheists are not systematic but rather frightened beings
howling their despair to the Moon.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:30 am
From: omprem
On Mar 29, 9:30 am, “Daniel T.” wrote:
> John Jones wrote:
> > There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy and
> > leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering to
> > onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of science in action.
>
> > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler is
> > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are
> > impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden strengths of
> > science.
>
> There are lots of kinds of scientists, but to the question “What makes a
> good scientist?” my answer is “objectivity.”
But according to Atheism, all mental content and activity is just
biochemical reaction and is subjective. There cannot be objectivity.
Takes for playing. Your turn is over.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Various notable critics of capitalism
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:25 am
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 2:37 am, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On Mar 29, 1:33 am, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > Ayn Rand………
>
> Pathetic, how utterly pathetic, the subject, ewe fucking lefturdian
> moron, is not about Rand, its about ewe and ewe alone being the sole
> benefactor and the sole decider of the results of your own energy, to
> trade with who you wish on the terms and conditions that you both
> agree to, in a word “capitalism”, which clearly scares the living shit
> out of ewe lefturds so much that ewe can never stay on the subject
> when ever its raised.
>
> MG
except. refute it. and not by your blubbering, but with verifiable
facts:)
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:26 am
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 2:39 am, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On Mar 29, 1:37 am, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > ayn rand novels are not historically accurate,
>
> As if ewe have ever read one, what a fucking disgusting and desperate
> liar ewe are, how pathetic.
>
> MG
hey, i grew up, matured, walk in others shoes.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:27 am
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 2:45 am, Michael Gordge wrote:
> On Mar 29, 1:53 am, Geode wrote:
>
> > more or less the ideology of conservatives.
>
> Fuck off ewe idiot, the coward posting under the name nick….. is a
> lefturdian envy ridden wanker who doesn’t know his arse from his
> elbow.
>
> MG
except, no one really knows what you are talking about, except others
who have had their lives stolen when they were gullible enough to read
rand, and get roped into a cult:)
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:56 am
From: M Purcell
On Mar 29, 9:23 am, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Mar 29, 12:16 am, M Purcell wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 9:59 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 28, 7:13 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 28, 4:35 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 28, 5:53 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>
> > > > > > Gotta wonder, A couple of months ago the enviornmentalists were
> > > > > > protesting the grape growers water usage.
>
> > > > > then its looking quite likely that those capitalists are not
> > > > > operating in their own best long term interests. in my state, clear
> > > > > cutting was done by robber barons before government intervened. my
> > > > > state was 2/3rds covered by tree’s. there were large area’s, hundreds
> > > > > of square miles of forest, were hardly a tree was left standing. then
> > > > > government stepped in to limit what was left of the forests. during
> > > > > the great depression, government subsidized tree plantings, and the
> > > > > great northern forests came back, minus the clear cutting from the
> > > > > private sector. today the forests are well managed by the state, and
> > > > > the lumber and paper mills are quite stable.
>
> > > > Closing the National Forests closed a lot of mills in the northwest,
> > > > the Forest Service was unable to practice sustainability. I suspect
> > > > you are refering to state forest. Some companies (such as Medicino
> > > > Redwood Company) are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as
> > > > practicing sustained yield whereas there is some contraversy with
> > > > Sierra Pacific Industries owed by “Red” Emmerson. The problem with
> > > > clearcuts is there are no seed trees left and it needs to be replanted
> > > > and there are still a lot of clearcuts in National Forests that
> > > > haven’t been replanted. Redwoods on the other hand have several ways
> > > > of reproducing theirselves and often grow from stumps.
>
> > > it was a common practice in the good old unregulated days of america.
> > > it matters not what state. capitalists cut, slashed, and burned down
> > > much of americas forests, till government stepped in. the same thing
> > > is going on with the fisheries today. the fishing industry would fish
> > > the seas, till every last fish is gone. we saw that happen in alaska.
>
> > There are ethical capitalists as well as the unethical ones who need
> > to be regulated. But the main reason there are fewer resources is that
> > there are more people. Now that most of mills in the northwest are
> > closed, we import lumber from Canada.
>
> of course there are a few ethical ones. responsible wealth has a few.
> but they are outnumbered by the many. there is plenty for all if the
> resource is managed properly. and that has been by governments world
> wide, some bad, some good, some really good. finland provides the
> world with about 25% of the worlds paper products, yet has about 2% of
> the worlds forests. and finlands forests are heavily regulated by
> government.
> left onto their own, markets almost always fail. they cannot self
> regulate, self police, self right, self correct. they almost always
> end in failure.
The markets and governments are run by people, some good, some bad.
But there seems to be a little more accountability with governments.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do atheist deny that atheism is a relegion.
>> Watching you idiot atheists witlessly pinning your own lunatic
>> assumptions and irrational perceptions onto it then attempting to argue
>> against your very own deranged Frankenstein-like creation with utterly
>> b0rked illogic is a never-ending source of great hilarity.
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Extremists Now Purging Moderates From Arizona and Florida GOP
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:39 am
From: Bret Cahill
> > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > nonsense.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Keep on believin that load of crap, gonna make your ass whuppin in
> November even
> more historic.
> BTW we are gettin rid of the non-conservatives and if we have such
> clout it isn’t because
> were a minority and news flash BC, 25% of dems and over 2/3rds of
> independents either
> associate with or support the tea party principles so keep on with the
> Bama Kool Aid cuz
> your going down with the great failure.
> And don’t think were not getting rid of the BS you fools have enacted,
> you just pissed away
> your parties dominance for something that the American people will not
> let stand!
Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Very
local. Just shoot up your trailer.
Bret Cahill
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:39 am
From: cop welfare
in the teaparty world…
a moderate is somebody that uses toilet paper.
makes everything easy.
teapartiers got a secret handshake.
they call it ‘shake and sniff’.
git it?
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:50 am
From: tooly
On Mar 29, 12:08 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> nonsense.
>
> Bret Cahill
We are not extremists of course, but actually, we were the LAND and
it’s culture before progressives started taking it over.
But there are political realities coming to bear for the
traditionalist. Once again, I’ll say…the Hart-Cellar Immigration
act pretty much ‘sealed the deal’ for socialists. The 2003
demographics showed for every 1 additional caucasion in America, there
were 3 blacks and 7 hispanics coming in [or being born].
That spells doom any way one can put it [for caucasions...ergo, the
founding element of this country; ergo, from europe].
It probably puts this culture on a path toward ‘afro centrism’ of all
things? Go figure.
There might be one or two elections that conservatives can still
muster out…one being this next November [2010]. Even with all that
has taken place [Obama's socialism and grand ire being created in half
the land], traditionalists and conservatives will still only barely
muster a bare majority at the national level.
Some argue however, that the founder’s prodgeny may not go into the
night so meakly however. It still IS our country; we invented it; we
created it’s founding by laws, it’s principles…including laizez
faire economics.
No nation has ever simply been ‘taken over’ by internal socially
disparate forces such that is taking place in America now. It’s not
natural. But there has been a gargantuan ‘campaign’ going on in our
institutions, classrooms, media etc, to ‘charm the snake’ so speak; to
mesmerize the founder’s prodgeny into believing they have no RIGHT to
defend what is theirs [that it is NOT theirs; they it was somehow NOT
their forebears who invented the place].
No one really wants to put a color on it…but REALITY stars us in the
face and we look into the eyes or our own doom IF WE DON”T.
So, one might ask, what does any cornered animal do when the world
[Obama's world anyway, ha]…paints that animal into that corner with
nowhere else to go? I think hispanics and blacks are betting that the
white guy is just going to lay down and die. HA…I see all them
white teens with ‘pants on the ground’, and I can see why.
Ah well…I suppose we can always laugh [after we cry]. It was not
right what has been done to us.
We’ll see; who knows, anything can happen. Obama might actually be
ushering in something entirely opposite to what seems apparent. But
those tea party’ers…they look awfully old and haggard. I have
faith SOMETHING will happen though; something ‘reactionary’…to take
what is ours back. This simply is not natural what is happening.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:43 am
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 11:08 am, Bret Cahill wrote:
> McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> nonsense.
>
> Bret Cahill
lets hope they succeed. every cult dies once they enter the drive for
purity phase:)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How ‘A’ is and is not ‘A’
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:45 am
From: M Purcell
On Mar 29, 8:43 am, “Robakks” wrote:
>
> Be and to exist.
> The horse to be in the real world.
> The image of a horse exists in the psyche.
>
> Identity = compliance
> what IS and what exists.
Certainly if the horse stepped on your foot you would know it exists
independent of your imagination but suppose the horse went somewhere
else? How would you know it is still in the “real world”, maybe
something ate it. Egotists seem to believe all horses will always step
on people’s feet because one stepped on their foot.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I Refuse to Embrace Ignorance
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:47 am
From: “Bigdog”
Daniel T. wrote:
> “Bigdog” wrote:
>> Daniel T. wrote:
>>> “Bigdog” wrote:
>>>> “Daniel T.” wrote:
>>>>> “Bigdog” wrote:
>>>>>> Daniel T. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We conduct observations under the assumption that the universe
>>>>>>> is uniform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, we conduct observations and acknowledge uniformity when
>>>>>> we see it, and we often make good use of any uniformity we find.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, no matter how many white swans you see, you can never
>>>>> guarantee that all swans are white. We *assume* that the law of
>>>>> gravity (for example) operates the same everywhere and will not
>>>>> change in the future, we can’t *prove* it.
>>>>
>>>> No such guarantee or proof is necessary in order to make use of
>>>> observed regularities. All that is required is that the
>>>> anticipation afforded by that uniformity should be useful (right
>>>> more often that it is wrong).
>>>
>>> Now you are question begging, your only reason to believe that your
>>> anticipation is correct is the fact that is has been correct in the
>>> past. You are using inductive reasoning to prove the soundness of an
>>> inductive argument, but inductive reasoning cannot prove soundness,
>>> unless we assume uniformity.
>>
>> No question begging involved here, since no proof is required. The
>> only requirement is that of utility. The sun rises every morning,
>> but it doesn’t matter that it won’t do so forever.
>
> The question isn’t, “will the sun rise forever,” but will it rise
> tomorrow? We can’t answer that question without assuming the
> uniformity of the universe.
We don’t need to assume the uniformity of the universe – that there is
uniformity in the universe is evident from the way it manifests. If there
were no uniformity in the universe then we wouldn’t be here to asks these
questions about it. Some kinds of uniformity (like planetary motions) give
more confidence than others (like weather patterns). There is no requirement
for certainty here but only for levels of confidence.
>>>>>>> This, for me this is the real meaning of what it is to
>>>>>>> believe in the metaphysical. Is the universe knowable? Those
>>>>>>> who accept the metaphysical are saying that, at some
>>>>>>> fundamental level, it is not. Even if they are correct I
>>>>>>> refuse to accept it; even if we cannot know the world, we
>>>>>>> most assuredly cannot know beforehand what our limits of
>>>>>>> knowledge are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And so we cannot know whether or not the universe is, at some
>>>>>> fundamental level, unknowable, so your position is
>>>>>> inconsistent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. I agree completely that we cannot know (whether or
>>>>> not the universe is unknowable.) What I am saying (and said
>>>>> below,) is that the question is unanswerable so I take it on
>>>>> faith that we we can know. And I am saying that even if we did
>>>>> know (somehow) that the universe was fundamentally unknowable,
>>>>> we cannot know that we have reached the limit of our ability to
>>>>> know.
>>>>
>>>> Any such faith is a sterile and pointless piece of speculation
>>>> that contributes nothing of any practical value.
>>>
>>> Please expound on this. It seems that you saying that there is no
>>> practical value in assuming that we can learn more about the cosmos.
>>
>> Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what it is you’re “taking on faith”
>> then, because I’m certainly not saying that there is no practical
>> value in assuming that we can learn more about the cosmos. There is
>> no practical value in speculating that the universe is or is not
>> fundamentally unknowable – there is only practical value in finding out
>> more about it.
>
> There is no reason to try to find out more about the universe unless
> we first assume that we can learn more. That is the assumption I am
> making, that is what I take on faith.
Any proposition to the contrary would simply be the babblings of a madman.
>>>>>>> As a result of this reasoning, I have come to conclude that
>>>>>>> when someone asserts that God exists, he is not making an
>>>>>>> epistemological claim; he is not saying that there is some
>>>>>>> definable entity in the universe called God. Rather he is
>>>>>>> saying that he embraces ignorance; not just that human
>>>>>>> inquiry has limits, but that we have reached those limits. I
>>>>>>> have “faith” (a firm inner conviction, unjustifiably held)
>>>>>>> that this is not so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with the theists’ derisive claim that my position
>>>>>>> takes more faith than theirs. My position requires faith in
>>>>>>> the ability of mankind to learn, in our ability to
>>>>>>> understand the universe around us, something that I
>>>>>>> rationally know has limits, but I refuse to accept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In your refusal to accept that there may be limits to our
>>>>>> ability to understand the universe around us, you admit to
>>>>>> acting irrationally, and you seem to be wearing your
>>>>>> irrationality like a badge of honor.
>>>>>
>>>>> I refuse to accept that there are limits *and* that we have
>>>>> reached those limits. (That is far different than refusing to
>>>>> accept that there “may” be limits.) That is the recipe for
>>>>> apathy.
>>>>
>>>> Refusing to accept that we have reached those limits (if they
>>>> exist) is quite different to asserting (on faith, as you do above)
>>>> that we can reach those limits (if they exist). Our knowledge of
>>>> the universe around us grows continually. What does it matter
>>>> whether there is or is not some terminus towards which we are
>>>> proceeding?
>>>
>>> There logically is a terminus, but what I’m saying is that it
>>> doesn’t matter that there is a terminus. The important question is,
>>> have we already reached the terminus? The answer to that question,
>>> if it could be answered, would have a powerful impact. The issue at
>>> hand is that the question cannot ever be answered.
>>
>> I don’t know how your assertion can be justified that there logically
>> is a terminus. What kind of logical argument are you advocating here?
>
> If we can know the answer to every question, then there is a terminus
> to what we can know. the terminus in this case is the answer to every
> question.
>
> If we cannot know the answer to every question, then there is a
> terminus to what we can know. The terminus in this case is the answer
> to all but a select batch of questions.
>
> In either case there is an end to seeking knowledge. Now a question,
> “Do we know everything there is to know about the universe?”
> Logically, we can never answer this question about the universe,
> therefore we cannot answer every question.
You speak as though you take it as axiomatic that there are only a fixed
number of questions possible, and then you apply the law of the excluded
middle to your axiom. I’m questioning your axiom – how do you know that
there are only a fixed number of questions possible?
>>> The best we can do, must do, is assume an answer to the question and
>>> proceed from there. What I am saying is that it is easier (requires
>>> less faith) to assume that we already know everything we will ever
>>> know about the cosmos and stop looking for answers (the metaphysical
>>> view,) than it is to assume that, if we keep plugging away at it, we
>>> can learn more.
>>
>> If we ever reach such a terminus (should one exist) there will be no
>> new discoveries to make, and all discoveries will cease.
>
> This comment brings us full circle regarding the problem with
> induction (which we have been discussing at the top of the post.) How
> long do we have to go without making any discoveries before we know
> we have reached the terminus? How long must a runner attempt to beat
> his best time before he knows that he can’t?
>
> There is no answer to that question. We can *never* know if we have
> reached a terminus to our knowledge. Some people take it on faith that
> we have (at least in certain areas,) others do not.
What I meant by my comment above (and continued below) was nothing to do
with what you inferred from it. What I meant was that we are clearly at no
such terminus, even should such a terminus exist. This situation says
nothing about the existence or non-existence of such a terminus.
>> We clearly aren’t at any such stage, so it would not be an easy task
>> to deny that we are still making new discoveries whilst retaining
>> even a modicum of credibility.
>
> Such people would not retain credibility with you or me, but someone
> who believes we have reached the limits of our knowledge regarding,
> for example, evolutionary principles, finds Behe credible despite his
> assertions.
Who is Behe? Anyhow, anyone who believes we have reached the limits of our
knowledge must simply be shutting his eyes and putting his hands over his
ears whilst singing “I can’t hear you”. With reference to any particular
discipline, it may or may not be the case depending on the complexity of the
discipline. It might be credible to say that we have reached the limits of
our knowledge regarding the game of noughts and crosses, but such claims
about more complex disciplines (eg eveolutionary principles) are more
contentious. A person might make such a claim, but that claim is not a part
of the science about which they are speaking. Science is always provisional,
though scientists are human beings and may state their opinions as human
beings. Some working scientists are cranks.
>> Also, I don’t understand your use of the word ‘metaphysical’ in this
>> sense – I think the word ‘incredible’ would be more appropriate.
>
> This comes to the heart of my initial post.
>
> (reprinted from my original post)
> This, for me this is the real meaning of what it is to believe in the
> metaphysical. Is the universe knowable? Those who accept the
> metaphysical are saying that, at some fundamental level, it is not.
Metaphysical propositions often take the form of competing hypotheses none
of which can justifiably be eliminated on grounds of logical argument or of
empirical evidence. To believe in any particular hypothesis from such a
group would be nothing more than prejudice.
> … when someone asserts that God exists, he is not making an
> epistemological claim; he is not saying that there is some definable
> entity in the universe called God. Rather he is saying that he
> embraces ignorance; not just that human inquiry has limits, but that
> we have reached those limits.
When someone asserts that god exists, one must first ask how they are using
the word ‘god’. If they are referring to the creator of the universe then
they are showing a culturally conditioned prejudice, and the best I can say
is that I have no use for that hypothesis. I can’t see how your conclusion
follows that the theist believes we have reached to limits of human enquiry.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: BEAUTIFUL DEAD SCIENCE
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:44 am
From: Pentcho Valev
A symptom of dead science: The Michelson-Morley experiment “did not
establish the constancy of the speed of light” and yet “textbook
accounts commonly assert” it did (and nobody cares about both what the
experiment established and what textbook accounts commonly assert):
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/HumeMach.pdf
John Norton: “However it [the Michelson-Morley experiment] appeared to
Einstein to do little more than support the idea that physics must
conform to the principle of relativity; it did not establish the
constancy of the speed of light, as later textbook accounts commonly
assert.”
John Norton: “Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity……THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE.”
By the way, John Norton is mistaken: Einstein taught that the
Michelson-Morley experiment had established the constancy of the speed
of light:
The New York Times, April 19, 1921
“Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1,
the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is
contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled?
Professor Einstein asked.”
“Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein built a cluster of
“Potemkin villages,” which are false fronts with nothing behind them.
Grigori Potemkin (17391791) was a general-field marshal, Russian
statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the Great. He is alleged
to have built facades of non-existent villages along desolate
stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as she sailed to
the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants stood in front of
these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased Empress. (…) The
science establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in
Einstein. Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein’s tricks,
they are prepared to defend his Potemkin villages. A Potemkin village
is a pretty picture to fool the gullible romantic. Einstein was
romantically infatuated with pretty pictures. He deliberately sought
theories that were aesthetically beautiful in their harmony, symmetry,
and simplicity. He romantically believed something akin to Keats’
famous poetic summation: “Beauty is truth and truth, beauty.”
Beautiful dead science institutionalized (but “no longer getting the
kind of support it needs”):
Silly Walks Applicant: “Well sir, I have a silly walk and I’d like to
obtain a Government grant to help me develop it….I think that with
Government backing I could make it very silly.” Silly Walks Director:
“Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of money. I’m afraid that the
Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer getting the kind of support it
needs. You see there’s Defence, Social Security, Health, Housing,
Education, Silly Walks … they’re all supposed to get the same. But
last year, the Government spent less on the Ministry of Silly Walks
than it did on National Defence! Now we get 348,000,000 a year, which
is supposed to be spent on all our available products.”
Selling beautiful dead science:
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue…What’s,uh…What’s wrong
with it?
Mr. Praline: I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it, my lad. ‘E’s dead,
that’s what’s wrong with it!
Owner: No, no, ‘e’s uh,…he’s resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I’m
looking at one right now.
Owner: No no he’s not dead, he’s, he’s restin’! Remarkable bird, the
Norwegian Blue, idn’it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rising racial tensions: Who are the true villains?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:42 am
From: Bret Cahill
> > > > As racial tensions are rising in America, and both black racists and
> > > > white racists are profiting from them in their desire to assert
> > > > totalitarian control over the respective races, it is about time to
> > > > put things into perspective for both groups.
>
> > > > While the white racists continue to claim that the white race is the
> > > > superior race, and the black racists claim that white people are
> > > > oppressors against black people, history shows that neither is true.
> > > > China had great cities and half the world’s GDP at the time that
> > > > Europe was a feudal backwater. At about the same time, Africa had a
> > > > city of one million people, when Europe did not have a settlement
> > > > larger than one tenth that size. As for the claim of white people
> > > > being oppressors of black people: The African leaders collaborated in
> > > > the slave trade. As for the present white people, the ones that live
> > > > in the cities are the ones that are sympathetic to black people and
> > > > have fought for civil rights, de-segregation, social inclusion, and
> > > > election of Barack Obama. And while there are many white people who
> > > > are in fact racist and hateful of black people, most vote Republican
> > > > and live in the country. So if you are black, and serious about
> > > > standing up for your people, the Democrats in the cities are not the
> > > > people you want to get.
>
> > > > The ones you do want to get are people such as …
>
> > > Internationalists/New Word Orderists/Traitors who want to break down
> > > national sovereignty by means of impugning ‘racism’ as a scourge to
> > > any and all attempts by a nationality to exert authority over their
> > > own internal affairs…
>
> > > Hoping by such action to break down societal cohesion and consensus by
> > > immigrating foreign factions that are detrimental to national
> > > democratic processes… so that they can impose their own
> > > internationalist authority instead.
>
> > That’s something one might hear from a small-time despot who wants to
> > dominate the people in the community in which he operates, and for
> > these people to have no options except putting up with his domination.
>
> Do you have a problem with an ethnic group which wishes to control its
> own affairs?
You mean like George III?
> Or do you demand that foreigners control them?
You mean like the collective formed by Jefferson to toss George III?
> It’s a simple question.. please answer.
Speaking of simple questions and answers . . .
www.bretcahill.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: One way of recognising one’s spirituality.
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:55 am
From: “thomas p.”
omprem wrote:
> On Mar 27, 11:50 pm, “The BORG” wrote:
>> wrote in message
>>
>> news:363a927a-30a2-4b8e-8068-833a69da1437@s20g2000prm.googlegroups.com…
>>
>>
>>
>>> When you can see that atheism, religiosity, and the
>>> different shades
>>> between, are valid states of consciousness, that they
>>> are ‘group rites
>>> of passage’, from which individual consciousness and
>>> awareness
>>> emerges, then you are looking from a spiritual
>>> perspective.
>>
>>> Often confirmed by being ‘accused’ from one side or the
>>> other, as
>>> belonging to their particular opposite, as happens with
>>> all growth
>>> into ‘individuality’.
>>
>>> A favorite anecdote being Sting’s dad (who was a
>>> milkman) told his
>>> sone, even when he was succesful…”yes, but thats not a
>>> ‘propper’
>>> job…Just delightful !
>>
>>> Groups do not take kindly to what they describe as
>>> ‘radicals’, and we
>>> all know the power of ‘free radicals’ have over the
>>> organism.
>>
>>> Something that the ‘group’ tries to stop at the
>>> intellectual level ,
>>> and ‘cure’ at the physiological level.
>>
>>> And the beat goes on ….
>>
>>> BOfL
>>
>> SUFFERING is one of the best ways to cause anyone’s
>> individual conscious and awareness to emerge.
>> Those who never suffer, never become “deep” in the way
>> that those who suffer do.
>> It is strange how suffering causes you to think and ask
>> deep and meaningful questions about the nature of life
>> and existence.
>> There are two kinds of suffering.
>> Physical suffering, and mental suffering.
>>
>> The Christian Church and the Bible cause a lot of mental
>> suffering to people, and many are those tormented by
>> words written in the Bible, of a mean, petty, violent,
>> prejudiced, and punishing God. And of a so called
>> “beloved son” who was not beloved at all if God had him
>> crucified.
>>
>> Physical suffering can often be relived by pain killers.
>>
>> But for mental anguish, and mental torments, there is no
>> relief, no assistance.
>> And when no God can be found, and no one anywhere can
>> give you the reassurance you need, then no belief in
>> Jesus can help, if it means embracing the violent,
>> petty, prejudiced and punishing God who is his so called
>> father.
>>
>> On Earth, the only escape from these religious nightmares
>> and torments that emanate from the Bible is really to
>> embrace Hinduism.
>> There, Krisna is viewed as God or the Supreme Being.
>> And there you will find no words on hell or damnation or
>> purgatory or punishments, as those that exist in the
>> nasty violent religion on Earth called Christianity.
>> And no talk of prejudice or pettiness or violence as
>> exist in the Old Testament.
>>
>> For those who are sensitive and frightened.
>> EMBRACE KRISNA.
>> The One True God, our Dear Lord and Saviour.
>> Who speaks only of peace and kindness and love.
>>
>> Once you embrace Krisna, you can leave all the nastiness
>> and violence and ugliness of the Bible behind and below,
>> forget the nasty crucifixion stuff, and rise up in the
>> spirit to the Supreme Being, the Greatest and highest
>> God of all.
>> The one who is ALL good and kind, the one who is PERFECT.
>>
>> This is the ONLY answer for the more sensitive people on
>> Earth, for those who suffer the fears and insanities
>> generated from the Bible.
>>
>> The dumbfucks and numbskulls and idiots and insensitive
>> creeps can have their Jesus and their horrible Old
>> Testament God.
>> Once you find Krisna, there is no turning back.
>>
>> THE BORG
>
> The ‘mental suffering’ suffered by Atheists who attempt
> to read the Bible and understand Christianity is due to
> their being brought into acute awareness of their willful
> and invincible ignorance. They are torn between wanting
> to stay addicted to their ignorance and being impelled
> forward and upward by their dim intuitive awareness of
> Divinity.
You still have not explained why you eat small children. Does
Jesus know about your nasty habit?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:56 am
From: “thomas p.”
omprem wrote:
> On Mar 28, 7:16 am, Mike Jones
> wrote:
>> Responding to bigflet…@gmail.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>> When you can see that atheism, religiosity, and the
>>> different shades between, are valid states of
>>> consciousness, that they are ‘group rites of passage’,
>>> from which individual consciousness and awareness
>>> emerges, then you are looking from a spiritual
>>> perspective.
>>
>>> Often confirmed by being ‘accused’ from one side or the
>>> other, as belonging to their particular opposite, as
>>> happens with all growth into ‘individuality’.
>>
>>> A favorite anecdote being Sting’s dad (who was a
>>> milkman) told his sone, even when he was
>>> succesful…”yes, but thats not a ‘propper’ job…Just
>>> delightful !
>>
>>> Groups do not take kindly to what they describe as
>>> ‘radicals’, and we all know the power of ‘free
>>> radicals’ have over the organism.
>>
>>> Something that the ‘group’ tries to stop at the
>>> intellectual level , and ‘cure’ at the physiological
>>> level.
>>
>>> And the beat goes on ….
>>
>>> BOfL
>>
>>> BOfL
>>
>> Except the whole concept of “spirituality” is bullshit
>> designed to create an inner mindset that will be
>> vunerable to “god shaped space” propaganda. Its like a
>> teenager getting to first base on a date. Get her blouse
>> open, distract with romantic lies, then slowly…
>>
>> Get ‘em to accept “spirituality”, then drip feed doubt
>> and fear until…
>>
>> And you just re-promoted that particular toxic meme.
>> Oops!
>>
>> –
>> *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
>> *=( For all your UK news needs.
>
> MJ is the living embodiment of invincible ignorance.
Yes, we all know that you have conclusive evidence of a
spiritual reality. Why don’t you post it?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: LSD and Gods
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 9:55 am
From: Xan Du
thomas p. wrote:
> “Xan Du” skrev i meddelelsen
> news:hoplis$k8j$2@news.eternal-september.org…
>> thomas p. wrote:
>>> Xan Du wrote:
>>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>>>> “Day Brown” skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>> news:4ba42e36$0$18933$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com…
>>>>>> Smiler wrote:
>>>>>>> “LSD always brings an experience of a god or Gods”
>>>>>>> Contradict yourself much?
>>>>>> Depends on who getsta define the terms. LSD, Mescaline,
>>>>>> Pscilocybin, Muscarine, and other
>>>>>> compounds have been employed for millennia- in the
>>>>>> sacred space, at the sacred time, for sacred purpose,
>>>>>> and at the direction of a spirit guide. Delusion always feeds the ego.
>>>>>> Spiritual illumination
>>>>>> always humbles. These compounds alter perception, but
>>>>>> to say it results in delusion assumes perception is not
>>>>>> delusional to start with. Of course, if a mind is too
>>>>>> limited intellectually or deranged, spiritual
>>>>>> illumination is not likely. And if your reasoning processes are
>>>>>> already too
>>>>>> limited, by all means do not perform this kind of
>>>>>> experiment. But to assume that all others are so
>>>>>> limited is delusional.
>>>>> The irony is that you are the one making the enormous
>>>>> assumption, i.e. that there is such a thing as spiritual
>>>>> illumination, and that you know what one of its
>>>>> universal effects is. That could be seen as a lack of
>>>>> humility on your part.
>>>> Mr. Brown is a pretty smart cookie. A little arrogance
>>>> is to be expected, and my view, respected.
>>>>
>>>> -Xan
>>> Being smart does not negate the possibility of expressing nonsense.
>> Obviously. But I assure you, from my POV, the man does not speak
>> nonsense.
>>
>> -Xan
>
> He is describing in some detail a phenomenon for which no objective evidence
> exists.
> That is nonsense.
>
>
I call that a hypothesis.
-Xan
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Three levels of meaningful logic.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:00 am
From: Monsieur Turtoni
“The Australian philosopher David Stove argued in typical acerbic
style that idealism rested on what he called “the worst argument in
the world”. His critique of Idealism is perhaps the most devastating
critique of subjective idealism in philosophy. From a logical point of
view his critique is no different from Russell or Nietzsche’s — but
Stove has been more widely cited and most clearly highlighted the
mistake of idealist proponents. He named the form of this argument -
invented by Berkeley — “the GEM”. Berkeley claimed that “[the mind]
is deluded to think it can and does conceive of bodies existing
unthought of, or without the mind, though at the same time they are
apprehended by, or exist in, itself”. Stove argued that this claim
proceeds from the tautology that nothing can be thought of without its
being thought of, to the conclusion that nothing can exist without its
being thought of.
The following is Stove’s version of Berkeley’s GEM (1991:139):
1) You cannot have trees-without-the-mind in mind, without having them
in mind.
2) Therefore, you cannot have trees-without-the-mind in mind.
1) Is a tautology (self-referential statement); therefore the premise
of this argument is trivially true.
2) Is not a trivially true conclusion. The logic flowing from 1) to 2)
is valid (as this premise cannot lead to a false conclusion), but
unsound because tautological premises can bring only tautological
conclusions.
Refer to Stove’s 1991 book The Plato Cult & Other Philosophical
Follies chapter 6 Idealism: A Victorian Horror Story for numerous
elucidations and numerous GEM’s quoted from the history of philosophy
and GEM’s reconstructed in syllogistic form.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:02 am
From: Monsieur Turtoni
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
Idealism is the philosophical theory which maintains that the ultimate
nature of reality is based on the mind or ideas. In the philosophy of
perception, idealism is contrasted with realism in which the external
world is said to have an apparent absolute existence after which, and
independent of completely, knowledge and consciousness.
Epistemological idealists (such as Kant), it is claimed, might insist
that the only things which can be directly known for certain are just
ideas (abstraction).
In the philosophy of mind, idealism is the opposite of materialism, in
which the ultimate nature of reality is based on physical substances.
Idealism and materialism are both theories of monism as opposed to
dualism and pluralism. Idealism sometimes refers to a tradition in
thought that represents things of a perfect form, as in the fields of
ethics, morality, aesthetics, and value. In this way, it represents a
human perfect being or circumstance. In the ancient philosophy of the
Vedas, idealism refers to the dynamic consciousness of living beings
that emanates from the divine cosmic source.[citation needed] In much
the same way, idealism has spread throughout the world. Individual
societies have inspired and grown their own specific set of idealism,
but they all have these generalities in common.
Idealism is a philosophical movement in Western thought, and names a
number of philosophical positions with sometimes quite different
tendencies and implications in politics and ethics, for instance, at
least in popular culture, philosophical idealism is associated with
Plato and the school of platonism.
Criticism
Immanuel Kant
In the 1st edition (1781) of his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant
described idealism thus:
We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within
ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and that only my
own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus the
existence of a real object outside me can never be given immediately
and directly in perception, but can only be added in thought to the
perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, and thus
inferred as its external cause … . In the true sense of the word,
therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can only infer
their existence from my own internal perception, regarding the
perception as an effect of something external that must be the
proximate cause … . It must not be supposed, therefore, that an
idealist is someone who denies the existence of external objects of
the senses; all he does is to deny that they are known by immediate
and direct perception … .
– Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f.
In the 2nd edition (1787) of his Critique of Pure Reason, he wrote a
section called Refutation of Idealism to distinguish his
transcendental idealism from Descartes’s Sceptical Idealism and
Berkeley’s Dogmatic Idealism. In addition to this refutation in both
the 1781 & 1787 editions the section “Paralogisms of Pure Reason” is
an implicit critique of Descartes’ Problematic Idealism, namely the
Cogito. He says that just from “the spontaneity of thought” (cf.
Descartes’ Cogito) it is not possible to infer the ‘I’ as an object.
Kant also defined idealism in the following manner: “The assertion
that we can never be certain whether all of our putative outer
experience is not mere imagining is idealism.”[9]
[edit] Søren Kierkegaard
Kierkegaard’s primary criticism against Hegel is based around Hegel’s
claim to have developed a fully comprehensive system that could
explain the whole of reality. The quote commonly used to express this
idea, whether fair to Hegel or not, is, “What is rational is actual;
and what is actual is rational,” in the Elements of the Philosophy of
Right (1821). Kierkegaard asserts that reality can be a system for
God, but it cannot be so for any human individual, because both
reality and humans are incomplete, and all philosophical systems imply
completeness. Kierkegaard attacked Hegel’s idealist philosophy in
several of his works, but most succinctly in Concluding Unscientific
Postscript (1846).
In the Postscript, Kierkegaard, as the pseudonymous philosopher
Johannes Climacus, argues that a logical system is possible but an
existential system is impossible. Hegel argues that once one has
reached an ultimate understanding of the logical structure of the
world, one has also reached an understanding of the logical structure
of God’s mind. Climacus claims Hegel’s absolute idealism mistakenly
blurs the distinction between existence and thought. Climacus also
argues that our mortal nature places limits on our understanding of
reality. As Climacus argues:
So-called systems have often been characterized and challenged in the
assertion that they abrogate the distinction between good and evil,
and destroy freedom. Perhaps one would express oneself quite as
definitely, if one said that every such system fantastically
dissipates the concept existence. … Being an individual man is a
thing that has been abolished, and every speculative philosopher
confuses himself with humanity at large; whereby he becomes something
infinitely great, and at the same time nothing at all.
A major concern of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) and of the
philosophy of Spirit that he lays out in his Encyclopedia of the
Philosophical Sciences (1817-1830) is the interrelation between
individual humans, which he conceives in terms of “mutual
recognition.” However, what Climacus means by the aforementioned
statement, is that Hegel, in the Philosophy of Right, believed the
best solution was to surrender one’s individuality to the customs of
the State, identifying right and wrong in view of the prevailing
bourgeois morality. Individual human will ought, at the State’s
highest level of development, to properly coincide with the will of
the State. Climacus rejects Hegel’s suppression of individuality by
pointing out it is impossible to create a valid set of rules or system
in any society which can adequately describe existence for any one
individual. Submitting one’s will to the State denies personal
freedom, choice, and responsibility.
In addition, Hegel does believe we can know the structure of God’s
mind, or ultimate reality. Hegel agrees with Kierkegaard that both
reality and humans are incomplete, inasmuch as we are in time, and
reality develops through time. But the relation between time and
eternity is outside time and this is the “logical structure” that
Hegel thinks we can know. Kierkegaard disputes this assertion, because
it eliminates the clear distinction between ontology and epistemology.
Existence and thought are not identical and one cannot possibly think
existence. Thought is always a form of abstraction, and thus not only
is pure existence impossible to think, but all forms in existence are
unthinkable; thought depends on language, which merely abstracts from
experience, thus separating us from lived experience and the living
essence of all beings. In addition, because we are finite beings, we
cannot possibly know or understand anything that is universal or
infinite such as God, so we cannot know God exists, since that which
transcends time simultaneously transcends human understanding.
[edit] Friedrich Nietzsche
Friedrich Nietzsche was the first to mount a logically serious
criticism of Idealism. He argued that Kant’s argument for his
transcendental idealism rests on a confusion between a tautology and/
or petitio principii, and is therefore an invalid argument.
In his book Beyond Good and Evil, Part 1 On the Prejudice of
Philosophers Section 11, he ridicules Kant for admiring himself
because he had undertaken and (thought he) succeeded in tackling “the
most difficult thing that could ever be undertaken on behalf of
metaphysics.”
“But let us reflect; it is high time to do so. ‘How are synthetic
judgements a priori possible?’ Kant asked himself-and what really is
his answer? ‘By virtue of a faculty’ – but unfortunately not in five
words,…The honeymoon of German philosophy arrived. All the young
theologians of the Tübingen seminary went into the bushes all looking
for ‘faculties.’…’By virtue of a faculty’ – he had said, or at least
meant. But is that an answer? An explanation? Or is it not rather
merely a repetition of the question? How does opium induce sleep? ‘By
virtue of a faculty,’ namely the virtus dormitiva, replies the doctor
in Moliére.”[citation needed]
This argument Nietzsche advances can also be constructed to read that
Kant was making a tautological argument (i.e. necessarily true). An
argument that has a necessarily true premise cannot make any synthetic
a priori statements, because (qua Kant) the synthetic cannot be
necessarily true.
In addition to the Kant’s idealism, Nietzsche in the same book attacks
the idealism of Schopenhauer and Descartes via a similar argument to
Kant’s original critique of Descartes. Quoting Nietzsche:
“There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are
“immediate certainties”; for example, “I think,” or as the
superstition of Schopenhauer put it, “I will”; as though knowledge
here got hold of its objects purely and nakedly as “the thing in
itself,” without any falsification on the part of either the subject
or the object. But that “immediate certainty,” as well as “absolute
knowledge” and the “thing in itself,” involved a contradictio in
adjecto, I shall repeat a hundred times; we really ought to free
ourselves from the seduction of words!”[citation needed]
[edit] G. E. Moore
The first criticism of Idealism that falls within the analytic
philosophical framework is by one of its co-founders G. E. Moore. This
1903 seminal article, The Refutation of Idealism. This one of the
first demonstrations of Moore’s commitment to analysis as the proper
philosophical method.
Moore proceeds by examining the Berkeleian aphorism esse est percipi:
“to be is to be perceived”. He examines in detail each of the three
terms in the aphorism, finding that it must mean that the object and
the subject are necessarily connected. So, he argues, for the
idealist, “yellow” and “the sensation of yellow” are necessarily
identical – to be yellow is necessarily to be experienced as yellow.
But, in a move similar to the open question argument, it also seems
clear that there is a difference between “yellow” and “the sensation
of yellow”. For Moore, the idealist is in error because “that esse is
held to be percipi, solely because what is experienced is held to be
identical with the experience of it”.
Though far from a complete refutation, this was the first strong
statement by analytic philosophy against its idealist predecessors—or
at any rate against the type of idealism represented by Berkeley—this
argument did not show that the GEM (in post Stove vernacular, see
below) is logically invalid. Arguments advanced by Nietzsche (prior to
Moore), Russell (just after Moore) & 80 years later Stove put a nail
in the coffin for the “master” argument supporting (Berkeleyan)
idealism.
[edit] Bertrand Russell
Despite Bertrand Russell’s hugely popular book The Problems of
Philosophy (this book was in its 17th printing by 1943) which was
written for a general audience rather than academia, few ever mention
his critique even though he completely anticipates David Stove’s GEM
both in form and content (see below for David Stove’s GEM). In chapter
4 (Idealism) he highlights Berkeley’s tautological premise for
advancing idealism.
Quoting Russell’s prose (1912:42-43):
“If we say that the things known must be in the mind, we are either un-
duly limiting the mind’s power of knowing, or we are uttering a mere
tautology. We are uttering a mere tautology if we mean by ‘in the
mind’ the same as by ‘before the mind’, i.e. if we mean merely being
apprehended by the mind. But if we mean this, we shall have to admit
that what, in this sense, is in the mind, may nevertheless be not
mental. Thus when we realize the nature of knowledge, Berkeley’s
argument is seen to be wrong in substance as well as in form, and his
grounds for supposing that ‘idea’-i.e. the objects apprehended-must be
mental, are found to have no validity whatever. Hence his grounds in
favour of the idealism may be dismissed.”
[edit] A.C. Ewing
Published in 1933, A. C. Ewing, according to David Stove, mounted the
first full length book critique of Idealism, entitled Idealism; a
critical survey. Stove does not mention that Ewing anticipated his
GEM.
[edit] David Stove
The Australian philosopher David Stove argued in typical acerbic style
that idealism rested on what he called “the worst argument in the
world”. From a logical point of view his critique is no different from
Russell or Nietzsche’s—but Stove has been more widely cited and most
clearly highlighted the mistake of proponents (like Berkeley) of
subjective idealism. He named the form of this argument – invented by
Berkeley — “the GEM”. Berkeley claimed that “[the mind] is deluded to
think it can and does conceive of bodies existing unthought of, or
without the mind, though at the same time they are apprehended by, or
exist in, itself”. Stove argued that this claim proceeds from the
tautology that nothing can be thought of without its being thought of,
to the conclusion that nothing can exist without its being thought of.
Alan Musgrave recently extended this argument to attack Conceptual
Idealism.
[edit] John Searle
In The Construction of Social Reality, John Searle offers an attack on
some versions of idealism. Searle conveniently summarises two
important arguments for (subjective) idealism. The first is based on
our perception of reality:
1. All we have access to in perception are the contents of our own
experiences
2. The only epistemic basis we can have for claims about the external
world are our perceptual experiences
therefore,
3. the only reality we can meaningfully speak of is the reality of
perceptual experiences (The Construction of Social Reality p. 172)
Whilst agreeing with (2), Searle argues that (1) is false, and points
out that (3) does not follow from (1) and (2).
The second argument for (subjective) idealism runs as follows:
Premise: Any cognitive state occurs as part of a set of cognitive
states and within a cognitive system
Conclusion 1: It is impossible to get outside of all cognitive states
and systems to survey the relationships between them and the reality
they are used to cognize
Conclusion 2: No cognition is ever of a reality that exists
independently of cognition (The Construction of Social Reality p.
174)
Searle goes on to point out that conclusion 2 simply does not follow
from its precedents.
[edit] Alan Musgrave
Alan Musgrave in an article titled Realism and Antirealism in R. Klee
(ed), Scientific Inquiry: Readings in the Philosophy of Science,
Oxford, 1998, 344-352 – later re-titled to Conceptual Idealism and
Stove’s GEM in A. Musgrave, Essays on Realism and Rationalism, Rodopi,
1999 also in M.L. Dalla Chiara et al. (eds), Language, Quantum, Music,
Kluwer, 1999, 25-35 – Alan Musgrave argues in addition to Stove’s GEM,
Conceptual Idealists compound their mistakes with use/mention
confusions and proliferation of unnecessary hyphenated entities.
stock examples of use/mention confusions:
Santa Claus (the person) does not exist.
‘Santa Claus’ (the name/concept/fairy tale) does exist; because adults
tell children this every Christmas season.
The distinction in philosophical circles is highlighted by putting
quotations around the word when we want to refer only to the name and
not the object.
stock examples of hyphenated entities:
things-in-itself (Immanuel Kant)
things-as-interacted-by-us (Arthur Fine)
Table-of-commonsense (Sir Arthur Eddington)
Table-of-physics (Sir Arthur Eddington)
Moon-in-itself
Moon-as-howled-by-wolves
Moon-as-conceived-by-Aristotelians
Moon-as-conceived-by-Galileans
Hyphenated entities are “warning signs” for conceptual idealism
according to Musgrave because they over emphasise the epistemic (ways
in which people come to learn about the world) activities and will
more likely commit errors in use/mention. These entities do not exist
(strictly speaking and are ersatz entities) but highlight the numerous
ways in which people come to know the world.
In Sir Arthur Eddington’s case use/mention confusions compounded his
problem when he thought he was sitting at two different tables in his
study (table-of-commonsense and table-of-physics). In fact Eddington
was sitting at one table but had two different perspectives or ways of
knowing about that one table.
Richard Rorty and Postmodernist Philosophy in general have been
attacked by Musgrave for committing use/mention confusions. Musgrave
argues that these confusions help proliferate GEM’s in our thinking
and serious thought should avoid GEM’s.
[edit] Philip J. Neujahr
“Although it would be hard to legislate about such matters, it would
perhaps be well to restrict the idealist label to theories which hold
that the world, or its material aspects, are dependent upon the
specifically cognitive activities of the mind or Mind in perceiving or
thinking about (or ‘experiencing’) the object of its
awareness.” (Kant’s Idealism, Ch. 1)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Abortion improves and increases the value of life!
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:12 am
From: “yarrido@aol.com”
On Mar 28, 1:06 pm, elizabeth wrote:
> On Mar 28, 12:38 pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 2:16 pm, elizabeth wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 26, 8:52 am, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 25, 11:25 am, elizabeth wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 24, 12:00 pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 23, 12:26 pm, elizabeth wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 22, 3:48 pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 1:03 pm, SkyEyes wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 10:35 am, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 7:34 pm, Rob Par wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:42:06 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> >
> > > > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > So, you aren’t animal, mineral or vegetable, and thus, you claim you
> > > > > do not exist.
>
> > > > I exist, you just don’t believe it. You think that my body
> > > > exists, not me.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > YOu exist, it’s just you don’t believe no one wants you to.
>
> > How do you know that I exist?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > – Show quoted text -
>
> It’s too bad you don’t. I’m sure everyone in the world aware of your
> miserable existance agrees with me.
You have no evidence that I exist. These letters you see here have
just randomly appeared from nowhere and assembled themselves in this
arrangement by themselves because it is the substance from which they
are made that makes them do so. Your pattern seeking mind then
interpreted them into words and sentences and meanings and information
to fool you into thinking that there is a mind behind them. But the
reality is that cannot possibly be the case since you cannot see me,
touch me or in any way empirically verify my existence. So, I don’t
actually exist. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. You
believe in a myth.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:18 am
From: “yarrido@aol.com”
On Mar 27, 3:06 am, Attila < wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:48:34 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
> in alt.abortion with message-id
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 20, 10:16 am, elizabeth wrote:
> >> On Mar 20, 8:51 am, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 19, 5:42 pm, SkyEyes wrote:
>
> >> > > On Mar 19, 1:20 pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
> >> e is something not normal about that kind of
> >> > thinking.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > – Show quoted text -
>
> >> We *are* animals, fuckwit, and most of them are worth far more than
> >> you are.
>
> >If you are, then you have no objection of us sticking you into a zoo.
> >Furthermore, if you intentionally injure someone we can just put you
> >to sleep and you fully approve of that? We can chain you up so that
> >you won’t run away. We can make you plow the field or pull carts
> >without paying you anything for the work you do. You are volunteering
> >for this kind of treatment? Now, that’s a smart move!
>
> You are saying humans are not animals? What are we? Vegetable?
> Mineral?
You are an invisible being that forms your thoughts and makes
decisions based on your will and directs the body that you posses.
While we as creatures fall within the animal kingdom(scientifically),
we are so much more than that which science can describe and we
transcend the categories you list.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why The Supreme Court By 5-4 Will Dump The Democrats Health Legislation
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:17 am
From: Robert Cohen
This prediction is based on my fear that the Supreme Court is partisan
At least two decisions, Bush v Gore and the recent corporation
political contribution decision are
indicators of POSSIBLE SC partisan decision-making
Am I being foolish & simple-minded if not stupid?
Perhaps
Am I being unfair if not unpatriotic?
I dunno, am I really?
Is this note a typical piece of internet dogshit?
I hope that it proves to be a nutty woof-woof-woof
To try to briefly explain my thinking, since this is supposed to be a
philosophy n.g.
Previously I have posted umpteen times my perceptions of the SC
interpreting the
U.S. Constitution, Google’s archive has apparently cut some years out,
while much is still here
The SC is not robotic: It is indeed human and adaptive and
“maladaptive,” creative and traditional,
candid & intellectually disingenuous, reactionary and progressive
The Constitution cannot always be interpreted purely mechanistically,
though some try
Reality is slightly more complex if not convoluted if not dynamic
The Justices in their black robes are ad hoc “our secular gods &
goddesses”
Their overall power & responsibility cannot be discounted, despite
that allegation of ‘let the
Supreme Court enforce their g-damn decision,’ possibly made by Tom
Jefferson after his Louisiana
Purchase was ruled unconstitutional (or whatever the crisis
situation)
The Justices decision-making is ultimately discretionary human
Legalistic jargon is just that in my humble, cynical take of reality,
and the gifted clerks know
how to spread wordy fertilizer
I’m attempting to be rational if not paranoiac, while the p word
cannot be sloughed away
I apologize to Americans offended by this heretical ass-say (which
should be all)
On Mar 29, 7:42 pm, cc000001 wrote:
> > Of course it’s possible. Everything is possible!
>
> I like your style!
Hehe, you must be a developer.
> But, I notice this is using Panoramio.
> I’m wondering, is that kind of functionality in combination with the
> custom tiles going to be a mammoth task?
That’s a relative question! The answer is that it would depend on your
skill level.
Creating custom tiles, and making them appear active, is not for
beginners, but I don’t know how much you know.
–
Marcelo – http://maps.forum.nu
–
> To make things even more
> complicated, we’d like the data to be dynamic too as new entries will
> be added constantly.
>
> many thanks,
>
> Chris
>
> On 29 Mar, 17:46, Marcelo wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 6:36 pm, cc000001 wrote:
>
> > > What I want to know is, is it possible to display a unique thumbnail
> > > image instead of a normal map marker?
>
> > Of course it’s possible. Everything is possible!
>
> > > Is this possible and if it is, is there going to be a significant
> > > overhead to doing it?
>
> > It depends on how you show the images.
>
> > If you use custom markers, you’re limited to 100-200 markers at a
> > time:http://econym.org.uk/gmap/basic16.htm
>
> > but if you use custom tiles, then there is no limit:http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.0625,-95.677068&spn=39.235538,79.01…
>
> > –
> > Marcelo -http://maps.forum.nu
> > –
>
> > > This database could grow to include a few
> > > thousand entries, although at the moment there are only a couple of
> > > hundred entries. I know I’ll have to use some form of clustering
> > > anyway.
>
> > > many thanks,
>
> > > Chris
–
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Google Maps API” group.
To post to this group, send email to google-maps-api@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-api+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:18 am
From: “yarrido@aol.com”
On Mar 27, 3:06 am, Attila < wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:48:34 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
> in alt.abortion with message-id
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 20, 10:16 am, elizabeth wrote:
> >> On Mar 20, 8:51 am, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
> >> > On Mar 19, 5:42 pm, SkyEyes wrote:
>
> >> > > On Mar 19, 1:20 pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>
> >> e is something not normal about that kind of
> >> > thinking.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > – Show quoted text -
>
> >> We *are* animals, fuckwit, and most of them are worth far more than
> >> you are.
>
> >If you are, then you have no objection of us sticking you into a zoo.
> >Furthermore, if you intentionally injure someone we can just put you
> >to sleep and you fully approve of that? We can chain you up so that
> >you won’t run away. We can make you plow the field or pull carts
> >without paying you anything for the work you do. You are volunteering
> >for this kind of treatment? Now, that’s a smart move!
>
> You are saying humans are not animals? What are we? Vegetable?
> Mineral?
You are an invisible being that forms your thoughts and makes
decisions based on your will and directs the body that you posses.
While we as creatures fall within the animal kingdom(scientifically),
we are so much more than that which science can describe and we
transcend the categories you list.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:25 am
From: “yarrido@aol.com”
On Mar 23, 10:14 am, Rob Par wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:48:48 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
>
>
>
> wrote:
> >>When I no
> >> longer am, I plan to end it, one way or the other. But it will be on
> >> *my* say-so, not that of the gubmint nor any religion.
>
> >> And as far as being “treated like an animal” goes, when it comes to
> >> end-of-life issues, we treat animals far, far better than we treat
> >> humans. We enable terminal animals to be put out of their suffering.
> >> We make humans drag it out as long as it takes to die “naturally,”
> >> with no thought to their pain or their personal wishes.
>
> >> My hope for you is that you live a long, long life – with esophageal
> >> cancer.
>
> >Actually, that’s a pretty good call. Due to my genetics, I am prone to
> >that. It may be a good call, but it is not a very nice thing to say.
> >Would you like to take it back?
> >Just because we disagree, we don’t have to be disagreeable.
>
> You are easily the most disagreeable lying son of a bitch on this
> group. A shit head like you doesn’t deserve any respect, because of
> your behavior. You want respect, have respect for others.
Lies are easily shown to be such and I have not seen anything
like that shown about the positions I have taken here.
As to respect…it’s over rated. The truth has higher value.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:27 am
From: “yarrido@aol.com”
On Mar 22, 11:01 pm, rfisc…@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> yarr…@aol.com wrote:
> >On Mar 20, 11:29 am, Rob Par wrote:
> >> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:35:02 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Mar 19, 7:34 pm, Rob Par wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:42:06 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Mar 19, 1:20 pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mar 18, 6:59 pm, Rob Par wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:54:23 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
>
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> > >On Mar 17, 1:48 pm, Rob Par wrote:
> >> >> >> > >> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:34:04 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
>
> >> >> >> > >> >where you state that a person is considered guilty in opposition of
> >> >> >> > >> >presumption of innocence. That was when I realized how wrong I was.
> >> >> >> > >> >During an investigation, the investigator follows the evidence where
> >> >> >> > >> >it leads without consideration of guilt or innocence. He does so if he
> >> >> >> > >> >is a good investigator. If he is a lousy and incompetent one, then he
> >> >> >> > >> >does what you describe. Mind you, I am not disagreeing with you that
> >> >> >> > >> >there are some of those out there, but such an assumption is unfair
> >> >> >> > >> >and downright rude to those who are good honest investigators working
> >> >> >> > >> >with great care and diligence to discover the truth behind the crimes
> >> >> >> > >> >they investigate.
>
> >> >> >> > >> >Having said what I said, what does all this have to do with my topic
> >> >> >> > >> >of how we determine the value of human life?
>
> >> >> >> >Nor should you have any right to deny me the right
> >> >> >> > to assistance in ending my own life.
>
> > it in neatly and quickly and
> >> >> >with a minimum of fuss. I want someone to have as much compassion for
> >> >> >*me* as they would have for a terminally ill pet.
>
> >> >> I concur heartily.
>
> >> >Why wait until then. You have just set a case for treating you like an
> >> >animal.
>
> >> Yarrido are you naturally stupid, are do you work at it? Many of us
> >> want our right to control of our own bodies to include the right to a
> >> simple painless death.
>
> >No one is guaranteed a painless death. Why are you so special that you
> >should be?
>
> Nobody has any right to torture other people. Why do you think that
> you should have such a right?
Never said I had a right to torture people. Re-read what I “did”
state above and do try to understand it this time.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:40 am
From: “yarrido@aol.com”
On Mar 22, 11:00 pm, rfisc…@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> yarr…@aol.com wrote:
> >On Mar 20, 2:05 pm, rfisc…@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> yarr…@aol.com wrote:
> >> >On Mar 19, 7:56 pm, rfisc…@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> >> yarr…@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> >On Mar 18, 6:59 pm, Rob Par wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:54:23 -0700 (PDT), “yarr…@aol.com”
> >> >> >> > Actually, I am not unaware of some of this kind of thinking. What
> >> >> >> >troubles me is setting a precedent of allowing killings for those
> >> >
> >> >behold.
>
> >> It is at the level of yours. When you resort to stupid and obvious
> >> lies then you should expect to be called a liar.
>
> >> To claim that pregnancy and childbirth doesn’t involve the active
> >> participation of the women is either a stupid lie or appalling
> >> ignorance.
>
> >Well of course it does….that is why I never said it.
>
> You admit to it.
Why wouldn’t I admit to never having made a statement you accuse me of
making?
>
> > I said that
> >the condition of pregnancy itself doesn’t and never said anything
> >about childbirth.
>
> That’s a pathetic bit of weaselling.
You think of telling the truth as being a pathetic bit of
weaseling?
Am I to take it then that you try to avoid “pathetic bit of
weaseling”?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How ‘A’ is and is not ‘A’
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:18 am
From: Tim
On Mar 29, 12:45 pm, M Purcell wrote:
> On Mar 29, 8:43 am, “Robakks” wrote:
>
>
>
> > Be and to exist.
> > The horse to be in the real world.
> > The image of a horse exists in the psyche.
>
> > Identity = compliance
> > what IS and what exists.
>
> Certainly if the horse stepped on your foot you would know it exists
> independent of your imagination but suppose the horse went somewhere
> else?
How so? Why does being stepped on by the horse constitute its
ontological status better than seeing the horse.
>How would you know it is still in the “real world”, maybe
> something ate it. Egotists seem to believe all horses will always step
> on people’s feet because one stepped on their foot.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:14 am
From: M Purcell
On Mar 29, 10:18 am, Tim wrote:
> On Mar 29, 12:45 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>
> > On Mar 29, 8:43 am, “Robakks” wrote:
>
> > > Be and to exist.
> > > The horse to be in the real world.
> > > The image of a horse exists in the psyche.
>
> > > Identity = compliance
> > > what IS and what exists.
>
> > Certainly if the horse stepped on your foot you would know it exists
> > independent of your imagination but suppose the horse went somewhere
> > else?
>
> How so? Why does being stepped on by the horse constitute its
> ontological status better than seeing the horse.
There is a more intense and less ambiguous sensation directly
relateable to the horse by proximity and requiring a more immediate
reaction in the intrest of self preservation. Most people do not
require this verification but you could test it for yourself.
> >How would you know it is still in the “real world”, maybe
> > something ate it. Egotists seem to believe all horses will always step
> > on people’s feet because one stepped on their foot.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:19 am
From: “Robakks”
“M Purcell”
news:a4833f89-d883-4476-a722-3c904a57b88b@y33g2000pre.googlegroups.com…
> On Mar 29, 8:43 am, “Robakks” wrote:
>> Be and to exist.
>> The horse to be in the real world.
>> The image of a horse exists in the psyche.
>>
>> Identity = compliance
>> what IS and what exists.
> Certainly if the horse stepped on your foot you would know it exists
> independent of your imagination but suppose the horse went somewhere
> else? How would you know it is still in the “real world”, maybe
> something ate it. Egotists seem to believe all horses will always step
> on people’s feet because one stepped on their foot.
See:
Awareness
The horse exists here. Soft (info). Interior.
|
transmission \
= 0 == 1 == 2 == 3 == 4 == 5 == 6 == psyche (mirror)
transmission /
|
The horse is here. Hard (objects). Exterior.
senses:
0 = mind (thinking)
1 = look (eye)
2 = sound (ears)
etc.
Edward Robak* from Nowa Huta
~>�<~ http://translate.google.com/ #
lover of wisdom and not only:)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What makes a good scientist?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:20 am
From: "Daniel T."
omprem wrote:
> On Mar 29, 9:30 am, “Daniel T.” wrote:
> > John Jones wrote:
> >
> > > There are only two kinds of scientist.
> >
> > > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy
> > > and leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering
> > > to onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of
> > > science in action.
> >
> > > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler
> > > is silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are
> > > impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden
> > > strengths of science.
> >
> > There are lots of kinds of scientists, but to the question “What
> > makes a good scientist?” my answer is “objectivity.”
>
> But according to Atheism, all mental content and activity is just
> biochemical reaction and is subjective. There cannot be objectivity.
Ridiculous. According to atheism, gods don’t exist. That says nothing
about mental content or activity.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Obamas must die!
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:24 am
From: purple
On 3/29/2010 10:52 AM, tooly wrote:
[...]
> I read, and I learn how Communists work. Nothing is out in the open
> for them. They are always ‘behind the scenes’…a small, but
> effectively agitating force, whose only aim is to bring down
> capitalism. It is not about serving women, minorities, or any NEW
> PROLETARIAT…but only about bringing down capitalism to raise
> socialism.
>
> Sleep away to your own peril.
It isn’t even socialism that’s the goal. There’s a radical oligarchy
that wants to seize power, but in the US that doesn’t come easily,
so they have to evolve into it through legal means. Those in power
live very well, everyone else, not so much. Health care is a very
nice example. Those pigs are more equal than the rest of the pigs.
Read Saul Alinsky to understand the mechanics. It is all out in the
open. The problem with this is that we in the west have not yet had
our flirtation with communism, so we have no believers in how very
vile it is. Unfortunately for those of us who already know better,
we’re going to be dragged down economically with the rest. Recovery,
that eventually must happen, won’t be any better here in the USA
than it has been for now going on for two decades in the former
soviet union. The experiment of communism will last several
generations, and so will recovery from it.
apply, lather, rinse
apply, lather, rinse
apply, lather, rinse
etc.
It is probably already too late to stop the sequence(s). They took
over education and teachers’ unions long ago. We have several
generations raised with the ideology ready to surface.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:15 am
From: High Miles
purple wrote:
> On 3/29/2010 10:52 AM, tooly wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>> I read, and I learn how Communists work. Nothing is out in the open
>> for them. They are always ‘behind the scenes’…a small, but
>> effectively agitating force, whose only aim is to bring down
>> capitalism. It is not about serving women, minorities, or any NEW
>> PROLETARIAT…but only about bringing down capitalism to raise
>> socialism.
>>
>> Sleep away to your own peril.
>
>
> It isn’t even socialism that’s the goal. There’s a radical oligarchy
> that wants to seize power, but in the US that doesn’t come easily,
> so they have to evolve into it through legal means. Those in power
> live very well, everyone else, not so much. Health care is a very
> nice example. Those pigs are more equal than the rest of the pigs.
>
> Read Saul Alinsky to understand the mechanics. It is all out in the
> open. The problem with this is that we in the west have not yet had
> our flirtation with communism, so we have no believers in how very
> vile it is. Unfortunately for those of us who already know better,
> we’re going to be dragged down economically with the rest. Recovery,
> that eventually must happen, won’t be any better here in the USA
> than it has been for now going on for two decades in the former
> soviet union. The experiment of communism will last several
> generations, and so will recovery from it.
>
> apply, lather, rinse
> apply, lather, rinse
> apply, lather, rinse
> etc.
>
> It is probably already too late to stop the sequence(s). They took
> over education and teachers’ unions long ago. We have several
> generations raised with the ideology ready to surface.
We can only hope so………….
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:20 am
From: Ramon F Herrera
On Mar 29, 9:21 am, GLOBALIST wrote:
> I always get a kick out of folks who are ‘still’ hunting down
> communists. Oh well ..they need something to keep them busy, so they
> don’t have to face reality
Good flick:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0165929/
-RFH
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Extremists Now Purging Moderates From Arizona and Florida GOP
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:24 am
From: Bible Studies with Satan
Bret Cahill wrote:
> McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
Exactly. I think the time is right for a third party.
>
> This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> nonsense.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
–
Ezekiel 23:20
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:37 am
From: cop welfare
On Mar 29, 11:50 am, tooly wrote:
> On Mar 29, 12:08 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > nonsense.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> We are not extremists of course, but actually, we were the LAND and
> it’s culture before progressives started taking it over.
>
> But there are political realities coming to bear for the
> traditionalist. Once again, I’ll say…the Hart-Cellar Immigration
> act pretty much ‘sealed the deal’ for socialists. The 2003
> demographics showed for every 1 additional caucasion in America, there
> were 3 blacks and 7 hispanics coming in [or being born].
>
> That spells doom any way one can put it [for caucasions...ergo, the
> founding element of this country; ergo, from europe].
>
> It probably puts this culture on a path toward ‘afro centrism’ of all
> things? Go figure.
>
> There might be one or two elections that conservatives can still
> muster out…one being this next November [2010]. Even with all that
> has taken place [Obama's socialism and grand ire being created in half
> the land], traditionalists and conservatives will still only barely
> muster a bare majority at the national level.
>
> Some argue however, that the founder’s prodgeny may not go into the
> night so meakly however. It still IS our country; we invented it; we
> created it’s founding by laws, it’s principles…including laizez
> faire economics.
>
> No nation has ever simply been ‘taken over’ by internal socially
> disparate forces such that is taking place in America now. It’s not
> natural. But there has been a gargantuan ‘campaign’ going on in our
> institutions, classrooms, media etc, to ‘charm the snake’ so speak; to
> mesmerize the founder’s prodgeny into believing they have no RIGHT to
> defend what is theirs [that it is NOT theirs; they it was somehow NOT
> their forebears who invented the place].
>
> No one really wants to put a color on it…but REALITY stars us in the
> face and we look into the eyes or our own doom IF WE DON”T.
>
> So, one might ask, what does any cornered animal do when the world
> [Obama's world anyway, ha]…paints that animal into that corner with
> nowhere else to go? I think hispanics and blacks are betting that the
> white guy is just going to lay down and die. HA…I see all them
> white teens with ‘pants on the ground’, and I can see why.
>
> Ah well…I suppose we can always laugh [after we cry]. It was not
> right what has been done to us.
>
> We’ll see; who knows, anything can happen. Obama might actually be
> ushering in something entirely opposite to what seems apparent. But
> those tea party’ers…they look awfully old and haggard. I have
> faith SOMETHING will happen though; something ‘reactionary’…to take
> what is ours back. This simply is not natural what is happening.- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
bullshit.
you obviously know hoe to read.
a real teapartier would kcik yer ass.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:39 am
From: “Sid9″
“tooly” wrote in message
news:baf1487f-a39d-4a71-841a-b7146dfeb2e4@n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com…
> On Mar 29, 12:08 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
>> his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
>> ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>>
>> Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>>
>> A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
>> independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>>
>> This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
>> commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
>> the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
>> the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
>> nonsense.
>>
>> Bret Cahill
>
> We are not extremists of course, but actually, we were the LAND and
> it’s culture before progressives started taking it over.
>
> But there are political realities coming to bear for the
> traditionalist. Once again, I’ll say…the Hart-Cellar Immigration
> act pretty much ‘sealed the deal’ for socialists. The 2003
> demographics showed for every 1 additional caucasion in America, there
> were 3 blacks and 7 hispanics coming in [or being born].
>
> That spells doom any way one can put it [for caucasions...ergo, the
> founding element of this country; ergo, from europe].
>
> It probably puts this culture on a path toward ‘afro centrism’ of all
> things? Go figure.
>
> There might be one or two elections that conservatives can still
> muster out…one being this next November [2010]. Even with all that
> has taken place [Obama's socialism and grand ire being created in half
> the land], traditionalists and conservatives will still only barely
> muster a bare majority at the national level.
>
> Some argue however, that the founder’s prodgeny may not go into the
> night so meakly however. It still IS our country; we invented it; we
> created it’s founding by laws, it’s principles…including laizez
> faire economics.
>
> No nation has ever simply been ‘taken over’ by internal socially
> disparate forces such that is taking place in America now. It’s not
> natural. But there has been a gargantuan ‘campaign’ going on in our
> institutions, classrooms, media etc, to ‘charm the snake’ so speak; to
> mesmerize the founder’s prodgeny into believing they have no RIGHT to
> defend what is theirs [that it is NOT theirs; they it was somehow NOT
> their forebears who invented the place].
>
> No one really wants to put a color on it…but REALITY stars us in the
> face and we look into the eyes or our own doom IF WE DON”T.
>
> So, one might ask, what does any cornered animal do when the world
> [Obama's world anyway, ha]…paints that animal into that corner with
> nowhere else to go? I think hispanics and blacks are betting that the
> white guy is just going to lay down and die. HA…I see all them
> white teens with ‘pants on the ground’, and I can see why.
>
> Ah well…I suppose we can always laugh [after we cry]. It was not
> right what has been done to us.
>
> We’ll see; who knows, anything can happen. Obama might actually be
> ushering in something entirely opposite to what seems apparent. But
> those tea party’ers…they look awfully old and haggard. I have
> faith SOMETHING will happen though; something ‘reactionary’…to take
> what is ours back. This simply is not natural what is happening.
>
>
>
.
.
What do you propose to do about it?
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:47 am
From: cop welfare
On Mar 29, 11:50 am, tooly wrote:
> On Mar 29, 12:08 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > nonsense.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> We are not extremists of course, but actually, we were the LAND and
> it’s culture before progressives started taking it over.
>
> But there are political realities coming to bear for the
> traditionalist. Once again, I’ll say…the Hart-Cellar Immigration
> act pretty much ‘sealed the deal’ for socialists. The 2003
> demographics showed for every 1 additional caucasion in America, there
> were 3 blacks and 7 hispanics coming in [or being born].
>
> That spells doom any way one can put it [for caucasions...ergo, the
> founding element of this country; ergo, from europe].
>
> It probably puts this culture on a path toward ‘afro centrism’ of all
> things? Go figure.
>
> There might be one or two elections that conservatives can still
> muster out…one being this next November [2010]. Even with all that
> has taken place [Obama's socialism and grand ire being created in half
> the land], traditionalists and conservatives will still only barely
> muster a bare majority at the national level.
>
> Some argue however, that the founder’s prodgeny may not go into the
> night so meakly however. It still IS our country; we invented it; we
> created it’s founding by laws, it’s principles…including laizez
> faire economics.
>
> No nation has ever simply been ‘taken over’ by internal socially
> disparate forces such that is taking place in America now. It’s not
> natural. But there has been a gargantuan ‘campaign’ going on in our
> institutions, classrooms, media etc, to ‘charm the snake’ so speak; to
> mesmerize the founder’s prodgeny into believing they have no RIGHT to
> defend what is theirs [that it is NOT theirs; they it was somehow NOT
> their forebears who invented the place].
>
> No one really wants to put a color on it…but REALITY stars us in the
> face and we look into the eyes or our own doom IF WE DON”T.
>
> So, one might ask, what does any cornered animal do when the world
> [Obama's world anyway, ha]…paints that animal into that corner with
> nowhere else to go? I think hispanics and blacks are betting that the
> white guy is just going to lay down and die. HA…I see all them
> white teens with ‘pants on the ground’, and I can see why.
>
> Ah well…I suppose we can always laugh [after we cry]. It was not
> right what has been done to us.
>
> We’ll see; who knows, anything can happen. Obama might actually be
> ushering in something entirely opposite to what seems apparent. But
> those tea party’ers…they look awfully old and haggard. I have
> faith SOMETHING will happen though; something ‘reactionary’…to take
> what is ours back. This simply is not natural what is happening.- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
i hope the indians cut yer f***in’ throats.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: LSD and Gods
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:33 am
From: “thomas p.”
Xan Du wrote:
> thomas p. wrote:
>> “Xan Du” skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:hoplis$k8j$2@news.eternal-september.org…
>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>>> Xan Du wrote:
>>>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>>>>> “Day Brown” skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>> news:4ba42e36$0$18933$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com…
>>>>>>> Smiler wrote:
>>>>>>>> “LSD always brings an experience of a god or Gods”
>>>>>>>> Contradict yourself much?
>>>>>>> Depends on who getsta define the terms. LSD,
>>>>>>> Mescaline, Pscilocybin, Muscarine, and other
>>>>>>> compounds have been employed for millennia- in the
>>>>>>> sacred space, at the sacred time, for sacred
>>>>>>> purpose, and at the direction of a spirit guide. Delusion
>>>>>>> always feeds the ego. Spiritual illumination
>>>>>>> always humbles. These compounds alter perception,
>>>>>>> but to say it results in delusion assumes perception is
>>>>>>> not delusional to start with. Of course, if a mind is
>>>>>>> too limited intellectually or deranged, spiritual
>>>>>>> illumination is not likely. And if your reasoning
>>>>>>> processes are already too
>>>>>>> limited, by all means do not perform this kind of
>>>>>>> experiment. But to assume that all others are so
>>>>>>> limited is delusional.
>>>>>> The irony is that you are the one making the enormous
>>>>>> assumption, i.e. that there is such a thing as
>>>>>> spiritual illumination, and that you know what one
>>>>>> of its universal effects is. That could be seen as
>>>>>> a lack of humility on your part.
>>>>> Mr. Brown is a pretty smart cookie. A little
>>>>> arrogance is to be expected, and my view, respected.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Xan
>>>> Being smart does not negate the possibility of
>>>> expressing nonsense.
>>> Obviously. But I assure you, from my POV, the man does
>>> not speak nonsense.
>>>
>>> -Xan
>>
>> He is describing in some detail a phenomenon for which
>> no objective evidence exists.
>> That is nonsense.
>>
>>
> I call that a hypothesis.
>
> -Xan
Is it falsifiable?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:37 am
From: Xan Du
thomas p. wrote:
> Xan Du wrote:
>> thomas p. wrote:
>>> “Xan Du” skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:hoplis$k8j$2@news.eternal-september.org…
>>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>>>> Xan Du wrote:
>>>>>> thomas p. wrote:
>>>>>>> “Day Brown” skrev i meddelelsen
>>>>>>> news:4ba42e36$0$18933$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com…
>>>>>>>> Smiler wrote:
>>>>>>>>> “LSD always brings an experience of a god or Gods”
>>>>>>>>> Contradict yourself much?
>>>>>>>> Depends on who getsta define the terms. LSD,
>>>>>>>> Mescaline, Pscilocybin, Muscarine, and other
>>>>>>>> compounds have been employed for millennia- in the
>>>>>>>> sacred space, at the sacred time, for sacred
>>>>>>>> purpose, and at the direction of a spirit guide. Delusion
>>>>>>>> always feeds the ego. Spiritual illumination
>>>>>>>> always humbles. These compounds alter perception,
>>>>>>>> but to say it results in delusion assumes perception is
>>>>>>>> not delusional to start with. Of course, if a mind is
>>>>>>>> too limited intellectually or deranged, spiritual
>>>>>>>> illumination is not likely. And if your reasoning
>>>>>>>> processes are already too
>>>>>>>> limited, by all means do not perform this kind of
>>>>>>>> experiment. But to assume that all others are so
>>>>>>>> limited is delusional.
>>>>>>> The irony is that you are the one making the enormous
>>>>>>> assumption, i.e. that there is such a thing as
>>>>>>> spiritual illumination, and that you know what one
>>>>>>> of its universal effects is. That could be seen as
>>>>>>> a lack of humility on your part.
>>>>>> Mr. Brown is a pretty smart cookie. A little
>>>>>> arrogance is to be expected, and my view, respected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Xan
>>>>> Being smart does not negate the possibility of
>>>>> expressing nonsense.
>>>> Obviously. But I assure you, from my POV, the man does
>>>> not speak nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> -Xan
>>> He is describing in some detail a phenomenon for which
>>> no objective evidence exists.
>>> That is nonsense.
>>>
>>>
>> I call that a hypothesis.
>>
>> -Xan
>
> Is it falsifiable?
>
Good question. I don’t know.
-Xan
==============================================================================
TOPIC: One way of recognising one’s spirituality.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 10:50 am
From: Monsieur Turtoni
“In spirituality, and especially nondual, mystical and eastern
meditative traditions, the human being is often conceived as being in
the illusion of individual existence, and separateness from other
aspects of creation. This “sense of doership” or sense of individual
existence is that part which believes it is the human being, and
believes it must fight for itself in the world, is ultimately unaware
and unconscious of its own true nature. The ego is often associated
with mind and the sense of time, which compulsively thinks in order to
be assured of its future existence, rather than simply knowing its own
self and the present.
The spiritual goal of many traditions involves the dissolving of the
ego, allowing self-knowledge of one’s own true nature to become
experienced and enacted in the world. This is variously known as
enlightenment, nirvana, presence, and the “here and now”.”
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:16 am
From: “Rod Speed”
Anarcissie wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote:
>> Anarcissie wrote:
>>> M Purcell wrote:
>>>> On Mar 27, 2:55 pm, *Anarcissie* wrote:
>>>>> M Purcell:
>>>>>> On Mar 26, 8:03 am, Anarcissie wrote:
>>>>>>> M Purcell wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mar 26, 6:36 am, Anarcissie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Zerkon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:36:26 -0700, *Anarcissie* wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> My view is that “doublethink”, as George Orwell called it in
>>>>>>>>>>> 1984 — the ability to maintain two or more contradictory
>>>>>>>>>>> models of the world more or less continuously — is of
>>>>>>>>>>> considerable advantage to life and reproduction. Our
>>>>>>>>>>> faculty for this behavior is derived from evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>> pressures.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> de-evolutionary, I’d say.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Double-think was made possible by Newspeak. Newspeak was an
>>>>>>>>>> eradication of existing concepts. Opposition to the
>>>>>>>>>> CorpState became impossible because the concept ‘opposition
>>>>>>>>>> to state’ was removed so thought about this was impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doublethink appeared in nature long, long before _1984_. A
>>>>>>>>> medium-sized carnivore prowling through the brush hears
>>>>>>>>> something rustling. Is it lunch or a larger-sized carnivore?
>>>>>>>>> The m.s.c. must simultaneously entertain both contradictory
>>>>>>>>> possibilities until something happens to fill out one pattern
>>>>>>>>> or the other and then will have only a fraction of a second
>>>>>>>>> to act. It will not have time to construct a new model of the
>>>>>>>>> world because the previous one failed. Hence it constructs
>>>>>>>>> two (or more) provisional models and keeps them both in mind,
>>>>>>>>> however contradictory they may be.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem to have a contradictory equivocation of doublethink
>>>>>>>> with the fight or flee responce (resulting from ignorance of
>>>>>>>> the enviornment) and cognative dissonance (an internal
>>>>>>>> conflict). From what I understand, doublethink is a willful
>>>>>>>> contradiction.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> A necessary contradiction, although in the case of Big Brother
>>>>>>> (a many modern politicians) much of the difficulty is
>>>>>>> self-caused, such as simultaneously creating libertarian and
>>>>>>> authoritarian rhetoric which the public is expected to consume.
>>>>>>> So what is contradictory in my equivocation, if that’s what it
>>>>>>> is? I said that animals (including humans) are ignorant, so
>>>>>>> that they need the ability to maintain contradictory views of
>>>>>>> the world. Our small predator is in exactly this situation.
>>>>>>> If the s.p. took the time to work out things logically, it
>>>>>>> would probably wind up missing lunch or being lunch.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are different types of contradictions, doublethink is not
>>>>>> the same as cognitive dissonance and neither are the same as an
>>>>>> adrenaline rush.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose one could get an adrenaline rush
>>>>> from either. But you are certainly correct that
>>>>> doublethink and cognitive dissonance are not the
>>>>> same. Cognitive dissonance is a sort of mental
>>>>> excitement which doublethinkers experience, or are
>>>>> suppose to experience, when their contradictory
>>>>> ideas rub up against one another. It’s probably
>>>>> a sort of intellectual taste — as I said, most
>>>>> people have no trouble entertaining contradictory
>>>>> ideas about the world.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to find it exciting. I suppose there is an excitement in
>>>> discovering a contradiction which can lead to new knowledge but I
>>>> don’t believe that is considered cognitive dissonance while
>>>> “doublethink” is deliberate.
>>>
>>> To my observation, the practice of holding two or more
>>> contradictory ideas of the world with no apparent
>>> evidence of discomfort is the default case (and this is
>>> borne out by polls on political issues, as I have
>>> mentioned). This is what I’m calling “doublethink”.
>>> It doesn’t need to be practiced intentionally if it’s
>>> naturally the default. People just do it. In order to
>>> be uncomfortable with cognitive dissonance, they have
>>> to expect cognitive consonance, and I’m guessing that
>>> is the result of a specific kind of training reserved
>>> for intellectuals and intellectual-wannabes. George
>>> Orwell, for example. The guy wrote books — how many
>>> people ever write a book? Once you learn about how
>>> your ideas ought not to contradict one another, you can
>>> enjoy getting all excited and bent out of shape because
>>> you discover that some of them do contradict each other.
>
>> First, on Orwell, here’s two prominent Orwell scholars wrestling with
>> him :
>> > +Facing+Unpleasant+Facts+and+All+Art+Is+Propaganda+interviewed+by+Christopher+
>> Hitchens.aspx>
>>
>> (sorry, long-arse URL, but good stuff)
>>
>> Indeed, the picture that emerges with Orwell is:
>> – a preference for physical risk
>> – an abhorrence of inconsistency in his own behavior.
>> – intolerance of hypocrisy at the visceral level
>>
>> he emerges as a bit vain and egocentric. Not that bad a trade,
>> I think. He extends the fundamental premise of Liberalism – that
>> the individual is the irreducible unit – to a much higher plane.
>>
>> But there’s more to it than that. The (arguably) greatest rising
>> technology of the last 60 years is entertainment. Entertainment
>> depends completely on the willing suspension of disbelief – on
>> pure cognitive dissonance. Of course, we expect that tension
>> to be resolved at the end. The point is that people are
>> possibly “addicted” to increasing levels of cognitive dissonance.
> That’s an interesting hypothesis, one
> which I think the evidence bears out.
Thats just entertainment tho, just a device that makes that work better.
> Indeed, many kinds of entertainment (including the arts
> low and high) not only present a special world at odds
> with the greater world around them,
Thats just plain wrong with a lot of art.
> but also conflicts within themselves between
> interests, emotions, perceptions and ideas.
Thats not what cognitive dissonance is about.
> I think this would follow from my hypothesis that doublethink
> (my meaning) is advantageous to survival of the individual;
Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that claim.
> nature sees to it that its exercise is pleasurable.
‘nature’ doesnt ‘see’ a damned thing.
> So then the question arises, who has a problem
> with cognitive dissonance, and why, when
> doublethink is such an excellent thing?
You havent established that it is, just CLAIMED that, a different matter entirely.
> My guess is that it is an intellectuals’ quirk.
More just whats easy to with with unresolvable conflicts.
If for example you have a mental need to believe in some
damned god or other, because you need that crutch for
your ‘mind’, its hardly surprising that the conflict between
that line and reality, that whether you end up with a serious
medical problem is much more due to luck than any arsehole
of a god deciding to give you cancer etc is unresolvable.
> While doublethink is advantageous to perception and cognition,
You havent established that it is.
> the exercise of will and power is usually best when it is unitary.
Its perfectly possible to engage in doublethink and grovel to some
god or other while also getting medical attention for your cancer etc.
> In most of the more complex societies, the role of the
> intellectual is to subordinate oneself to and serve the rulers,
Oh bullshit. There are no ‘rulers’ in modern democratic societys.
Its all about ideas and selling ideas to the voters etc.
> that is, to serve power as a tool.
Even sillier.
> The doublethinking intellectual is unpredictable,
> unreliable, a bad tool for power.
Yes, someone who cant resolve conficts isnt going
to be much use in the development of new policy etc.
It makes a hell of a lot more sense to be able to accept
that there will always be downsides with any policy, like
the fact that while modern welfare works a hell of a lot
better than charity does, it will always have the massive
downside that some will be quite happy with the standard
of living that welfare provides and wont bother to work etc.
Or that a decent compulsory provision for the time
past working will always see some rather profligate
with their savings because they can always rely on
the govt pension for their time past working.
Or that while ever the govt does provide unemployment
relief, that will inevitably see some not try as hard to find
a job or not be prepared to accept any work available that
doesnt appeal as much as the sort of work you prefer does etc.
> Therefore, the intellectual-wannabe is taught in school to be
> consistent so that he or she will be a good tool for the rulers.
Even sillier. There are no rulers who decide that level of detail
of what is taught in schools. The reality is that kids are taught
the importance of consistency because if you dont strive for
consistency in your arguments, you wont convince anyone etc.
> The intellectual earnestly sweats to iron out contradictions,
> while the folk go on merrily playing with them.
Even sillier.
> However, I agree that a fondness for cognitive dissonance may
> become a dangerous addiction, as witness American politics.
Its MUCH more pervasive in religion.
>>> Of course I find it exciting — I am cursed with reason,
>>> which sets me at odds with most of the human race.
>>> Recently I’ve come to the conclusion that I must
>>> be from another planet.
>> But you still have this thing, too. No escaping it.
>> Your mid and hindbrain are just as much a part
>> of reason as your frontal lobes.
> That depends on how the Neptunians constructed me.
> They may have gotten a few things wrong.
No may have about it.
>> The logic parts are nothing but handmaidens of the unconscious/id.
> As Hume said, although with a more elegant 18th-century vocabulary.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:21 am
From: “Rod Speed”
Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Mar 29, 4:49 am, Anarcissie wrote:
>> In article
>> > egroups.com>,
>> M Purcell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 27, 2:55 pm, *Anarcissie* wrote:
>>>> M Purcell:
>>>>> On Mar 26, 8:03 am, Anarcissie wrote:
>>>>>> M Purcell wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 26, 6:36 am, Anarcissie wrote:
>>>>>>>> Zerkon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:36:26 -0700, *Anarcissie* wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> My view is that “doublethink”, as George Orwell called it in
>>>>>>>>>> 1984 — the ability to maintain two or more contradictory
>>>>>>>>>> models of the world more or less continuously — is of
>>>>>>>>>> considerable advantage to life and reproduction. Our faculty
>>>>>>>>>> for this behavior is derived from evolutionary pressures.
>>
>>>>>>>>> de-evolutionary, I’d say.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Double-think was made possible by Newspeak. Newspeak was an
>>>>>>>>> eradication of existing concepts. Opposition to the CorpState
>>>>>>>>> became impossible because the concept ‘opposition to state’
>>>>>>>>> was removed so thought about this was impossible.
>>
>>>>>>>> Doublethink appeared in nature long, long before _1984_. A
>>>>>>>> medium-sized carnivore prowling through the brush hears
>>>>>>>> something rustling. Is it lunch or a larger-sized carnivore?
>>>>>>>> The m.s.c.
>>>>>>>> must simultaneously entertain both contradictory possibilities
>>>>>>>> until something happens to fill out one pattern or the other
>>>>>>>> and then will have only a fraction of a second to act. It will
>>>>>>>> not have time to construct a new model of the world because
>>>>>>>> the previous one failed. Hence it constructs two (or more)
>>>>>>>> provisional models and keeps them both in mind, however
>>>>>>>> contradictory they may be.
>>
>>>>>>> You seem to have a contradictory equivocation of doublethink
>>>>>>> with the fight or flee responce (resulting from ignorance of
>>>>>>> the enviornment) and cognative dissonance (an internal
>>>>>>> conflict). From what I understand, doublethink is a willful
>>>>>>> contradiction.
>>
>>>>>> A necessary contradiction, although in the case of Big Brother
>>>>>> (a many modern politicians) much of the difficulty is
>>>>>> self-caused, such as simultaneously creating libertarian and
>>>>>> authoritarian rhetoric which the public is expected to consume.
>>>>>> So what is contradictory in my equivocation, if that’s what it
>>>>>> is? I said that animals (including humans) are ignorant, so that
>>>>>> they need the ability to maintain contradictory views of the
>>>>>> world. Our small predator is in exactly this situation. If the
>>>>>> s.p. took the time to work out things logically, it would
>>>>>> probably wind up missing lunch or being lunch.
>>
>>>>> There are different types of contradictions, doublethink is not
>>>>> the same as cognitive dissonance and neither are the same as an
>>>>> adrenaline rush.
>>
>>>> I suppose one could get an adrenaline rush
>>>> from either. But you are certainly correct that
>>>> doublethink and cognitive dissonance are not the
>>>> same. Cognitive dissonance is a sort of mental
>>>> excitement which doublethinkers experience, or are
>>>> suppose to experience, when their contradictory
>>>> ideas rub up against one another. It’s probably
>>>> a sort of intellectual taste — as I said, most
>>>> people have no trouble entertaining contradictory
>>>> ideas about the world.
>>
>>> You seem to find it exciting. I suppose there is an excitement in
>>> discovering a contradiction which can lead to new knowledge but I
>>> don’t believe that is considered cognitive dissonance while
>>> “doublethink” is deliberate.
>>
>> To my observation, the practice of holding two or more
>> contradictory ideas of the world with no apparent
>> evidence of discomfort is the default case (and this is
>> borne out by polls on political issues, as I have
>> mentioned). This is what I’m calling “doublethink”.
>> It doesn’t need to be practiced intentionally if it’s
>> naturally the default. People just do it.
> Criminals and madmen do doublethink naturally.
Almost everyone does, most obviously with religion.
At the most fundamental level that if there is just one
‘true’ god, how come there are so many of them ?
> Or, if not one of those two groups, those really desperate.
It isnt just the really desperate, its almost everyone, most obviously with religion.
> Of course, I am placing politicians, businessmen, theoretical
> physicists, theologians, etc. in the criminal-madman category.
And its completely silly to do that.
> The huge success of these types, is essentially parasitical or piratical
Not with with theoretical physicists.
> – when applied to the masses there is massive madness expressing as depression
Depression isnt madness.
> – and that is a big hooray for the pharmaceutical industries and the shrinks.
Most dont bother with either when depressed.
> In order to
>> be uncomfortable with cognitive dissonance, they have
>> to expect cognitive consonance, and I’m guessing that
>> is the result of a specific kind of training reserved
>> for intellectuals and intellectual-wannabes. George
>> Orwell, for example. The guy wrote books — how many
>> people ever write a book? Once you learn about how
>> your ideas ought not to contradict one another, you can
>> enjoy getting all excited and bent out of shape because
>> you discover that some of them do contradict each other.
>>
>> Of course I find it exciting — I am cursed with
>> reason, which sets me at odds with most of the human
>> race. Recently I’ve come to the conclusion that I must
>> be from another planet.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> That’s why intuition (association and pattern-matching) show up
>>>>>> early in evolution and logic shows up late even though it’s
>>>>>> simpler and less costly to perform.
>>
>>>>> Subconscious is not the same as conscious and logic is not simple
>>>>> or cheap.
>>
>>>> Well, I don’t know what your first phrase
>>>> refers to; for the second I have only my
>>>> experience of programming, in which pattern-
>>>> matching is considerably more complicated
>>>> than executing a few logical operations. But
>>>> I suppose that may be because the substrate
>>>> is logical. It’s the other way around in the
>>>> animal brain, where intuition is much easier
>>>> than logic because that’s the way the circuits
>>>> are built. Perhaps there is no underlying
>>>> “easier”. I’ll have to give that some thought.
>>
>>> Logic is not instinctual as intuition is and although the same logic
>>> can be applied in different situations, it requires an initial
>>> investment and is certainly not the same as pattern-matching. And
>>> the human brain is not the same as a computer. These are all false
>>> equivocations, are you trying to be disingenuous?
>>
>> Yeah, that must be it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Speaking of _1984_, it seems to me that logic is much more
>>>>>>>> consistent with the One True Truth of totalitarian regimes
>>>>>>>> than of liberalism or anarchism, which assume that no one
>>>>>>>> possesses the One True Truth, or that many perhaps
>>>>>>>> contradictory truths are possible. So why was doublethink
>>>>>>>> necessary? Because to some extent Big Brother had to deal with
>>>>>>>> the real, physical world which may be logical in its deep
>>>>>>>> structure but on the surface presents many apparent
>>>>>>>> contradictions to which logic can be applied only
>>>>>>>> intermittently and tentatively. Curiously, Orwell finds this
>>>>>>>> to be some kind of problem whereas it is the one aspect of
>>>>>>>> Ingsoc’s fantasy of unanimity which continues to have any
>>>>>>>> possibility of life in it.
>>
>>>>>>> Otherwise you might be a totalitarian? There is a difference
>>>>>>> between objectivity and subjectivity and you are refering to a
>>>>>>> fictional novel.
>>
>>>>>> I’m simply pointing out that logic, which requires agreement
>>>>>> about premises and methods, is more consistent with one single
>>>>>> authority than the contradictions (and fuzziness) which
>>>>>> inevitably result from our imperfect perception and knowledge.
>>>>>> If freedom of expression (for example) is a good thing, it must
>>>>>> be because no one has announced the last, absolutely correct
>>>>>> word.
>>
>>>>> Who is this single authority?
>>
>>>> It could be anyone the logician likes,
>>>> I guess. You could ask one.
>>
>>> Which logician?
>>
>>>>>> The novel is an example of what I am talking about, regardless
>>>>>> of its fictionality. In fact, if you read Orwell’s appendix or
>>>>>> afterword you’ll find that much of it is a transcription of
>>>>>> behavior he observed around him during World War 2 (he worked
>>>>>> for the BBC).
>>
>>>>> So Orwell is the single authority?
>>
>>>> No, just an observer.
>>
>>> He is the only “observer” you have presented.
>>
>> I only need one if I’m trying to present an example.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> – Show quoted text — Hide quoted text -
>>
>> – Show quoted text — Hide quoted text -
>>
>> – Show quoted text –
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:16 am
From: Zurab57
On Mar 29, 3:18 pm, “THE BORG” wrote:
> See the suicide bombers in Moscow were two women.
> Islam is supposed to have a Holy War against America, what
> were these two stupid women doing blowing up Russians?
There was a war in Russia with Chechnia .Maybe it has local
importance, but Chechens are muslims and so are many small nations of
Caucasus.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Various notable critics of capitalism
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:32 am
From: “Rod Speed”
Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Mar 29, 12:16 am, M Purcell wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 9:59 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 28, 7:13 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mar 28, 4:35 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 28, 5:53 pm, M Purcell wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Gotta wonder, A couple of months ago the enviornmentalists were
>>>>>> protesting the grape growers water usage.
>>
>>>>> then its looking quite likely that those capitalists are not
>>>>> operating in their own best long term interests. in my state,
>>>>> clear cutting was done by robber barons before government
>>>>> intervened. my state was 2/3rds covered by tree’s. there were
>>>>> large area’s, hundreds of square miles of forest, were hardly a
>>>>> tree was left standing. then government stepped in to limit what
>>>>> was left of the forests. during the great depression, government
>>>>> subsidized tree plantings, and the great northern forests came
>>>>> back, minus the clear cutting from the private sector. today the
>>>>> forests are well managed by the state, and the lumber and paper
>>>>> mills are quite stable.
>>
>>>> Closing the National Forests closed a lot of mills in the
>>>> northwest, the Forest Service was unable to practice
>>>> sustainability. I suspect you are refering to state forest. Some
>>>> companies (such as Medicino Redwood Company) are certified by the
>>>> Forest Stewardship Council as practicing sustained yield whereas
>>>> there is some contraversy with Sierra Pacific Industries owed by
>>>> “Red” Emmerson. The problem with clearcuts is there are no seed
>>>> trees left and it needs to be replanted and there are still a lot
>>>> of clearcuts in National Forests that haven’t been replanted.
>>>> Redwoods on the other hand have several ways of reproducing
>>>> theirselves and often grow from stumps.
>>
>>> it was a common practice in the good old unregulated days of
>>> america. it matters not what state. capitalists cut, slashed, and
>>> burned down much of americas forests, till government stepped in.
>>> the same thing is going on with the fisheries today. the fishing
>>> industry would fish the seas, till every last fish is gone. we saw
>>> that happen in alaska.
>>
>> There are ethical capitalists as well as the unethical ones who need
>> to be regulated. But the main reason there are fewer resources is
>> that there are more people. Now that most of mills in the northwest
>> are closed, we import lumber from Canada.
> of course there are a few ethical ones. responsible wealth
> has a few. but they are outnumbered by the many. there is
> plenty for all if the resource is managed properly.
Thats just plain wrong, most obviously with fish stocks.
Its certainly possible to manage fish stocks sustainably, but when
that is done, there isnt plenty for all, not enough for all in fact.
> and that has been by governments world wide, some
> bad, some good, some really good. finland provides the
> world with about 25% of the worlds paper products,
Like hell it does.
> yet has about 2% of the worlds forests. and finlands forests are
> heavily regulated by government. left onto their own, markets
> almost always fail. they cannot self regulate, self police, self
> right, self correct. they almost always end in failure.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The point.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 11:56 am
From: retrogrouch
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:27:58 -0400, Les Cargill
wrote:
>
>> Govertnemtn employees can invariably make more money in the private
>> secotr. Govet. needs benefits to make the compensation at all
>> attractive.
>
>Why should government employment be attractive *at all*?
You don’t want good people?
Where’d al that captialist fervor about talent following money?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Food Drug
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:11 pm
From: tunderbar
On Mar 28, 5:56 pm, Immortalist wrote:
> Scientists have finally confirmed what the rest of us have suspected
> for years: Bacon, cheesecake, and other delicious yet fattening foods
> may be addictive.
>
> A new study in rats suggests that high-fat, high-calorie foods affect
> the brain in much the same way as cocaine and heroin. When rats
> consume these foods in great enough quantities, it leads to compulsive
> eating habits that resemble drug addiction, the study found.
>
> Doing drugs such as cocaine and eating too much junk food both
> gradually overload the so-called pleasure centers in the brain,
> according to Paul J. Kenny, Ph.D., an associate professor of molecular
> therapeutics at the Scripps Research Institute, in Jupiter, Florida.
> Eventually the pleasure centers “crash,” and achieving the same
> pleasure–or even just feeling normal–requires increasing amounts of
> the drug or food, says Kenny, the lead author of the study.
>
> “People know intuitively that there’s more to [overeating] than just
> willpower,” he says. “There’s a system in the brain that’s been turned
> on or over-activated, and that’s driving [overeating] at some
> subconscious level.”
>
> In the study, published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, Kenny and
> his co-author studied three groups of lab rats for 40 days. One of the
> groups was fed regular rat food. A second was fed bacon, sausage,
> cheesecake, frosting, and other fattening, high-calorie foods–but
> only for one hour each day. The third group was allowed to pig out on
> the unhealthy foods for up to 23 hours a day.
>
> Not surprisingly, the rats that gorged themselves on the human food
> quickly became obese. But their brains also changed. By monitoring
> implanted brain electrodes, the researchers found that the rats in the
> third group gradually developed a tolerance to the pleasure the food
> gave them and had to eat more to experience a high.
>
> They began to eat compulsively, to the point where they continued to
> do so in the face of pain. When the researchers applied an electric
> shock to the rats’ feet in the presence of the food, the rats in the
> first two groups were frightened away from eating. But the obese rats
> were not. “Their attention was solely focused on consuming food,” says
> Kenny.
>
> In previous studies, rats have exhibited similar brain changes when
> given unlimited access to
> cocaine or heroin. And rats have similarly ignored punishment to
> continue consuming cocaine, the researchers note.
>
> The fact that junk food could provoke this response isn’t entirely
> surprising, says Dr.Gene-Jack Wang, M.D., the chair of the medical
> department at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National
> Laboratory, in Upton, New York.
>
> “We make our food very similar to cocaine now,” he says.
>
> Coca leaves have been used since ancient times, he points out, but
> people learned to purify or alter cocaine to deliver it more
> efficiently to their brains (by injecting or smoking it, for
> instance). This made the drug more addictive.
>
> According to Wang, food has evolved in a similar way. “We purify our
> food,” he says. “Our ancestors ate whole grains, but we’re eating
> white bread. American Indians ate corn; we eat corn syrup.”
>
> The ingredients in purified modern food cause people to “eat
> unconsciously and unnecessarily,” and will also prompt an animal to
> “eat like a drug abuser [uses drugs],” says Wang.
>
> The neurotransmitter dopamine appears to be responsible for the
> behavior of the overeating rats, according to the study. Dopamine is
> involved in the brain’s pleasure (or reward) centers, and it also
> plays a role in reinforcing behavior. “It tells the brain something
> has happened and you should learn from what just happened,” says
> Kenny.
>
> Overeating caused the levels of a certain dopamine receptor in the
> brains of the obese rats to drop, the study found. In humans, low
> levels of the same receptors have been associated with drug addiction
> and obesity, and may be genetic, Kenny says.
>
> However, that doesn’t mean that everyone born with lower dopamine
> receptor levels is destined to become an addict or to overeat. As Wang
> points out, environmental factors, and not just genes, are involved in
> both behaviors.
>
> Wang also cautions that applying the results of animal studies to
> humans can be tricky. For instance, he says, in studies of weight-loss
> drugs, rats have lost as much as 30 percent of their weight, but
> humans on the same drug have lost less than 5 percent of their weight.
> “You can’t mimic completely human behavior, but [animal studies] can
> give you a clue about what can happen in humans,” Wang says.
>
> Although he acknowledges that his research may not directly translate
> to humans, Kenny says the findings shed light on the brain mechanisms
> that drive overeating and could even lead to new treatments for
> obesity.
>
> “If we could develop therapeutics for drug addiction, those same drugs
> may be good for obesity as well,” he says.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/index.html?hpt=C1
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:11 pm
From: tunderbar
On Mar 28, 5:56 pm, Immortalist wrote:
> Scientists have finally confirmed what the rest of us have suspected
> for years: Bacon, cheesecake, and other delicious yet fattening foods
> may be addictive.
>
> A new study in rats suggests that high-fat, high-calorie foods affect
> the brain in much the same way as cocaine and heroin. When rats
> consume these foods in great enough quantities, it leads to compulsive
> eating habits that resemble drug addiction, the study found.
>
> Doing drugs such as cocaine and eating too much junk food both
> gradually overload the so-called pleasure centers in the brain,
> according to Paul J. Kenny, Ph.D., an associate professor of molecular
> therapeutics at the Scripps Research Institute, in Jupiter, Florida.
> Eventually the pleasure centers “crash,” and achieving the same
> pleasure–or even just feeling normal–requires increasing amounts of
> the drug or food, says Kenny, the lead author of the study.
>
> “People know intuitively that there’s more to [overeating] than just
> willpower,” he says. “There’s a system in the brain that’s been turned
> on or over-activated, and that’s driving [overeating] at some
> subconscious level.”
>
> In the study, published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, Kenny and
> his co-author studied three groups of lab rats for 40 days. One of the
> groups was fed regular rat food. A second was fed bacon, sausage,
> cheesecake, frosting, and other fattening, high-calorie foods–but
> only for one hour each day. The third group was allowed to pig out on
> the unhealthy foods for up to 23 hours a day.
>
> Not surprisingly, the rats that gorged themselves on the human food
> quickly became obese. But their brains also changed. By monitoring
> implanted brain electrodes, the researchers found that the rats in the
> third group gradually developed a tolerance to the pleasure the food
> gave them and had to eat more to experience a high.
>
> They began to eat compulsively, to the point where they continued to
> do so in the face of pain. When the researchers applied an electric
> shock to the rats’ feet in the presence of the food, the rats in the
> first two groups were frightened away from eating. But the obese rats
> were not. “Their attention was solely focused on consuming food,” says
> Kenny.
>
> In previous studies, rats have exhibited similar brain changes when
> given unlimited access to
> cocaine or heroin. And rats have similarly ignored punishment to
> continue consuming cocaine, the researchers note.
>
> The fact that junk food could provoke this response isn’t entirely
> surprising, says Dr.Gene-Jack Wang, M.D., the chair of the medical
> department at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National
> Laboratory, in Upton, New York.
>
> “We make our food very similar to cocaine now,” he says.
>
> Coca leaves have been used since ancient times, he points out, but
> people learned to purify or alter cocaine to deliver it more
> efficiently to their brains (by injecting or smoking it, for
> instance). This made the drug more addictive.
>
> According to Wang, food has evolved in a similar way. “We purify our
> food,” he says. “Our ancestors ate whole grains, but we’re eating
> white bread. American Indians ate corn; we eat corn syrup.”
>
> The ingredients in purified modern food cause people to “eat
> unconsciously and unnecessarily,” and will also prompt an animal to
> “eat like a drug abuser [uses drugs],” says Wang.
>
> The neurotransmitter dopamine appears to be responsible for the
> behavior of the overeating rats, according to the study. Dopamine is
> involved in the brain’s pleasure (or reward) centers, and it also
> plays a role in reinforcing behavior. “It tells the brain something
> has happened and you should learn from what just happened,” says
> Kenny.
>
> Overeating caused the levels of a certain dopamine receptor in the
> brains of the obese rats to drop, the study found. In humans, low
> levels of the same receptors have been associated with drug addiction
> and obesity, and may be genetic, Kenny says.
>
> However, that doesn’t mean that everyone born with lower dopamine
> receptor levels is destined to become an addict or to overeat. As Wang
> points out, environmental factors, and not just genes, are involved in
> both behaviors.
>
> Wang also cautions that applying the results of animal studies to
> humans can be tricky. For instance, he says, in studies of weight-loss
> drugs, rats have lost as much as 30 percent of their weight, but
> humans on the same drug have lost less than 5 percent of their weight.
> “You can’t mimic completely human behavior, but [animal studies] can
> give you a clue about what can happen in humans,” Wang says.
>
> Although he acknowledges that his research may not directly translate
> to humans, Kenny says the findings shed light on the brain mechanisms
> that drive overeating and could even lead to new treatments for
> obesity.
>
> “If we could develop therapeutics for drug addiction, those same drugs
> may be good for obesity as well,” he says.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/index.html?hpt=C1
google “high fructose corn syrup”
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:40 pm
From: Sidney Lambe
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.food.vegan.]
On alt.food.vegan, tunderbar wrote:
> On Mar 28, 5:56=A0pm, Immortalist wrote:
>> Scientists have finally confirmed what the rest of us have suspected
>> for years: Bacon, cheesecake, and other delicious yet fattening foods
>> may be addictive.
>>
[delete]
>> “If we could develop therapeutics for drug addiction, those
>> same drugs may be good for obesity as well,” he says.
Look around at the real world and quit taking scientists in the
pockets of major corporations so seriously. It is obvious as hell
that this commercially-motivated search for drugs that will cure
conditions that that are obviously caused by psychological
factors (even if they have a physical component _after_ the
fact) isn’t working.
Theses same corrupt scientists tell us that depression is
a purely physical condition. But their drugs don’t cure
depression, they just turn people into zombies.
And there are a lot of serious side effects.
Drugs that will cure addiction? What a _joke_!
[delete]
What does this have to do with vegetarianism/veganism?
Sid
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Extremists Now Purging Moderates From Arizona and Florida GOP
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:14 pm
From: The PHANTOM
On Mar 29, 11:08 am, Bret Cahill wrote:
> McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> nonsense.
>
> Bret Cahill
Fuck McBeaner. We’re tired of linguini spined RINOS that think they
need to “cross party lines” to get along with progressives. We want
conservative candidates that are willing to use the same slash and
burn tactics as progressives. Kill em’ all and let GOD sort em’ out !!
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:18 pm
From: The PHANTOM
On Mar 29, 11:39 am, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > nonsense.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > Keep on believin that load of crap, gonna make your ass whuppin in
> > November even
> > more historic.
> > BTW we are gettin rid of the non-conservatives and if we have such
> > clout it isn’t because
> > were a minority and news flash BC, 25% of dems and over 2/3rds of
> > independents either
> > associate with or support the tea party principles so keep on with the
> > Bama Kool Aid cuz
> > your going down with the great failure.
> > And don’t think were not getting rid of the BS you fools have enacted,
> > you just pissed away
> > your parties dominance for something that the American people will not
> > let stand!
>
> Try not to spree but if you must spree, try to spree local. Very
> local. Just shoot up your trailer.
>
> Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
We can always hope the molotov cocktails you build in your granny’s
basement for the upcoming revolution will blow up in your face.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:20 pm
From: The PHANTOM
On Mar 29, 12:39 pm, “Sid9″ wrote:
> “tooly” wrote in message
>
> news:baf1487f-a39d-4a71-841a-b7146dfeb2e4@n34g2000yqb.googlegroups.com…
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 12:08 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> >> McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> >> his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> >> ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> >> Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> >> A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> >> independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> >> This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> >> commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> >> the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> >> the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> >> nonsense.
>
> >> Bret Cahill
>
> > We are not extremists of course, but actually, we were the LAND and
> > it’s culture before progressives started taking it over.
>
> > But there are political realities coming to bear for the
> > traditionalist. Once again, I’ll say…the Hart-Cellar Immigration
> > act pretty much ‘sealed the deal’ for socialists. The 2003
> > demographics showed for every 1 additional caucasion in America, there
> > were 3 blacks and 7 hispanics coming in [or being born].
>
> > That spells doom any way one can put it [for caucasions...ergo, the
> > founding element of this country; ergo, from europe].
>
> > It probably puts this culture on a path toward ‘afro centrism’ of all
> > things? Go figure.
>
> > There might be one or two elections that conservatives can still
> > muster out…one being this next November [2010]. Even with all that
> > has taken place [Obama's socialism and grand ire being created in half
> > the land], traditionalists and conservatives will still only barely
> > muster a bare majority at the national level.
>
> > Some argue however, that the founder’s prodgeny may not go into the
> > night so meakly however. It still IS our country; we invented it; we
> > created it’s founding by laws, it’s principles…including laizez
> > faire economics.
>
> > No nation has ever simply been ‘taken over’ by internal socially
> > disparate forces such that is taking place in America now. It’s not
> > natural. But there has been a gargantuan ‘campaign’ going on in our
> > institutions, classrooms, media etc, to ‘charm the snake’ so speak; to
> > mesmerize the founder’s prodgeny into believing they have no RIGHT to
> > defend what is theirs [that it is NOT theirs; they it was somehow NOT
> > their forebears who invented the place].
>
> > No one really wants to put a color on it…but REALITY stars us in the
> > face and we look into the eyes or our own doom IF WE DON”T.
>
> > So, one might ask, what does any cornered animal do when the world
> > [Obama's world anyway, ha]…paints that animal into that corner with
> > nowhere else to go? I think hispanics and blacks are betting that the
> > white guy is just going to lay down and die. HA…I see all them
> > white teens with ‘pants on the ground’, and I can see why.
>
> > Ah well…I suppose we can always laugh [after we cry]. It was not
> > right what has been done to us.
>
> > We’ll see; who knows, anything can happen. Obama might actually be
> > ushering in something entirely opposite to what seems apparent. But
> > those tea party’ers…they look awfully old and haggard. I have
> > faith SOMETHING will happen though; something ‘reactionary’…to take
> > what is ours back. This simply is not natural what is happening.
>
> .
> .
> What do you propose to do about it?- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
Do about it?? Vote the extreme radical “fundamentally
transforming”progressives out of office and make your community
organiser a lame duck for his last two years.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:22 pm
From: The PHANTOM
On Mar 29, 12:47 pm, cop welfare wrote:
> On Mar 29, 11:50 am, tooly wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 12:08 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > nonsense.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > We are not extremists of course, but actually, we were the LAND and
> > it’s culture before progressives started taking it over.
>
> > But there are political realities coming to bear for the
> > traditionalist. Once again, I’ll say…the Hart-Cellar Immigration
> > act pretty much ‘sealed the deal’ for socialists. The 2003
> > demographics showed for every 1 additional caucasion in America, there
> > were 3 blacks and 7 hispanics coming in [or being born].
>
> > That spells doom any way one can put it [for caucasions...ergo, the
> > founding element of this country; ergo, from europe].
>
> > It probably puts this culture on a path toward ‘afro centrism’ of all
> > things? Go figure.
>
> > There might be one or two elections that conservatives can still
> > muster out…one being this next November [2010]. Even with all that
> > has taken place [Obama's socialism and grand ire being created in half
> > the land], traditionalists and conservatives will still only barely
> > muster a bare majority at the national level.
>
> > Some argue however, that the founder’s prodgeny may not go into the
> > night so meakly however. It still IS our country; we invented it; we
> > created it’s founding by laws, it’s principles…including laizez
> > faire economics.
>
> > No nation has ever simply been ‘taken over’ by internal socially
> > disparate forces such that is taking place in America now. It’s not
> > natural. But there has been a gargantuan ‘campaign’ going on in our
> > institutions, classrooms, media etc, to ‘charm the snake’ so speak; to
> > mesmerize the founder’s prodgeny into believing they have no RIGHT to
> > defend what is theirs [that it is NOT theirs; they it was somehow NOT
> > their forebears who invented the place].
>
> > No one really wants to put a color on it…but REALITY stars us in the
> > face and we look into the eyes or our own doom IF WE DON”T.
>
> > So, one might ask, what does any cornered animal do when the world
> > [Obama's world anyway, ha]…paints that animal into that corner with
> > nowhere else to go? I think hispanics and blacks are betting that the
> > white guy is just going to lay down and die. HA…I see all them
> > white teens with ‘pants on the ground’, and I can see why.
>
> > Ah well…I suppose we can always laugh [after we cry]. It was not
> > right what has been done to us.
>
> > We’ll see; who knows, anything can happen. Obama might actually be
> > ushering in something entirely opposite to what seems apparent. But
> > those tea party’ers…they look awfully old and haggard. I have
> > faith SOMETHING will happen though; something ‘reactionary’…to take
> > what is ours back. This simply is not natural what is happening.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > – Show quoted text -
>
> i hope the indians cut yer f***in’ throats.- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
Maybe they’ll take your bald scalp after they cut your granny’s tit’s
off to be used as tabbaky sacks.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:22 pm
From: retrogrouch
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:50:48 -0700 (PDT), tooly
wrote:
>I have
>faith SOMETHING will happen though; something ‘reactionary’…to take
>what is ours back.
And exactly what do you think has been taken from you and how?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What makes a good scientist?
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:25 pm
From: John Stafford
In article
,
omprem wrote:
> On Mar 29, 9:30�am, “Daniel T.” wrote:
> > John Jones wrote:
> > > There are only two kinds of scientist.
> >
> > > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy and
> > > leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering to
> > > onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of science in
> > > action.
> >
> > > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler is
> > > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are
> > > impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden strengths of
> > > science.
> >
> > There are lots of kinds of scientists, but to the question “What makes a
> > good scientist?” my answer is “objectivity.”
>
> But according to Atheism, all mental content and activity is just
> biochemical reaction and is subjective. There cannot be objectivity.
> Takes for playing. Your turn is over.
Too bi-polar.
Science attempts objectivity through method – the ability to repeat an
experiment and verify (or not) a thesis.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:26 pm
From: John Stafford
In article
,
omprem wrote:
> On Mar 29, 6:25�am, John Jones wrote:
> > Immortalist wrote:
> >
> > > [1] – A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in
> > > a systematic �activity to acquire knowledge
> >
> > That begs the question. It begs the question because the term
> > “systematic” implies what is correct. And what is correct is what is at
> > issue. Hence it begs the question of what a scientist is.
>
> In addition, Atheists are not systematic but rather frightened beings
> howling their despair to the Moon.
That is simply childish innuendo. Doesn’t your god suggest that you make
the best of his gift and use the brain he gave you?
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:34 pm
From: Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:26:45 -0500, John Stafford
wrote:
>In article
>,
> omprem wrote:
>
>> On Mar 29, 6:25�am, John Jones wrote:
>> > Immortalist wrote:
>> >
>> > > [1] – A scientist, in the broadest sense, is any person who engages in
>> > > a systematic �activity to acquire knowledge
>> >
>> > That begs the question. It begs the question because the term
>> > “systematic” implies what is correct. And what is correct is what is at
>> > issue. Hence it begs the question of what a scientist is.
>>
>> In addition, Atheists are not systematic but rather frightened beings
>> howling their despair to the Moon.
>
>That is simply childish innuendo. Doesn’t your god suggest that you make
>the best of his gift and use the brain he gave you?
Doesn’t it also say something about not bearing false witness?
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:53 pm
From: JohnN
On Mar 29, 12:30 pm, omprem wrote:
> On Mar 29, 9:30 am, “Daniel T.” wrote:
>
> > John Jones wrote:
> > > There are only two kinds of scientist.
>
> > > One kind is the monkey-scientist. The monkey-scientist is noisy and
> > > leaps from stone to branch posturing, grinning and gibbering to
> > > onlookers, who are awestruck by this real-time display of science in action.
>
> > > The other kind of scientist is the bone-rattler. The bone-rattler is
> > > silent and shakes a rattle at dissent or inquiry. Onlookers are
> > > impressed by this display as it reminds them of the hidden strengths of
> > > science.
>
> > There are lots of kinds of scientists, but to the question “What makes a
> > good scientist?” my answer is “objectivity.”
>
> But according to Atheism, all mental content and activity is just
> biochemical reaction and is subjective. There cannot be objectivity.
> Takes for playing. Your turn is over.
Silly person.
JohnN
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why The Supreme Court By 5-4 Will Dump The Democrats Health Legislation
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:36 pm
From: John Stafford
In article
,
Robert Cohen wrote:
> This prediction is based on my fear that the Supreme Court is partisan
> [...]
> The Justices decision-making is ultimately discretionary human
>
> Legalistic jargon is just that in my humble, cynical take of reality,
> and the gifted clerks know
> how to spread wordy fertilizer
>
> I’m attempting to be rational if not paranoiac, while the p word
> cannot be sloughed away
>
> I apologize to Americans offended by this heretical ass-say (which
> should be all)
I am an American and I am certainly not offended by your worried
opinion. Skepticism is good. The SC operates and exists in the rarified
universe of legal scholarship. It would be the rare layperson who has
the intellect, background, and especially the time to be so immersed. It
is not surprising that we do not understand their reasoning.
Legal scholarship, even as good as it might be practiced, has political
consequences, for better or worse, and frankly I do not believe that the
Supremes give a thought to the consequences.
I also believe that they have no business legislating from the bench.
They fucked up.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How ‘A’ is and is not ‘A’
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:39 pm
From: M Purcell
On Mar 29, 11:19 am, “Robakks” wrote:
> “M Purcell” news:a4833f89-d883-4476-a722-3c904a57b88b@y33g2000pre.googlegroups.com…
>
> > On Mar 29, 8:43 am, “Robakks” wrote:
> >> Be and to exist.
> >> The horse to be in the real world.
> >> The image of a horse exists in the psyche.
>
> >> Identity = compliance
> >> what IS and what exists.
> > Certainly if the horse stepped on your foot you would know it exists
> > independent of your imagination but suppose the horse went somewhere
> > else? How would you know it is still in the “real world”, maybe
> > something ate it. Egotists seem to believe all horses will always step
> > on people’s feet because one stepped on their foot.
>
> See:
>
> Awareness
> The horse exists here. Soft (info). Interior.
> |
> transmission \
> = 0 == 1 == 2 == 3 == 4 == 5 == 6 == psyche (mirror)
> transmission /
> |
> The horse is here. Hard (objects). Exterior.
>
> senses:
> 0 = mind (thinking)
> 1 = look (eye)
> 2 = sound (ears)
> etc.
I suspect awareness (beyond the simple registration of sensory
impulses on the brain) has little or no effect on the senses for other
animals although they can be conditioned to expect a future occurance.
I believe such interferance is not generally survival oriented but may
have contributed to our adaptability.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why Liberals Always Remain Soft On Communism?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 12:53 pm
From: Quadibloc
On Mar 29, 11:58 am, mstem…@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper)
wrote:
> In article , Quadibloc writes:
>
> >Victims have a *right* that those who commit crimes against them will
> >be punished.
>
> I believe that it was Argus Filch, in _Harry Potter and the Chamber
> of Secrets_, said “I want to see somebody punished!”
>
> (Well, really, I know it was him; I just can’t remember the wording.)
This right, as stated, is against those who actually commited those
crimes. Not innocent scapegoats.
John Savard
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do atheist deny that atheism is a relegion.
> I agree with most of what you say, but I don’t agree with the callow
> polemic language. You have already pretty much crushed him with your
> arguments.
In discussions with atheists it is insufficient to ‘pretty much crush them
with argument’. They must be crushed mercilessly into dust otherwise they
keep coming back with more unthinking illogic.
>> If God is not matter then God can never be known by our senses.
>
> Unless he becomes matter as in the form of Jesus.This is what
> Christians believe.
Rubbish. Logical fallacy of false dichotomy. Your supposition mistkenly
assumes that some omnipotent Metaphysical X is incapable of impinging itself
upon your reality apart from your senses.
Rubbish, logical fallacy, you assume that there is any such thing as a
Metaphysical X, what ever the hell ‘that’ is suppose to mean.
That’s the problem with all this new age double speak, it either means
what ever the speaker wants, or what ever is in vogue at the time, and
to be so slippery in definition renders using the term for any
meaningful exchange of ideas moot.
Definitions of metaphysical on the Web:
pertaining to or of the nature of metaphysics; “metaphysical
philosophy”
without material form or substance; “metaphysical forces”
highly abstract and overly theoretical; “metaphysical reasoning”
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
metaphysics – the philosophical study of being and knowing
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Metaphysics (Greek: t? µet? t? f?s???) is one of the principal works of
Aristotle and the first major work of the branch of …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle)
Metaphysics is the second album by Duncan Avoid.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(album)
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy that investigates principles of
reality transcending those of any particular science. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
metaphysics – The branch of philosophy which studies fundamental
principles intended to describe or explain all that is, and which are
not themselves explained by anything more fundamental; the study of
first principles; the study of being insofar as it is being (ens in
quantum ens); The view or theory of a …
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/metaphysics
Pertaining to realities which are outside those of science, such as
cosmology and divination.
witchraven.spruz.com/
metaphysics – the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of the
universe as a whole.
www.strongatheism.net/intro/lexicon/
metaphysics – the study of the ultimate and fundamental reality.
www.willdurant.com/glossary.htm
metaphysics – The term meta means “above” and physics refers to the
“physical” in Latin. Therefore, literally translated metaphysics means
…
www.tarotteachings.com/meanings-dictionary-for-tarot-h-p.html
metaphysics – The study of events beyond or outside of man’s
understanding of classical physics.
www.floridaparanormalresearch.com/glossary/
Of or relating to a group of 17th century poets whose verse was
distinguished by an intellectual and philosophical style, with extended
metaphors or conceits comparing very dissimilar things. (Compare
Classicism, Idealism, Imagism, Impressionism, Objectivism, Realism,
Romanticism, Symbolism)
www.poeticbyway.com/gl-m.html
of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable
universe
library.thinkquest.org/C0126184/english/litglossary.htm
==============================================================================
TOPIC: One way of recognising one’s spirituality.
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:29 pm
From: Virgil
In article
,
omprem wrote:
> On Mar 28, 7:16�am, Mike Jones wrote:
> > Responding to bigflet…@gmail.com:
> >
> >
> >
> > > When you can see that atheism, religiosity, and the different shades
> > > between, are valid states of consciousness, that they are ‘group rites
> > > of �passage’, from which individual consciousness and awareness emerges,
> > > then you are looking from a spiritual perspective.
> >
> > > Often confirmed by being ‘accused’ from one side or the other, as
> > > belonging to their particular opposite, as happens with all growth into
> > > ‘individuality’.
> >
> > > A favorite anecdote being Sting’s dad (who was a milkman) told his sone,
> > > even when he was succesful…”yes, but thats not a ‘propper’ job…Just
> > > delightful !
> >
> > > Groups do not take kindly to what they describe as ‘radicals’, and we
> > > all know the power of ‘free radicals’ have over the organism.
> >
> > > Something that the ‘group’ tries to stop at the intellectual level , and
> > > ‘cure’ at the physiological level.
> >
> > > And the beat goes on ….
> >
> > > BOfL
> >
> > > BOfL
> >
> > Except the whole concept of “spirituality” is bullshit designed to create
> > an inner mindset that will be vunerable to “god shaped space” propaganda.
> > Its like a teenager getting to first base on a date. Get her blouse open,
> > distract with romantic lies, then slowly…
> >
> > Get ‘em to accept “spirituality”, then drip feed doubt and fear until…
> >
> > And you just re-promoted that particular toxic meme. Oops!
> >
> > –
> > *=(http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/
> > *=( For all your UK news needs.
>
> MJ is the living embodiment of invincible ignorance.
he is easily overshadowed in that respect by “omprem”.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:36 pm
From: Virgil
In article
,
omprem wrote:
> The ‘mental suffering’ suffered by Atheists who attempt to read the
> Bible and understand Christianity is due to their being brought into
> acute awareness of their willful and invincible ignorance.
Most of us non-theists who read the bible suffer nothing more painful
than boredom.
> They are
> torn between wanting to stay addicted to their ignorance and being
> impelled forward and upward by their dim intuitive awareness of
> Divinity.
Actually, that opinion is one held only by theist “true believers” like
“omprem”.
As of yet, such “true beleivers” have produced no cogent reasons for
accepting the actuality of any ‘divinity’.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:37 pm
From: Virgil
In article
,
omprem wrote:
> MJ is the living embodiment of invincible ignorance.
Not while “omprem” is here to outstrip him in that respect.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Which is “greener”?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:33 pm
From: Giga2
On 28 Mar, 18:17, Shrikeback wrote:
> On Mar 28, 9:33 am, John Stafford wrote:
> > > I’m in NC.
>
> > Ah, yes. NC is a beautiful part of the USA, and you don’t need the
> > measures we in Minnesota do. The freeze goes down as much as four feet
> > in my area, and further down farther North.
>
> Clearly the green thing to do is to forcibly relocate
> those folks living too far north to somewhere warm
> enough that they can live in open straw huts, naked
> and classless on the sunny beach of retirementland.
>
> What we need is a government forceful enough to
> force these green decisions down our collective
> throat. And don’t forget to ask about our One Child
> Policy.
And the ‘Flintstones-style peddle-car’ policy.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Which Newsgroups Rightard Wants To Be First To Be Taken Out By SWAT?
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:48 pm
From: Patriot Games
On 28 Mar 2010 23:49:45 GMT, Michael Coburn
wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:17:06 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>> On 27 Mar 2010 23:37:58 GMT, Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 17:08:27 -0400, Patriot Games wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:18:16 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >> >> >The more time winger dingers spend posting here the less time
>>>>>> >> >> >they have to shoot honest law abiding folk.
>>>>>> >> >> The more time people spend reading Bret Cahill’s LIES the less
>>>>>> >> >> they are inclined to read his posts ever again…
>>>>>> >> >You really think you can beat out David Duke for the GOP Nat’l
>>>>>> >> >Convention cross burning event?
>>>>>> >> It’s not working…..
>>>>>> >That’s why you need to go back to posting Rasmussen polls that show
>>>>>> >Repugliars retaking both houses of congress with veto proof
>>>>>> >majorities.
>>>>>> >It’ll help keep the wingers from spree shooting so much.
>>>>>> It’s still not working…..
>>>>>If you don’t _try_ then it’s 100% certain you won’t get results.
>>>> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
>>>> different results. Albert Einstein, (attributed) US (German-born)
>>>> physicist (1879 – 1955) http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26032.html
>>>So if we run out and elect people that want to destroy government while
>>>expecting good results then we must be total nut cases.
>> Case in point: Buckwheat PresiChimp.
>>>Perhaps the rational people will wake up to the fact that taxing the
>>>rich in order to fund medical care for those who would otherwise be
>>>bankrupted and those who would otherwise not be able to afford insurance
>>>is a lot better solution than passing the costs of this care to the
>>>middle class people who currently pay insurance premiums, deductibles
>>>and co-pays.
>> No, those aren’t “rational” people, they are Communists. Like YOU.
>>>And while it is true that the insurance companies will do well from the
>>>increase in their customer base funded by the rich, the middle class
>>>will not be footing the bill as both the poor and the middle will have
>>>gotten better care.
>> Wrong. The Middle Class IS the Consumer Engine in our Economy and the
>> Middle Class was told their AT&T Rates will be going up $1 BILLION to
>> pay for BuckwheatCare in ONE YEAR.
>> Wrong. The Middle Class was told the fruit, vegetable, dairy and meat
>> prices will be gong up $100 MILLION to pay for BuckwheatCare in ONE
>> YEAR. (Deere.)
>> Wrong. The Middle Class was told virtually everything in America will
>> cost more by another $150 MILLION to pay for BuckwheatCare in ONE YEAR.
>> (Caterpillar.)
>> That’s $1.25 BILLION in JUST THREE DAYS from JUST 3 Companies….
>> Wrong. The Middle Class will NOT be getting “better care.” Initially
>> they will be getting the SAME care at slightly HIGHER rates. As the
>> 30,000,000 new customers enter the healthcare system the Middle Class
>> will be getting WORSE care, waiting LONGER for WORSE care, and paying
>> MORE to wait LONGER to get WORSE care.
>>>Not bad at all.
>> You mean ‘not all bad.’ It has ensured the Total Destruction of the
>> DemocRATs beginning in November…
>The Republican will find as many “nits” as possible and amplify them.
Your bullshit began with a LIE, so that’s where it ends…
Try again, Commie.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:52 pm
From: Patriot Games
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:50:25 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
wrote:
>On Mar 28, 3:25�pm, Patriot Games wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:44:42 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>> wrote:
>> >On Mar 27, 4:08�pm, Patriot Games wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:18:16 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >The more time winger dingers spend posting here the less time they
>> >> >> >> >> >have to shoot honest law abiding folk.
>> >> >> >> >> The more time people spend reading Bret Cahill’s LIES the less they
>> >> >> >> >> are inclined to read his posts ever again…
>> >> >> >> >You really think you can beat out David Duke for the GOP Nat’l
>> >> >> >> >Convention cross burning event?
>> >> >> >> It’s not working…..
>> >> >> >That’s why you need to go back to posting Rasmussen polls that show
>> >> >> >Repugliars retaking both houses of congress with veto proof
>> >> >> >majorities.
>> >> >> >It’ll help keep the wingers from spree shooting so much.
>> >> >> It’s still not working…..
>> >> >If you don’t _try_ then it’s 100% certain you won’t get results.
>> >> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
>> >> different results. Albert Einstein, (attributed)
>> >> US (German-born) physicist (1879 – 1955)http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/26032.html
>> > its because einstein wrote a piece called the case for socialism, in
>> >his paper, he said that conservatives keep doing the same thing over
>> >and over again, expecting a different outcome or result. you can
>> >easily see what he was speaking about.
>> Feel free to CITE your claim:
>> Why Socialism? By Albert Einstein
>> New York, May, 1949
>> http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Einstein.htm
> gee, he must have believed it, because its his quote, and he wrote
>the piece:)
Then WHY did YOU FAIL to CITE it?
Answer: BECAUSE YOU LIED.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:53 pm
From: Patriot Games
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:00:50 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
wrote:
>> It’s not working…
>Maybe Repugliars should give up lying 24/7.
You’re a Republican! I woulda never guessed……….
Liars are exposed:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:24:14 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
wrote:
>The Gipster… …as crime increased by double digits every year.
Liar: Crime NEVER increased by “double digits” ANY year.
Reagan – January 20, 1981 � January 20, 1989
Year; Total Crime; Change
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:06:55 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
wrote:
>On Jun 2, 10:15�am, Patriot Games wrote:
>> Liar: Crime NEVER increased by “double digits” ANY year.
>But as the figures below show, it’s close enough.
Thanks for admitting YOU INTENTIONALLY LIED.
=============================
Each time I concentrate on exposing your lying the affect is the same:
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:59 pm
From: “Paul Hovnanian P.E.”
GLOBALIST wrote:
>
> I always get a kick out of folks who are ‘still’ hunting down
> communists. Oh well ..they need something to keep them busy, so they
> don’t have to face reality
Some people are defined by their enemies. They don’t know how to
function outside a state of conflict.
So if its not the commies, its our own government, or local law
enforcement.:
* “jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in saudi
arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in saudi telecom”
“saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/ – 1 messages,
1 author
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:05 pm
From: Fred Abse
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:05:55 +0200, Fred Bartoli wrote:
> I don’t know whether LTspice support B
> sources,
Yes, it does.
–
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
(Richard Feynman)
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:38 pm
From: Fred Bartoli
Fred Abse a écrit :
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:05:55 +0200, Fred Bartoli wrote:
>
>> I don’t know whether LTspice support B
>> sources,
>
> Yes, it does.
>
Ah, thanks.
–
Thanks,
Fred.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:31 pm
From: pnachtwey
On Mar 29, 11:53 am, John Larkin
wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:20:31 -0400, Jerry Avins wrote:
> >Tim Wescott wrote:
> >> Fred Bartoli wrote:
> >>> Tim Wescott a écrit :
> >>>> Fred Bartoli wrote:
> >>>>> John Larkin a écrit :
> >>>>>> I’m designing a gadget that uses an ARM uP, with 12-bit mux’d ADC and
> >>>>>> a 10-bit DAC, to essentially make a current and voltage regulated
> >>>>>> power supply. The ADC will measure voltage and current and the DAC
> >>>>>> will control a fairly soft source-follower series-pass mosfet. The
> >>>>>> customer load could be most anything.
>
> >>>>>> I think it would be time-effective to simulate the control loop while
> >>>>>> the PC board is being fabbed, so we don’t have to play with dynamics
> >>>>>> as much in the critical delivery path.
> >>>>>> I can simulate it as an analog loop using LT Spice, as I’m familiar
> >>>>>> with that and could get it done quickly. It would be handy if I could
> >>>>>> also use the same model in digital mode, which would add sampling
> >>>>>> delays and maybe even quantization.
>
> >>>>>> Any thoughts on how to do this?
>
> >>>>>> I note here that more and more formerly-analog control loops, things
> >>>>>> like switching power supplies, motor drivers, power amps, will be
> >>>>>> going digital in the future. Some of the ARM chips are selling for
> >>>>>> under a dollar. Analog parts will, I think, increasingly be used for
> >>>>>> things like amplification, and less for computation.
>
> >>>>>> John
>
> >>>>> It can easily done with spice.
>
> >>>>> The software delay can be modeled as a TLINE provided it is constant
> >>>>> in your system.
> >>>>> For switchers you model the switch as an averaged one (continuous
> >>>>> model). The sampling action is modeled by a 2 poles TF (look at
> >>>>> Ridley’s paper “Accurate and practical small signal model for
> >>>>> current mode control”, or I can try to dig in one of my previous HDs).
>
> >>>>> With good modeling you can have average transient and AC (loop
> >>>>> gain,…) simulations which are real close to the actual circuit.
>
> >>>>> That won’t give you quantization though, and I guess this can’t be
> >>>>> modeled as with sigma delta since you have a first order loop and
> >>>>> probably an almost constant signal.
>
> >>>>> Maybe, but I never tried this, you can discretize the loop (only for
> >>>>> transient analysis) with use of B “arbitrary sources” within which
> >>>>> you use some integer part function. I don’t know whether LTspice
> >>>>> support B sources, but you should find something equivalent…
>
> >>>> Quantization looks like infinite gain, though, so unless it is
> >>>> wrapped inside of a sampled-time section it’ll really slow down — or
> >>>> completely crash — the simulation.
>
> >>>> You can analyze fairly well for quantization by treating it as noise
> >>>> at the magnitude of the quantization, and the worst possible
> >>>> frequency. Just inject a signal at the quantization point, do a
> >>>> frequency sweep to figure out the sensitivity of the output to the
> >>>> quantization, and take the worst spot.
>
> >>>> Quantization always seems to seek to do the most damage possible, so
> >>>> treating it as worst case isn’t paranoid. In this case, it really is
> >>>> out to get you!
>
> >>> It’s been a while I’ve looked at this but IIRC it’s only one bit
> >>> quantizer that have infinite gain. Multibit quantizers, as I guess
> >>> John will use since he has plentiful bits ADC/DAC, have unit gain.
> >>> I once used an ARM with 12b ADC/DACs to build a low OSR SD converter
> >>> with real high resolution at almost no cost (the ARM was mandated for
> >>> other things). Of course it wasn’t more linear than the DAC on large
> >>> signals, but the app was OK with that…
>
> >> At the point of the quantization step the input moves an infinitesimal
> >> amount, and the output moves a finite amount. That’s an infinite gain.
> >> With a 12-bit device, it happens 4095 times, instead of once.
>
> >It really plays havoc when computing a simple “derivative”.
>
> >Jerry
>
> Derivatives usually cause more trouble than they do good. My “PID”
> controller will almost certainly have D=0.
>
> John
Many systems don’t require a derivative gain. It depends on the
number of poles in your plant and we have no idea what you are trying
to do.
I am a big believer in derivative gains since I must tune under damped
systems. The trick is a have very fine resolution feed back that is
almost noise free or a good model. I would use 16 bit analog feedback
devices to get the finer resolution. I was just at a site where I
used the second derivative gain and it was necessary.
Sometime a low pass filter on the output helps too. If you are clever
you can calculate the gains and take the low pass filter into
consideration. This is better than trying to tweak each gain one a
time along with the output filter.
Do you have excess CPU time?
Peter Nachtwey
==============================================================================
TOPIC: “jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in saudi
telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:08 pm
From: saima81
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
“jobs in saudi arabia” “jobs in saudi arabia for pakistanis” “jobs in
saudi arabia banks” “jobs in saudi” “jobs in saudi airline” “jobs in
saudi telecom” “saudi arabia jobs “on http://jobsinsaudiarabia-net.blogspot.com/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cloning the ca3080
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:15 pm
From: osr@uakron.edu
Any suggestions before I start to clone the ca3080 in discretes? I
have a legacy design I may need to make thousands of…
What I mean by suggestions is if any of the IC designers here could
see any hidden process gotchas in the drawing in the datasheet. Ie
emitter width, hidden structures, etc…
And yes, I know about the 13700 series…
Steve
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:20 pm
From: “Tim Williams”
You’ll have terrible thermal compensation ( = drifty offset and gain, plus
thermal time constants) without monolithic construction. The representative
circuit seems to be current mirrors and a diff amp, which will work fine.
Doesn’t seem to be anything remarkable about it, no bandgaps or Widlar-esque
craziness.
Tim
–
Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
wrote in message
news:9db11a06-1382-48e5-85dc-d794e8c5859d@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com…
> Any suggestions before I start to clone the ca3080 in discretes? I
> have a legacy design I may need to make thousands of…
>
> What I mean by suggestions is if any of the IC designers here could
> see any hidden process gotchas in the drawing in the datasheet. Ie
> emitter width, hidden structures, etc…
>
> And yes, I know about the 13700 series…
>
> Steve
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:55 pm
From: Jim Thompson
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:15:39 -0700 (PDT), osr@uakron.edu wrote:
>Any suggestions before I start to clone the ca3080 in discretes? I
>have a legacy design I may need to make thousands of…
>
>What I mean by suggestions is if any of the IC designers here could
>see any hidden process gotchas in the drawing in the datasheet. Ie
>emitter width, hidden structures, etc…
>
> And yes, I know about the 13700 series…
>
>Steve
We could make a copy
…Jim Thompson
–
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC’s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Through Hole vs. Surface Mount
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:34 pm
From: Fred Bartoli
Fred Abse a écrit :
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:12:47 +0000, Nico Coesel wrote:
>
>> Thats exactly the wrong way. Fine pitch is best soldered using a think
>> flat soldering tip and flux. Its faster and it works better.
>
> Chacun à son goût!
>
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:36 pm
From: Spehro Pefhany
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:57:17 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:
>I used to love the way US newscasters drifted between ghoulish green and
>purple in the days before they were clamped to pale orange leather. I
>always believed it was a limitation of NTSC broadcast signals until I
>lived in Japan where they manage to do it correctly.
NTSC = No True Skin Colors?
>Regards,
>Martin Brown
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lower operating temperature specs for single-board computers
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 1:40 pm
From: Joerg
Paul Keinanen wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:21:07 -0700, “Joel Koltner”
> wrote:
>
>> I’m curious… what’s the difference between your run-of-the-mill single-board
>> computer (e.g., those based on Atoms or ARMs or whatever that people are so
>> fond of running Linux on) when they’re spec’d to operate down to -20C (or
>> even -40C) vs. the far-more-common 0C?
>
> At least you should check that the oscillators start up reliably at
> low temperatures.
>
> When you get the oscillators running, it may need some failed restart
> attempts, until the heat produced by the logic gates running at the
> clock frequency has heated sufficiently some marginal components.
>
Crystals can have a hard time, just like engines do. Russian truckers
sometimes solve it but gathering some wood, making a little fire
underneath and having a cigarette in the meantime.
> However, if the main clock does not start reliably, you are out of
> luck.
>
May need a lower value “kicker resistor”, or a real kicker circuit.
> With non-coated PCB’s you may end up with various condensation
> problems.
>
That problem can also hit well above 0C. There were days in Puerto Rico
where it was nice and warm but condensation was so bad that water was
running down the windows and making puddles on the ground.
–
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
“gmail” domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:29 pm
From: Tim Wescott
Joel Koltner wrote:
> I’m curious… what’s the difference between your run-of-the-mill
> single-board computer (e.g., those based on Atoms or ARMs or whatever
> that people are so fond of running Linux on) when they’re spec’d to
> operate down to -20C (or even -40C) vs. the far-more-common 0C? It’s
> obvious that you need to add additional cooling so that nothing fries as
> you want a higher and higher ambient temperature operating range, but
> what happens at -20C that isn’t already happening at 0C?
>
And after you get things so that your oscillators start, and your power
supplies regulate correctly, and the socketed parts don’t pull out (or
off) of their designated spot, all of the digital electronics will go
faster — by different amounts.
So latent race conditions that weren’t a problem at all at 0C will
suddenly _be_ a problem.
(Note: this is much more likely to be an issue at high temperatures when
CMOS gets slow, but hey — it can happen at cold, too).
–
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:34 pm
From: Joerg
Tim Wescott wrote:
> Joel Koltner wrote:
>> I’m curious… what’s the difference between your run-of-the-mill
>> single-board computer (e.g., those based on Atoms or ARMs or whatever
>> that people are so fond of running Linux on) when they’re spec’d to
>> operate down to -20C (or even -40C) vs. the far-more-common 0C? It’s
>> obvious that you need to add additional cooling so that nothing fries
>> as you want a higher and higher ambient temperature operating range,
>> but what happens at -20C that isn’t already happening at 0C?
>>
>
> And after you get things so that your oscillators start, and your power
> supplies regulate correctly, and the socketed parts don’t pull out (or
> off) of their designated spot, all of the digital electronics will go
> faster — by different amounts.
>
> So latent race conditions that weren’t a problem at all at 0C will
> suddenly _be_ a problem.
>
> (Note: this is much more likely to be an issue at high temperatures when
> CMOS gets slow, but hey — it can happen at cold, too).
>
In medieval Europe the digital designer would have been dunked into a
moat three times, in front of all the villagers
–
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
“gmail” domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:48 pm
From: Spehro Pefhany
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:40:26 -0700, Joerg
wrote:
>Paul Keinanen wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:21:07 -0700, “Joel Koltner”
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I’m curious… what’s the difference between your run-of-the-mill single-board
>>> computer (e.g., those based on Atoms or ARMs or whatever that people are so
>>> fond of running Linux on) when they’re spec’d to operate down to -20C (or
>>> even -40C) vs. the far-more-common 0C?
>>
>> At least you should check that the oscillators start up reliably at
>> low temperatures.
>>
>> When you get the oscillators running, it may need some failed restart
>> attempts, until the heat produced by the logic gates running at the
>> clock frequency has heated sufficiently some marginal components.
>>
>
>Crystals can have a hard time, just like engines do. Russian truckers
>sometimes solve it but gathering some wood, making a little fire
>underneath and having a cigarette in the meantime.
Now that’s an OCXO…
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:03 pm
From: Tim Wescott
Joerg wrote:
> Tim Wescott wrote:
>> Joel Koltner wrote:
>>> I’m curious… what’s the difference between your run-of-the-mill
>>> single-board computer (e.g., those based on Atoms or ARMs or whatever
>>> that people are so fond of running Linux on) when they’re spec’d to
>>> operate down to -20C (or even -40C) vs. the far-more-common 0C? It’s
>>> obvious that you need to add additional cooling so that nothing fries
>>> as you want a higher and higher ambient temperature operating range,
>>> but what happens at -20C that isn’t already happening at 0C?
>>>
>>
>> And after you get things so that your oscillators start, and your
>> power supplies regulate correctly, and the socketed parts don’t pull
>> out (or off) of their designated spot, all of the digital electronics
>> will go faster — by different amounts.
>>
>> So latent race conditions that weren’t a problem at all at 0C will
>> suddenly _be_ a problem.
>>
>> (Note: this is much more likely to be an issue at high temperatures
>> when CMOS gets slow, but hey — it can happen at cold, too).
>>
>
> In medieval Europe the digital designer would have been dunked into a
> moat three times, in front of all the villagers
>
And if he died then he wasn’t a witch, and if he lived then he was a
witch and needed killing?
–
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:07 pm
From: Joerg
Tim Wescott wrote:
> Joerg wrote:
>> Tim Wescott wrote:
>>> Joel Koltner wrote:
>>>> I’m curious… what’s the difference between your run-of-the-mill
>>>> single-board computer (e.g., those based on Atoms or ARMs or
>>>> whatever that people are so fond of running Linux on) when they’re
>>>> spec’d to operate down to -20C (or even -40C) vs. the
>>>> far-more-common 0C? It’s obvious that you need to add additional
>>>> cooling so that nothing fries as you want a higher and higher
>>>> ambient temperature operating range, but what happens at -20C that
>>>> isn’t already happening at 0C?
>>>>
>>>
>>> And after you get things so that your oscillators start, and your
>>> power supplies regulate correctly, and the socketed parts don’t pull
>>> out (or off) of their designated spot, all of the digital electronics
>>> will go faster — by different amounts.
>>>
>>> So latent race conditions that weren’t a problem at all at 0C will
>>> suddenly _be_ a problem.
>>>
>>> (Note: this is much more likely to be an issue at high temperatures
>>> when CMOS gets slow, but hey — it can happen at cold, too).
>>>
>>
>> In medieval Europe the digital designer would have been dunked into a
>> moat three times, in front of all the villagers
>>
> And if he died then he wasn’t a witch, and if he lived then he was a
> witch and needed killing?
>
No, this was meant as an “ethics enhancement” process. They used it on
bakers who made undersized rolls but sold them at full price. They
usually tried that sort of business practice only once …
–
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
“gmail” domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 2:35 pm
From: messianic light
I am just starting with idea to design a digitally controlled analogue
synthesizer
does anyone have basic analogue synthesizer circuits to get me going
with breadboard design?
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:26 pm
From: “J.A. Legris”
On Mar 29, 5:35 pm, messianic light
wrote:
> I am just starting with idea to design a digitally controlled analogue
> synthesizer
>
> does anyone have basic analogue synthesizer circuits to get me going
> with breadboard design?
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:35 pm
From: “Joel Koltner”
“messianic light” wrote in message
news:90e5ab9d-3cfa-4834-a4d5-cfbaf5bbca3a@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com…
>I am just starting with idea to design a digitally controlled analogue
> synthesizer
>
> does anyone have basic analogue synthesizer circuits to get me going
> with breadboard design?
Tell us what kind of frequency ranges you’d like to cover, if you just need a
sine wave output or modulation or other waveforms, etc…
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Aluminium Foil around Mobile Phone… what will happen ?
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:24 pm
From: Colin Howarth
Hi,
I’m designing an external computer audio interface (192 kHz, 24 bit,
stereo using the Cirrus CS5381 ADC) and, I’d like to connect it using
firewire.
I’d thought of using an Oxford Semi OXFW… chip, but they got taken
over by some outfit called PLX last year and all I can find is NAS/DAS
storage chips (SATA) and PCI(e) bridges…
What I was looking for was the simplest sort of serial to FW bridge.
I suppose a TI TSB41AB1 transceiver and TSB12LV01B link layer controller
(plus serdes used the wrong way round?) would do it, but (as an amateur)
I’m wondering whether I’ll be able to get this going without the IEEE
standard since the datasheet for the TSB12LV01B does fairly warn
“This document is not intended to serve as a tutorial on 1394; users are
referred to the IEEE 1394-1995 serial bus standard for detailed
information regarding the 1394 high-speed serial bus.”
I guess I’ll end up using the FT2232H USB Hi-Speed UART …
Thanks,
colin
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:46 pm
From: Tim Wescott
Colin Howarth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’m designing an external computer audio interface (192 kHz, 24 bit,
> stereo using the Cirrus CS5381 ADC) and, I’d like to connect it using
> firewire.
>
> I’d thought of using an Oxford Semi OXFW… chip, but they got taken
> over by some outfit called PLX last year and all I can find is NAS/DAS
> storage chips (SATA) and PCI(e) bridges…
>
> What I was looking for was the simplest sort of serial to FW bridge.
>
> I suppose a TI TSB41AB1 transceiver and TSB12LV01B link layer controller
> (plus serdes used the wrong way round?) would do it, but (as an amateur)
> I’m wondering whether I’ll be able to get this going without the IEEE
> standard since the datasheet for the TSB12LV01B does fairly warn
>
> “This document is not intended to serve as a tutorial on 1394; users are
> referred to the IEEE 1394-1995 serial bus standard for detailed
> information regarding the 1394 high-speed serial bus.”
>
>
> I guess I’ll end up using the FT2232H USB Hi-Speed UART …
I was on a team that implemented an infra red imager that talked on IEEE
1394, back before it was apparent that FireWire was going to go down in
flames in the marketplace (of course, that was back when Microsoft was
still pretending to support it — I actually went to a FireWire user’s
conference in Redmond).
We got it working, and working quite well. It met every single dang one
of our needs except for “works on a popular consumer-oriented bus”.
If you want to go the FireWire route, get a copy of “FireWire System
Architecture” by Don Anderson of MindShare. It is a near-perfect book
for this — we got copies for every developer, and each one of us was
practically able to prop the book up next to our monitor to figure out
what needed to get done.
But:
Why?!?!?
Why go with FireWire when USB* will do what you want, and far easier?
FireWire is a peer-peer bus, which really, really, really made a lot of
sense for the product I was working on (the other end of the digital
link was a board that turned the video into RS-170 analog, with no PC in
sight). But the fact that it’s peer-peer means that — with a few
exceptions — every node has to have all the capabilities of any other
node, which makes the peripheral design much more complex than a
master/slave bus like USB.
You, on the other hand, are talking about something that’s well within
the capabilities of even fairly slow USB hardware — and you can hardly
walk by a computer these days without tripping over a USB cable, while
at the same time it’s hard to find a computer equipped with FireWire.
For a lot less effort than equipping a peripheral with FireWire you can
get a USB-capable microprocessor and do whatever you want.
I’d recommend that you find a chip that’ll handle USB isochronous mode
(to get you guaranteed bandwidth for that audio that you don’t want to
hiccup), and get to it. It’ll be a _lot_ easier than messing with
FireWire, and when you’re done you’ll be able to plug it into any new
computer on earth.
* Several of my colleagues from that period of time would be rolling on
the floor, pointing at me and laughing, just for making that statement.
–
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Coming soon to the USA…
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:36 pm
From: “amdx”
“ian field” wrote in message
news:RG5sn.124236$1j3.111888@newsfe10.ams2…
>
> “Jim Thompson” wrote
> in message news:aul1r5dcnv27nkv095klm69d7dhgad70it@4ax.com…
>> Coming soon to the USA… the ultimate nanny state…
>
> It’ll never be as bad as in the UK.
>
> Kids not allowed to play conkers – or climb trees to get them, no chasing
> a round cheese down a hill contests, no jumble sales in case the village
> hall burns down.
>
> The list is inexhaustible.
>
Ian, a Massachusetts school stopped using jump ropes!
They still jump, they just don’t use the rope, you see if little Mary or
Billy catch
the rope with a foot as it goes round it could hurt there self esteem.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:44 pm
From: Hans-Bernhard Bröker
Didi wrote:
> I tried today to figure out a simple way to give users of our
> new netmca ( http://tgi-sci.com/tgi/nmcatb.htm ) to locate its
> IP address once it gets one via dhcp when there is no internet
> at the moment
I believe that, strictly speaking, that can’t happen. If you have no
internet at the moment, you don’t have DHCP either. Remember that DHCP
itself is a UDP service. UDP in turn works on top of IP, and that, for
better or for worse, is “internet”.
> Turned out there is nothing like an easy way to do that!
Well, the problem is nowhere near as easy as it appears at first sight.
It’s called a “network” because it’s _work_ to set up a properly
functioning net.
> How on Earth is that possible?!
You’ll want to look up “zero config networking”. That’s what the big
guys came up with to address this very same issue. You’ll see Apple
mentioned rather a lot, for their “Rendezvouz”/”Bonjour” project.
And let me point out I’m completely flabbergasted that nobody mentioned
this before me — not over here in c.a.embedded, anyway. I mean, come
on guys: not a single owner of an Apple Airport base station speaking
up, wondering what all these people keep talking about for days, when a
“normal” WLAN box just does the job???
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:52 pm
From: “krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz”
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 03:39:34 -0400, “Michael A. Terrell”
wrote:
>
>”krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz” wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 19:05:26 -0400, The King
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:46:43 -0500, “krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz”
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 18:21:31 -0400, The King
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 14:34:35 -0700, Jim Thompson
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>>>Oh? Voluntarily coming to the weenie roast and pick-em-up truck
>> >>>>>>drag-behind ?:-)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> …Jim Thompson
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>If you promise to wear your hood.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>You weenies sure are tiresome. It’s more likely that _you_ would be
>> >>>>the kind to wear a hood. In my own personal family I have a wide mix
>> >>>>of races, religions, and yes, even politics…. though none believe in
>> >>>>taking from the productive and giving to the bums.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Likewise my neighborhood… albeit only a 12 house upper class
>> >>>>cul-de-sac neighborhood… multi-racial, and we block-party all the
>> >>>>time.
>> >>>
>> >>>A multi racial tow behind block party. Let me guess, the white guys
>> >>>do the driving.
>> >>
>> >>You don’t read any better than you think.
>> >
>> >I think you’re a bunch of cross posting fuck heads. Do us a favor and
>> >trim alt.hvac from your hate fest.
>>
>> No, but thank you anyway. Hint: I didn’t add the silly HVAC group and if it
>> were really that important to YOU, you would have trimmed your group already,
>> dummy.
>
>
> That group has more idiots & trolls than alt.usenet.kooks.
Indeed it does have that reputation, across the Usenet.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 3:53 pm
From: “krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz”
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 07:40:03 -0500, “Steve” wrote:
>
>”Don Ocean” wrote in message
>news:81anasFk5tU1@mid.individual.net…
>> The King wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 13:04:53 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 16:00:11 -0400, The King
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:58:42 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In reality, we right-wingers _will_ eventually tip over the edge. If
>>>>>> this socialism goes too far we’re going to round up all you leftist
>>>>>> weenies and have a big weenie roast
>>>>>>
>>>>>> …Jim Thompson
>>>>> You have been tipped over the edge and were coming to get you.
>>>> Oh? Voluntarily coming to the weenie roast and pick-em-up truck
>>>> drag-behind ?:-)
>>>>
>>>> …Jim Thompson
>>>
>>> If you promise to wear your hood.
>>
>> I thought only Union members were allowed to wear hoods?
>
>Guys, thats not something to even joke about…. they are alive and well in
>the *real* south. I was invited to attend another “headlight party” a week
>or so ago. Yes, I politely declined (again).
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 4:27 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 4:48 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > nonsense.
>
> > > Bret Cahill
>
> > lets hope they succeed. every cult dies once they enter the drive for
> > purity phase:)
>
> True although they often stack up a lot of bodies on the way.
>
> Bret Cahill
correct.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 4:29 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Mar 29, 4:59 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2:50 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 2:14 pm, The PHANTOM wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 11:08 am, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > > nonsense.
>
> > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > Fuck McBeaner. We’re tired of linguini spined RINOS that think they
> > > need to “cross party lines” to get along with progressives. We want
> > > conservative candidates that are willing to use the same slash and
> > > burn tactics as progressives. Kill em’ all and let GOD sort em’ out !!
>
> > BREAKING NEWS:9 conservatives charged with conspiracy to kill police
> > officers in hopes of triggering a violent uprising against the
> > democratically elected government of the unites states of america:to
> > levy war against the United States
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_re_us/us_fbi_raids
>
> > 9 militia members charged in police-killing plot
>
> > By COREY WILLIAMS and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers –
> > 1 hr 1 min ago
> > DETROIT – Nine suspects tied to a Midwest Christian militia that was
> > preparing for the Antichrist were charged with conspiring to kill
> > police officers, then attack a funeral using homemade bombs in the
> > hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors
> > said Monday.
> > The Michigan-based group, called Hutaree, planned to use the attack on
> > police as a catalyst for a larger uprising against the government,
>
> Fortunately it was a blue state. Red state politicians won’t stop
> spree shooters and rightard terror bombers until the blood is already
> flowing.
>
> Bret Cahill
we can only hope the southern poverty law center can keep tabs on
them and warn us.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:10 pm
From: Shrikeback
On Mar 29, 4:29 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Mar 29, 4:59 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 2:50 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 2:14 pm, The PHANTOM wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 11:08 am, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > > > McCain is finally getting out of politics and this is clear in all of
> > > > > his public appearances. McCain simply cannot reason with the wing a
> > > > > ding dingers in the GOP and it’s obvious he knows it.
>
> > > > > Ditto for Charlie Crist of Florida.
>
> > > > > A “win” for extremist Repugs at the primaries, of course, only drives
> > > > > independent voters away from the GOP in the general election.
>
> > > > > This development is something you might expect to receive heavy
> > > > > commentary by MSM pundits but the corp. media keep trying to keep up
> > > > > the facade that the U. S. still has 2 competitive political parties,
> > > > > the U. S. is a vibrant “it’s a horse race” democracy and other
> > > > > nonsense.
>
> > > > > Bret Cahill
>
> > > > Fuck McBeaner. We’re tired of linguini spined RINOS that think they
> > > > need to “cross party lines” to get along with progressives. We want
> > > > conservative candidates that are willing to use the same slash and
> > > > burn tactics as progressives. Kill em’ all and let GOD sort em’ out !!
>
> > > BREAKING NEWS:9 conservatives charged with conspiracy to kill police
> > > officers in hopes of triggering a violent uprising against the
> > > democratically elected government of the unites states of america:to
> > > levy war against the United States
>
> > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_re_us/us_fbi_raids
>
> > > 9 militia members charged in police-killing plot
>
> > > By COREY WILLIAMS and DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writers –
> > > 1 hr 1 min ago
> > > DETROIT – Nine suspects tied to a Midwest Christian militia that was
> > > preparing for the Antichrist were charged with conspiring to kill
> > > police officers, then attack a funeral using homemade bombs in the
> > > hopes of killing more law enforcement personnel, federal prosecutors
> > > said Monday.
> > > The Michigan-based group, called Hutaree, planned to use the attack on
> > > police as a catalyst for a larger uprising against the government,
>
> > Fortunately it was a blue state. Red state politicians won’t stop
> > spree shooters and rightard terror bombers until the blood is already
> > flowing.
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> we can only hope the southern poverty law center can keep tabs on
> them and warn us.
If nothing else, they can point out to the right-
wing extremists who are hiding under your bed
at night.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: more ridiculous hysteria
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 4:41 pm
From: Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking head
> “Nobody gives a shit about your lame
> insults you silly lib homo. [Now go die from your AIDS] ”
>
> laughing,
That’s all you can do when faced with the truth.
>
> wow you have some serious problems
With Aids infested lying lib homos like you. [Who doesn't?]
>
> Greenland Ice Sheet Losing Ice Mass
Another 500 years and it should be completely melted, right? Or is it
a thousand? Two thousand? Ten thousand? Hundred thousand? [FYI, in the
next ten years you guys are going to have to doctor some more data to
explain why there is still ice]
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 4:47 pm
From: Freestyle
On Mar 29, 7:41 pm, Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking
head wrote:
> > “Nobody gives a shit about your lame
> > insults you silly lib homo. [Now go die from your AIDS] ”
>
> > laughing,
>
> That’s all you can do when faced with the truth.
>
> > wow you have some serious problems
>
> With Aids infested lying lib homos like you. [Who doesn't?]
>
> > Greenland Ice Sheet Losing Ice Mass
>
> Another 500 years and it should be completely melted, right? Or is it
> a thousand? Two thousand? Ten thousand? Hundred thousand? [FYI, in the
> next ten years you guys are going to have to doctor some more data to
> explain why there is still ice]
http://tinyurl.com/yc7mwl8
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:10 pm
From: Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking head
On Mar 29, 4:47 pm, Freestyle wrote:
> On Mar 29, 7:41 pm, Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking
>
>
>
> head wrote:
> > > “Nobody gives a shit about your lame
> > > insults you silly lib homo. [Now go die from your AIDS] ”
>
> > > laughing,
>
> > That’s all you can do when faced with the truth.
>
> > > wow you have some serious problems
>
> > With Aids infested lying lib homos like you. [Who doesn't?]
>
> > > Greenland Ice Sheet Losing Ice Mass
>
> > Another 500 years and it should be completely melted, right? Or is it
> > a thousand? Two thousand? Ten thousand? Hundred thousand? [FYI, in the
> > next ten years you guys are going to have to doctor some more data to
> > explain why there is still ice]
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yc7mwl8
Yeah, we all know it’s still not completely melted, da. [Al Gore's
last prediction, like so many others, didn't pan out]
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:14 pm
From: Freestyle
On Mar 29, 8:10 pm, Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking
head wrote:
>
> Yeah, we all know it’s still not completely melted, da. [Al Gore's
> last prediction, like so many others, didn't pan out]
>
I bet if you were around when Noah was setting up shop in the Ark you
would have been at the front of the crowd telling him what an idiot he
was.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:28 pm
From: Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking head
> > Yeah, we all know it’s still not completely melted, da. [Al Gore's
> > last prediction, like so many others, didn't pan out]
>
> I bet if you were around when Noah was setting up shop in the Ark you
> would have been at the front of the crowd telling him what an idiot he
> was.
Noah is a fictional character, da.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Life does not evolve
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 4:42 pm
From: Immortalist
On Mar 28, 2:25 pm, Peter G Kinnon
wrote:
> On Mar 26, 9:04 pm, Immortalist wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 5:22 pm, John Jones wrote:
>
> > > All life is identical in purpose and intelligence. We only have to
> > > witness the intelligence at work at the waterhole between the species
> > > that congregate there, to see that an equal intelligence operates among
> > > them all – plants included.
>
> > > What WE, as humans, consider to be advanced, human intelligence is no
> > > more than a unique description of objects that identify us as “human”.
> > > But then all animals can be defined through a description of their own,
> > > uniquely different, set of objects that populate their world.
>
> > > Life, then, does not evolve. Forms evolve, but life-forms are vacuous
> > > and have no attributes nor intelligence. Life-forms, like the human
> > > form, are only markers for object possibilities. Intelligence, purpose,
> > > raison d’etre, remain the same for all life-forms.
>
> Life is perhaps more usefully considered as a process.
>
> This theme is developed in my recent book “Unusual Perspectives”
>
> You are welcome to download the electronic edition at no cost from the
> eponymous website.
Dude, I was mocking him and trying to make him seem like a “Platonist”
or one who adapts “one” thing as opposed to Heraclitus and the
philosophy of change which your promoting; therefore I agree with you:
Homeostasis is the property of an open system, especially living
organisms, to regulate its internal environment to maintain a stable,
constant condition, by means of multiple dynamic equilibrium
adjustments, controlled by interrelated regulation mechanisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis
Heraclitus thought that the contents of things change, but their form
remains the same. He wondered under what conditions do objects persist
through time as one and the same object. In ancient times, this
problem came to be associated with the Ship of Theseus;
The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned had thirty
oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of
Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they
decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch
that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for
the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the
ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the
same. –Plutarch (c. 46- 127).
The original puzzle is this: over the years, the Athenians replaced
each plank in the original ship of Theseus as it decayed, thereby
keeping it in good repair. Eventually, there was not a single plank
left of the original ship. So, did the Athenians still have one and
the same ship that used to belong to Theseus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
Theseus is famous in Greek mythology as the slayer of the Minotaur, a
half-man, half-bull monster who lived in the Labyrinth in the island
of Crete. According to Plutarch, the ship in which Theseus sailed back
to Athens was preserved for many generations, its old planks being
replaced by new ones as they decayed.
Now suppose that a few hundred years later,
all the original parts of the ship had been
replaced, one by one, so that none of
the original ship remained.
Is the preserved ship still Theseus’ ship?
Or is it a copy? And if the latter, then at what point did it cease
to be Theseus’ ship?
It seems that if just one plank were replaced, it would still be
Theseus’ ship. And if it was still his ship, and another plank were
replaced, then it should still be Theseus’ ship. By this reasoning
(which is the same as in the sorites paradox), it would be Theseus’
ship even after all planks are replaced.
————————
1. Two or three grains of sand
do not make a heap.
2. A million grains do make
a heap.
3. If n grains of sand do not
make a heap, neither do
(n+1) grains.
4. If n grains of sand make a
heap, so do (n-1) grains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
——————————
This problem is not merely another version of the sorites, however. It
involves the notion of identity, of what we mean by something being
the “same” object.
Suppose that we regard the final
ship as Theseus’ ship.
What if all the old planks, nails,
etc., had_been_stored in a warehouse
and someone put them back together
again. Would there then be
two Theseus’ ships?
Similar paradoxes of identity arise in certain science fiction
scenarios and in connection with the philosophy of mind. Suppose you
are teleported by having your body disintegrated in one place and
reassembled in another from new materials. Are you still “you”? Your
body is made of different atoms, but it is still you as far as your
mind is concerned, right? But what if instead of having your original
body disintegrated you merely have a copy made? Then is the copy still
you?
http://members.aol.com/kiekeben/para.html
Theseus was a legendary king of Athens, son of Aegeus (or of Poseidon)
and of Aethra. Theseus was a founder-hero, like Perseus, Cadmus or
Heracles, all of whom battled and overcame foes that were identified
with an archaic religious and social order. As Heracles was the Dorian
hero, Theseus was the Ionian founding hero, considered by Athenians as
their own great reformer. His name comes from the same root as ?esµo?
(“thesmos”), Greek for institution. In The Frogs Aristophanes credited
him with inventing many everyday Athenian traditions. He may have
originated in, or been based upon, a historical person or persons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theseus
http://images.google.com/images?q=Theseus
All known objects are processes. Consciousness is as much an object as
other processes that re-present a present moment through changing
stuff, everything is constantly changing and opposite things are
identical, so that everything is and is not at the same time. In other
words, Universal Flux and the Identity of Opposites may entail a
denial of the Law of Non-Contradiction, since all things go and
nothing stays, and comparing existents to the flow of a river which
you cannot step twice into. On those stepping into rivers staying the
same other and other waters flow. There is an antithesis between
‘same’ and ‘other,’ different waters flow in rivers staying the same,
though the waters are always changing, the rivers stay the same.
Indeed, it must be precisely because the waters are always changing
that there are rivers at all, rather than lakes or ponds. The message
is that rivers can stay the same over time even though, or indeed
because, the waters change. The point, then, is not that everything is
changing, but that the fact that some things change makes possible the
continued existence of other things. Perhaps more generally, the
change in elements or constituents supports the constancy of higher-
level structures.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/heraclit.htm
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:21 pm
From: All-Seeing-I
On Mar 26, 7:22 pm, John Jones wrote:
> All life is identical in purpose and intelligence. We only have to
> witness the intelligence at work at the waterhole between the species
> that congregate there, to see that an equal intelligence operates among
> them all – plants included.
>
> What WE, as humans, consider to be advanced, human intelligence is no
> more than a unique description of objects that identify us as “human”.
> But then all animals can be defined through a description of their own,
> uniquely different, set of objects that populate their world.
>
> Life, then, does not evolve. Forms evolve, but life-forms are vacuous
> and have no attributes nor intelligence. Life-forms, like the human
> form, are only markers for object possibilities. Intelligence, purpose,
> raison d’etre, remain the same for all life-forms.
The animals are smarter then humans. They also have a keener sense of
perception. Hell. I have met some people that I know for sure are not
as smart as a plant.
Man uses science to explain the world around him. But the science is
only going to be as accurate as the human sense of perception.
Which puts science dead last compared to the capabilities we find in
nature.
Our fastest computer is not as capable as a Dog’s brain.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Unrelenting Time
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 4:51 pm
From: John Stafford
In article
,
“What you are reading is Philosophy and P Versus NP.”
wrote:
> Our units of temporal measurement, from seconds on up to months, are
> so complicated, assymetrical and disjunctive so as to make coherent
> mental reckoning in time all but impossible.
I find the metric of $47.23 an hour for my work to be stabilizing enough.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How ‘A’ is and is not ‘A’
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 4:54 pm
From: John Stafford
My particular take on this non-conundrum is to ignore the confusions of
language. I am. I know that to be so. People whose relationship to the
everyday (and ain’t usenet everyday?) is so confused are not worth
considering.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:05 pm
From: Shrikeback
On Mar 29, 4:54 pm, John Stafford wrote:
> My particular take on this non-conundrum is to ignore the confusions of
> language. I am. I know that to be so. People whose relationship to the
> everyday (and ain’t usenet everyday?) is so confused are not worth
> considering.
Ah, but that isn’t really the point. You are probably
right that you exist. I am inclined not to question that.
The point was though that pain is not the proof you are
looking for. Once, I had a virus that kids don’t get
anymore. Measles or something. And during my
more deliroius states, my mouth seemed to be overly
full of my teeth which seemed to have mutated into
enormous cutting tools. My tongue seemed to
be swollen as well, forcing its surface up against
these blades, my teeth.
Pain is not the guarantee of reality that
was claimed.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:08 pm
From: Immortalist
On Mar 29, 7:26 am, Zerkon wrote:
> The phrase ‘A is A’ apparently sums up Aristotle’s Law of Identity or
> “Everything that exists has a specific nature”. Everything is self
> defining therefore any assigned attributes (eg: “A is Round”) violates
> the specificity or identity of A.
>
> “A is A” therefore is a dumbed down version of the more accurate “A is”
> or the still more accurate definition of A as being “A”, finally reaching
> the most accurate unspoken A as existing without need for any definition.
> However since neither “A is” or “A” nor a silent A conveys clear meaning,
> “A is A” is commonly used among Objectivists and those who want to
> impress others with their deep wit. Deep in what exactly remains
> uncertain.
>
> Tragically, sadly and most horribly this becomes self-defeating if it is
> used to affirm a pure objective reality because an abstract precondition
> must immediately be met.
>
> ‘A’ is forced, whipped and enslaved into represent some thing it is not.
> Or, first let ‘A’ represent any idea of any object. After this A is A.
>
> ‘A’, the written or typed physical entity, can not define itself and
> remain “A is A” true. A, the first ‘A’ typed, can not be also ‘A’ since
> it is the second ‘A’ typed. It is only a by a leap in logic, disguised as
> coherent reason of course, the two ‘A’s become as one. Only a small step
> away from a trinity “A is A is A” which opens to the infinity “Rose is a
> rose is a rose is a rose.”
>
> I, for one, prefer “Everything that exists has a specific nature” and be
> done with it. Until, of course, the topic of existence itself arises,
> arises, arises, arises.
If A represents “that thing pointed at” as translated into an embedded
predicate logic grammar and syntax, then it is the case that A=A for
the purposes of representationalism with language.
If the ancient Greek atomists thought that there were many things -
atoms – but they were all of the same kind, and apparent differences
between kinds of thing were reducible to differences between
combinations of things of the same kind, i.e. atoms and Empedocles, by
contrast, thought that there were four (or possibly six) kinds of
thing to which other apparent kinds of thing were reducible – earth,
fire, air and water, plus, in a certain sort of way, love and strife
but Anaxagoras thought that it was impossible to reduce apparent
differences of kind to so few underlying differences of kind; and he
may have thought, although this is not so clear, that there was an
infinity of kinds of thing, and certainly an infinity of things, are
you therefore, be a thing- or substance-pluralist and either a kind-
monist or a kind-pluralist, seeing how it is difficult to see how a
philosopher who thinks that there is only one substance could also
think that there are many kinds of substance, although he may believe,
as did Spinoza, that his one substance has attributes of more than one
kind and that there are many kinds of thing in that sense, then what
would “nothingness” mean to these differing metaphysical viewpoints?
But to make a simple matter of talking about rerepresentations of
presentations we could get a little bit more complex mumbo jumbio
here;
Hylomorphism in General In De Anima, Aristotle makes extensive use of
technical terminology introduced and explained elsewhere in his
writings. He claims, for example, using vocabulary derived from his
physical and metaphysical theories, that the soul is a first actuality
of a natural organic body (De Anima ii 1, 412b5-6), that it is a
substance as form of a natural body which has life in potentiality (De
Anima ii 1, 412a20-1) and, similarly, that it is a first actuality of
a natural body which has life in potentiality (De Anima ii 1,
412a27-8), all claims which apply to plants, animals and humans alike.
In characterizing the soul and body in these ways, Aristotle applies
concepts drawn from his broader hylomorphism, a conceptual framework
which underlies virtually all of his mature theorizing. It is
accordingly necessary to begin with a brief overview of that
framework. Thereafter it will be possible to recount Aristotle’s
general approach to soul-body relations, and then, finally, to
consider his analyses of the individual faculties of soul.
`Hylomorphism’ is simply a compound word composed of the Greek terms
for matter (hulê) and form or shape (morphê); thus one could equally
describe Aristotle’s view of soul and body as an instance of his
matter-formism. That is, when he introduces the soul as the form of
the body, which in turn is said to be the matter of the soul,
Aristotle treats soul-body relations as a special case of a more
general relationship which obtains between the components of all
generated compounds, natural or artifactual. The notions of form and
matter are themselves, however, developed within the context of a
general theory of causation and explanation which appears in one guise
or another in all of Aristotle’s mature works.
According to this theory, when we wish to explain what there is to
know, for example, about a bronze statue, a complete account
necessarily alludes to at least the following four factors: the
statue’s matter, its form or structure, the agent responsible for that
matter’s manifesting its form or structure, and the purpose for which
the matter was made to realize that form or structure. These four
factors he terms the four causes (aitiai): The material cause: that
from which something is generated and out of which it is made, e.g.
the bronze of a statue. The formal cause: the structure which the
matter realizes and in terms of which the matter comes to be something
determinate, e.g. the Hermes shape in virtue of which this quantity of
bronze is said to be a statue of Hermes. The efficient cause: the
agent responsible for a quantity of matter’s coming to be informed,
e.g. the sculptor who shaped the quantity of bronze into its current
Hermes shape. The final cause: the purpose or goal of the compound of
form and matter, e.g. the statue was created for the purpose of
honoring Hermes. For a broad range of cases, Aristotle implicitly
makes twin claims about these four causes: (i) a complete explanation
requires reference to all four; and (ii) once such reference is made,
no further explanation is required. Thus, when appropriate, appeal to
the four causes is both necessary and sufficient for complete and
adequate explanation. Although not all things which admit of
explanation have all four causes, e.g. geometrical figures are not
efficiently caused, even a brief overview of his psychological
writings reveals that Aristotle regards all four causes as in play in
the explanation of living beings. A monkey, for example, has matter,
its body; form, its soul; an efficient cause, its parent; and a final
cause, its function. Moreover, he holds that the form is the actuality
of the body which is its matter: an indeterminate lump of bronze
becomes a statue only when it realizes some particular statue-shape.
So, Aristotle suggests, that matter is potentially some F until it
acquires an actualizing form, when it becomes actually F. Given his
overarching explanatory schema, it is hardly surprising that Aristotle
should advance a hylomorphic account of soul and body; this is, for
him, standard explanatory procedure. Still, it is noteworthy that this
four-causal framework of explanation is developed initially in
response to some puzzles about change and generation. Aristotle argues
with some justification that all change and generation require the
existence of something complex: when a statue comes to be from a lump
of bronze, there is some continuing subject, the bronze, and something
it comes to acquire, its new form. Thus the statue is, and must be, a
certain kind of compound, one of form and matter. Without this type of
complexity, generation would be impossible; since generation in fact
occurs, form and matter must be genuine features of generated
compounds. Similarly, but less obviously, qualitative change requires
much the same apparatus: when a statue is painted, there is some
continuing subject, the statue, and a new feature acquired, its new
color. Here too there is complexity, and complexity which is readily
articulated in terms of form and matter, but now of form which is
evidently inessential to the continued existence of the entity whose
form it is. The statue continues to exist, but receives a form which
is accidental to it; it might lose that form without going out of
existence. By contrast, should the statue lose its essential form, as
would happen for example if the bronze which constitutes it were
melted, divided, and recast as twelve dozen letter openers, it would
cease to exist altogether. For the purposes of understanding
Aristotle’s psychology, the origin of Aristotle’s hylomorphism is
significant for two reasons. First, from its inception, Aristotle’s
hylomorphism exploits two distinct but related notions of form, one of
which is essential to the compound whose form it is, and the other of
which is accidental to its subject. In advancing his view of the soul
and its capacities, Aristotle employs both of these notions: the soul
is an essential form, whereas perception involves the acquisition of
accidental forms. Second, because Aristotle’s hylomorphism was
initially developed to handle puzzles of change and generation, its
deployment in philosophical psychology is sometimes strained, insofar
as Aristotle is not immediately willing to treat every instance of
perception and thought as a straightforward instance of change in some
continuing subject. Hylomorphic Soul-Body Relations In applying his
general hylomorphism to soul-body relations, Aristotle contends that
the following general analogy obtains: soul : body : : form :
matter : : Hermes-shape : bronze If the soul bears the same relation
to the body which the shape of a statue bears to its material basis,
then we should expect some general features to be common to both; and
we should be able to draw some immediate consequences regarding the
relationship between soul and body. To begin, some questions about the
unity of soul and body, an issue of concern to substance dualists and
materialists alike, receive a ready response. Materialists hold that
all mental states are also physical states; substance dualists deny
this, because they hold that the soul is a subject of mental states
which can exist alone, when separated from the body. In a certain way,
the questions which give rise to this dispute simply fall by the
wayside. If we do not think there is an interesting or important
question concerning whether the Hermes-shape and its material basis
are one, we should not suppose there is a special or pressing question
about whether the soul and body are one. So Aristotle contends: It is
not necessary to ask whether soul and body are one, just as it is not
necessary to ask whether the wax and its shape are one, nor generally
whether the matter of each thing and that of which it is the matter
are one. For even if one and being are spoken of in several ways, what
is properly so spoken of is the actuality (De Anima ii 1, 412b6-9).
Aristotle does not here eschew questions concerning the unity of soul
and body as meaningless; rather, he seems, in a deflationary vein, to
suggest that they are readily answered or somehow unimportant. If we
do not spend time worrying about whether the wax of a candle and its
shape are one, then we should not exercise ourselves over the question
of whether the soul and body are one. The effect, then, is to fit soul-
body relations into a larger pattern of explanation, hylomorphism, in
terms of which questions of unity do not normally arise. It should be
emphasized, however, that Aristotle does not here decide the question
by insisting that the soul and body are identical, or even that they
are one in some weaker sense; indeed, this is something he evidently
denies (De Anima ii 1, 412a17; ii 2, 414a1-20). Instead, just as one
might well insist that the wax of a candle and its shape are distinct,
on the grounds that the wax could easily exist when the particular
shape is no more, or, less obviously, that the particular shape could
survive the replenishment of its material basis, so one might equally
deny that the soul and body are identical. In a fairly direct way,
though, the question of whether soul and body are one loses its force
when it is allowed that it contains no implications beyond those we
establish for any other hylomorphic compound, including houses and
other ordinary artifacts. One way of appreciating this is to consider
a second general moral Aristotle derives from hylomorphism. This
concerns the question of the separability of the soul from the body, a
possibility embraced by substance dualists from the time of Plato
onward. Aristotle’s hylomorphism commends the following attitude: if
we do not think that the Hermes-shape persists after the bronze is
melted and recast, we should not think that the soul survives the
demise of the body. So, Aristotle claims, It is not unclear that the
soulor certain parts of it, if it naturally has partsis not
separable from the body (De Anima ii 1, 413a3-5). So, unless we are
prepared to treat forms in general as capable of existing without
their material bases, we should not be inclined to treat souls as
exceptional cases. Hylomorphism, by itself, gives us no reason to
treat souls as separable from bodies, even if we think of them as
distinct from their material bases. At the same time, Aristotle does
not appear to think that his hylomorphism somehow refutes all possible
forms of dualism. For he appends to his denial of the soul’s
separability the observation that some parts of the soul may in the
end be separable after all, since they are not the actualities of any
part of the body (De Anima ii 1, 413a6-7). Aristotle here prefigures
his complex attitude toward mind (nous), a faculty he repeatedly
describes as exceptional among capacities of the soul. Still, in
general, the soul is the form of the body in much the same way the
form of a house structures the bricks and mortar from which it is
built. When the bricks and mortar realize a certain shape, they
manifest the function definitive of houses, namely that of providing
shelter. Thus, the presence of the form makes those bricks and that
mortar a house, as opposed, e.g., to a wall or an oven. As we have
seen, Aristotle will say that the bricks and mortar, as matter, are
potentially a house, until they realize the form appropriate to
houses, in which case the form and matter together make an actual
house. So, in Aristotle’s terms, the form is the actuality of the
house, since its presence explains why this particular quantity of
matter comes to be a house as opposed to some other kind of artifact.
In the same way, then, the presence of the soul explains why this
matter is the matter of a human being, as opposed to some other kind
of thing. Now, this way of looking at soul-body relations as a special
case of form-matter relations treats reference to the soul as an
integral part of any complete explanation of a living being, of any
kind. To this degree, Aristotle thinks that Plato and other dualists
are right to stress the importance of the soul in explanations of
living beings. At the same time, he sees their commitment to the
separability of the soul from the body as unmotivated by a mere appeal
to formal causation: he will allow that the soul is distinct from the
body, and is indeed the actuality of the body, but he sees that these
concessions by themselves provide no grounds for supposing that the
soul can exist without the body. His hylomorphism, then, embraces
neither reductive materialism nor Platonic dualism. Instead, it seeks
to steer a middle course between these alternatives by pointing out,
implicitly, and rightly, that these are not exhaustive options.
The term “hylemorphism” is made up of two Greek words, hyle “matter”
and morphe “form,” and refers to the theory on the ultimate
constitution of bodies as proposed by the Perennial Philosophy, that
is, those who are within the tradition of Aristotle, Aquinas, and
other commonsense philosophical realists. This theory holds that a
body is composed of primal matter and substantial form. It is the
theory first explained by Aristotle, four centuries before the birth
of Christ, and it can be said that it stands miles above any
alternative theory proposed since. For it meets the full problem it
seeks to solve, and it offers a full solution.
The theory of hylemorphism is not revealed truth; it is not a theory
that can claim divine authority. But it is a theory which, despite
difficulties, has weathered the intellectual and experimental storms
of nearly twenty-five hundred years, and is still the only rounded
explanation of the nature of bodies that we possess. It has thus a
sound claim upon the attention of our minds. It has a very strong
case.
Yet there has been, among those not in the philosophical tradition of
Aristotle, a marked tendency to condemn this theory without
investigating it, and even some of those in the Aristotelian tradition
have learned to speak of it with something of a cold and aloof manner.
Even men who, in most of their philosophical work, merit our respect,
stoop to the indecency and the dishonesty of condemning or ridiculing
hylemorphism without having the slightest conception of what the
theory actually teaches, or rather, with a totally wrong conception of
what it teaches.
Now, there are two facts about any actual bodily substance that a
philosophy of bodies must face and explain:
First: the bodily substance is a body. But it is more than that, for
it is quite impossible for a body to exist without a specific
determinant. We cannot say that a bodily substance actually exists as
a body and nothing more; that it is no kind of bodily substance, but
just pure body.
Second: it must be said about an actual body that it is a determinate
specific or essential kind of body. In a word, some substantial
principle must explain the bodiliness of a body; and some substantial
principle, fused into substantial unity with the first, must explain
the existing specific character of a body.
Hylemorphism calls the first of these principles primal matter or
prime matter and the second of these principles substantial form.
Let us envision the favorite figure of of the old-fashioned novelist.
Let us contemplate “the solitary horseman” riding between rows of
trees along a rocky road. We shall not pause upon the romantic
suggestions of the picture. We shall coldly reduce it to its elements
for purposes of philosophical illustration. We shall consider these
four things: the man, the horse, the trees, the rocks. Here we have
four examples of bodily substance. And the first truth about them is
that they are all bodies, one as much as another, one as truly and
completely as another.
Yet, since we are not monists, we face the further fact that, although
all these bodies are bodies, they are essentially or specifically
different kinds of bodies. Each is a bodily substance; there is no
mere accidental in their true bodiliness. Nor is there any mere
accidental in their difference as bodily substances. For a substance
that is living, like the tree, is substantially different from the
substance which lacks life, like the rock. And a substance that has
sentiency, like the horse, is substantially different from a non-
sentient substance, like the tree. And, finally, a substance which has
understanding and will (that is, rational life), is substantially
different from a substance which lacks these perfections; so that the
man and the horse are different by no mere accidental difference, but
by a substantial difference.
The four bodies are all bodily substance, yet the four bodies differ
from one another as substances. There must be, therefore, a dual
substantial principle, or, more accurately, two substantially fused
substantial principles in each of these bodies. For the four things
are in agreement, they are at one as bodily substances, and, at the
same time, they are not the same substance at all, but are
substantially different.
There must be a substantial principle in each of the four which is the
basis of its bodiliness; and,
There must be a substantial principle in each of the four which is the
substantial determinant of the kind of substance that it is.
The first of these principles is prime matter; the second is
substantial form.
Prime matter is the substantial principle found in all bodies. It is
common to all bodies. It is the common substrate of all bodies. In
point of prime matter, all bodies are at one. So far, monism is right;
but monism goes calamitously wrong when it stops here. Prime matter is
wholly without determinateness in itself. It cannot exist itself, for,
as we have noticed, it is impossible for an existing body to be just a
body and no more, that is, just a body, and not any kind of body.
Prime matter is substantial, but it is an incomplete substance; it
requires another substantial thing to exist with it, or rather to give
it existence in a determinate body. And this other substantial
principle (unless it be a spiritual principle) requires prime matter
to determine and make exist as a body; this other substantial is also
an incomplete substance. Each leans on each, although the one (prime
matter) is the determinable element, and the other (the substantial
form) is the determining element.
Prime matter is called pure potentiality, that is, pure capacity for
existence as a body. It is a capacity which must be filled up,
determined, made into the only existible body (that is a specific kind
of existing body) by a substantial principle other than itself. And,
since the result of the union of this determining principle with prime
matter is a single bodily substance, the union itself must be a
substantial union, the substantial fusing of two substantial
principles into an actuality which is a third thing, and not prime
matter alone, not substantial form alone, but an existing body of a
specific kind. This, of course, is perfectly in accord with our common
sense, critically examined and expanded.
Prime matter then cannot exist itself, unformed. It does exist, but
not alone. It exists as the common substrate of all existing bodies.
It is that which makes any body a body; not actively, but by passively
receiving the impress and union of the substantial form. For the whole
character of prime matter is its passivity, its inertness, its
indifference (or lack of tendency) to become this kind of body rather
than another, in a word, its potentiality.
Substantial form, however, is active, determining. It makes the body
actual (that is, an existing body) in a definite specific kind of
actual bodiliness. The result of the substantial union of substantial
form with prime matter is called second matter; and, of course, second
matter means an existing bodily substance. Substantial form is the
root and source of bodily actuality, of substantial determinateness,
of activity. Prime matter is wholly potential, indeterminate, inactive
or inert.
The theory of hylemorphism is not a mere clever invention. It is an
explanation based upon the facts of a case. And the test of its value
is the fact that it stands up. It has faced many difficulties. There
are cases that seem to upset it. But careful investigation has always
justified it.
The progress of experimental science, the splitting of the atom, the
place and apparent power of one electron more or less in the
constitution of a definite substance, — each of these facts, and
others of like character, have seemed to some philosophers and to many
scientists to be in conflict with the theory of hylemorphism. But it
is not so.
There is no value in an argument of this sort: “If I knock out an
electron of an atom of substance-A and find that I now have substance-
B, it seems that these were basically one substance to start with.”
The answer is that it seems nothing of the sort.
The difference is not a mere difference of accidental character
because a number of like particles is an accidental thing in itself.
For, although substances act upon one another through powers which are
in themselves accidental, the activity is truly of substance upon
substance. And if an electron more, or an electron less, should induce
change, this may well be a substantial change. It may well be a change
of structure unsuited to the enduring of a certain substantial form,
which disappears in consequence; and the new structure receives
simultaneously that substantial which it is suited to support. You
change the substance of coal into a variety of substances loosely
called “ashes and smoke” by applying the substance of fire. Yet this
substantial change is affected by powers and capacities of the
substances concerned, and these capacities and powers are, in
themselves, as accidental as a mere numerical sum or numerical
arrangement of electrons. The splitting of the atom, or the discovery
of the character and function of electrons, is no more a new
difficulty to the philosopher of bodily actuality than is the
shoveling of coal on the furnace fire.
Indeed, if we shortsightedly declare that true substantial change does
not occur, that all substances are the same determinate substance, we
still must identify that substance as bodily (that is, as having prime
matter) and as determinate in its kind of bodiliness (that is, as
having substantial form). So hylemorphism stands in any case.
But to make all substances one substance is to fall into a self-
contradictory theory called monism. It is to destroy the value of the
theory itself which is proposed as true and certain, for if monism
were true, human certitude would be bankrupt. By their fruits you
shall know them; a theory which leads logically to skepticism or to
monism or to both, is a theory that bears the evil fruits of falsity.
The fact that there is an apparent difficulty on the side of sanity is
surely no excuse for going insane. It is rather a strong challenge to
the champions of sanity to study its resources more completely and
apply its powers more thoroughly and astutely.
For, argue as you will, experiment as you choose, the fact remains and
will ever remain that any bodily substance is bodily and is a certain
specific kind. Any body has, of plain necessity, matter and form. If
you consider the terms old-fashioned, you are privileged to invent
more pleasing ones. But you cannot change facts by changing names.
There are persons indeed who say that there is no substantial change.
Yet these persons would have a hard time proving their assertion, and
the proof lies with them because they make the claim in the face of
common human experience and of common human certitude. They have to
prove a universal negative experimentally; any logician will be
pleased to point out to them the difficulties of their situation.
The change from a living body to a corpse is indubitably a substantial
change. For everything by which we identify the organic unity and the
substantial character of the living body is not only changed by the
thing called death, but all the processes once in possession and in
operation are actually reversed. Instead of organic unity, we have
(immediately upon death) a strong tendency to disunity and diversity;
instead of a unified drive or tendency to vital function, we have the
tendency to rest and equilibrium. In a word, by all the tests which
distinguish one kind of body from another, the corpse is a radically
different kind of thing from the living body. Substantial change is a
fact. Another interesting example of substantial change is the change
of bread and butter into the living flesh of the diner.
Now, if substantial change is a fact, it is an inexplicable fact
unless two things are acknowledged:
The substances concerned (the substance changed, and the substance
which is the result of change); and
Some substantial actuality which supports the change.
When food is digested, it is not a mere preliminary process which
annihilates the food, a meaningless process which is unaccountably
accompanied by the creation of blood cells. The ceasing of the food to
be food is the emerging of the blood cells which came from the change
of food. There is no annihilation (an abrupt and complete cessation of
being) and a simultaneous creation (an abrupt and entire production
out of nothing of a new being wholly unrelated to the other).
No, there is a substantial change of food into blood. Now, a change is
a transit, a going-over. And a going-over requires a support which
does not go over, but which is determined in bodily being first by one
determinant, and, this giving way, by a new determinant which
instantly takes the place of that which gives away. The support of
substantial change is itself a substantial thing, and a substantial
element of each of the two substantial bodily beings in turn. This
support of substantial change is called prime matter; the substantial
determinant which makes it one kind of body, and then the new
substantial determinant which makes it another substantial body, is
called, each in its turn, substantial form. Again, you may not like
the terms matter and form, but you cannot deny the facts for which
they stand. Substantial change is inexplicable without hylemorphism,
although, as we say, you might like it under a more modern name, such
as precipitation, or galvanization, or the etiology of substantial
emergence.
We have said that there are four theories which propose themselves as
fundamental philosophies of bodies, although three of them are not
fundamental at all. All philosophies of bodies must, in last analysis,
be resolved into one or other of these four forms. Now, we have found
that three of these four theories are unacceptable, for they conflict
with experience and are in themselves self-contradictory. Therefore,
by exclusion, we prove the one acceptable theory to be the true
theory. This is the theory of hylemorphism.
We stand, therefore, by the theory of hylemorphism. We defend it, not
as partisans “taking sides,” but as philosophers, lovers of wisdom,
seekers of truth. We refuse to leave what is manifestly reasonable,
although sometimes difficult of application, in favor of what is
manifestly unreasonable and often impossible of application. Hence our
acceptance of hylemorphism is right and reasonable; it is worlds away
from the stubborn business of taking sides in a free debate. In a
word, we accept hylemorphism on evidence. Most of those who reject it
do so by reason of mood, or temperament, or prejudice, or the desire
to keep pace with the current scientistic fashion. It is not difficult
to decide which of the parties stands on the more solid ground.
Summary of the Section
In this Section we have defined body, and have learned that a bodily
substance is, by its nature, composed, changeable, contingent, and
limited.
We have investigated the proper accident of bodily substance known as
quantity or extension.
We have described internal extension and external extension, and have
noticed that external extension is a secondary effect of true
quantity.
We have noticed the effects of quantity on a natural body: external
extension, impenetrability, divisibility, measurability.
We have defined a continuum, a contiguum, and discrete quantity, and
have found that the basis of quantity in bodies is perfectly
continuous matter.
We have investigated briefly the quantities known as space and time.
We have seen that natural bodies are truly the source of activity, and
we have distinguished activity or action as immanent (or “vital”) and
transient.
We have noticed the essential flaw in the cosmologies of “matter and
motion” as an explanation of the bodily world.
We have studied the ultimate constitution of bodies, listing the four
types of doctrine (monism, atomism, dynamism, hylemorphism) and have
found that hylemorphism alone is without self-contradiction, without
conflict with experience, and is in itself a doctrine that squares
with the facts it purports to explain.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:16 pm
From: Immortalist
On Mar 29, 3:08 pm, Shrikeback wrote:
> On Mar 29, 7:26 am, Zerkon wrote:
>
>
>
> > The phrase ‘A is A’ apparently sums up Aristotle’s Law of Identity or
> > “Everything that exists has a specific nature”. Everything is self
> > defining therefore any assigned attributes (eg: “A is Round”) violates
> > the specificity or identity of A.
>
> > “A is A” therefore is a dumbed down version of the more accurate “A is”
> > or the still more accurate definition of A as being “A”, finally reaching
> > the most accurate unspoken A as existing without need for any definition.
> > However since neither “A is” or “A” nor a silent A conveys clear meaning,
> > “A is A” is commonly used among Objectivists and those who want to
> > impress others with their deep wit. Deep in what exactly remains
> > uncertain.
>
> > Tragically, sadly and most horribly this becomes self-defeating if it is
> > used to affirm a pure objective reality because an abstract precondition
> > must immediately be met.
>
> > ‘A’ is forced, whipped and enslaved into represent some thing it is not.
> > Or, first let ‘A’ represent any idea of any object. After this A is A.
>
> > ‘A’, the written or typed physical entity, can not define itself and
> > remain “A is A” true. A, the first ‘A’ typed, can not be also ‘A’ since
> > it is the second ‘A’ typed. It is only a by a leap in logic, disguised as
> > coherent reason of course, the two ‘A’s become as one. Only a small step
> > away from a trinity “A is A is A” which opens to the infinity “Rose is a
> > rose is a rose is a rose.”
>
> > I, for one, prefer “Everything that exists has a specific nature” and be
> > done with it. Until, of course, the topic of existence itself arises,
> > arises, arises, arises.
>
> I always took it as a logical law, a part of the definition
> of the equivalence operator. A = A, because that’s a
> assumed part of the definition of what it means for two
> things to be equivalent.
So you just assume that the theory of “equivalence” is true? What
would support such a theory? What would constitute evidence outside of
inductive probability and the frequency of observations that such were
true by necessity as many maths assume wrongly?
———————————-
MATHEMATICS: A PEEK INTO THE MIND OF GOD?
Roseanne Benn and Rob Burton
University of Exeter, UK
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~PErnest/pome/pompart2.htm
- Certainty and neutrality
- Mathematics as a Social Construct
- A Eurocentric Bias
- Teaching and Learning
- An alternative approach
- Conclusion
——————————-
I wanted certainty in the kind of way in which people want religious
faith. I thought that certainty was more likely to be found in
mathematics than elsewhere. But I discovered that many mathematical
demonstrations, which my teachers expected me to accept, were full of
fallacies…. Having constructed an elephant upon which the
mathematical world could rest, I found the elephant tottering, and
proceeded to construct a tortoise to keep the elephant from falling.
But the tortoise was no more secure than the elephant, and after some
twenty years of very arduous toil, I came to the conclusion that there
was nothing more that I could do… (Russell 1956 pp.54-55)
- Certainty and neutrality
For over two thousand years, mathematics has been dominated by the
belief that it is a body of infallible and objective truth, far
removed from the affairs and values of humanity (Ernest 1991 p.xi).
This body of truth is seen as existing in its own right independently
of whether anyone believes or even knows about it. Bloor (1973 p.43)
argues that this belief in the independent existence of mathematical
truth implies that mathematics is a realm, a bounded territory.
Knowledge and the use of mathematics then requires two stages, access
to the realm and then activity within it. The first stage is fallible.
Hence discussion of the process of selection and education and the
influences which promote or inhibit access to mathematical skills is
possible. However what happens within mathematics itself is regarded
as closed to discussion. This is seen as predetermined and certain.
Therefore a mathematical calculation is the tracing out of what is
already there, the calculation exists ‘in advance’. It was this belief
in the certainty of mathematics which allowed Kant to write:
We can say with confidence that certain pure a priori synthetical
cognitions, pure mathematics and pure physics, are actual and given;
for both contain propositions which are thoroughly recognised as
absolutely certain…and yet as independent of experience. (Kant,
1783)
In more recent times there have been serious critiques of this belief
in the certainty of mathematics, the belief that fundamentally
mathematics exists apart from the human beings that do mathematics and
that Pi is in the sky. However, as argued by Davis (1986 p.164), the
reception given to opponents of this belief still ranges from coolness
to indifference. We argue that this belief is not only deep in the
psyche of mathematicians but also of learners and teachers and its
influence still distorts mathematics education.
- Mathematics as a Social Construct
The certainty of mathematics has been under question. A growing number
of mathematicians and philosophers are arguing that mathematics is
fallible, changing and the product of human inventiveness (Ernest
1991). Others (Bloor 1973;Wittgenstein 1956) argue that rather than a
calculation corresponding to an absolute truth , this truth is located
in utility and the enduring character of social practice.
And of course there is such a thing as right and wrong…but what is
the reality that ‘right’ accords with here? Presumably a convention,
or a use, and perhaps our practical requirements (Wittgenstein 1956).
They argue that mathematics is not a body of truth existing outside
human experience. It is a construct or an invention rather than a
discovery, a collection of norms and hence social in nature.
Sociologists and mathematicians such as Ashley and Betebenner (1993)
argue that philosophers have tried but failed to show how modern
mathematics and science either pictured the world as it was or used a
perfectly consistent, neutral meta-language. They suggest that
mathematics did not develop in a cultural or social vacuum but rather
that it reflects and magnifies cultural transformations. Hersh (1986 p.
25) echoes Russell’s regret at the loss of certainty but still argues
against the attempt to root mathematics in some non-human reality and
for the acceptance of the nature of mathematics as a certain kind of
human mental activity. He suggests that the result would be a loss of
some age-old hopes but a clearer understanding of what we are doing
and why.
This attack on the certainty of mathematics led to the questioning of
its neutrality. If mathematics is certain, if it reflects the God-like
power of innate, transcendent human reason, if it is a body of
absolute truth, and if the answers are already written, then it is
independent. It must be neutral. However if mathematics is a social
construct, an invention not a discovery, then it carries a social
responsibility.
- A Eurocentric Bias
A proponent of this view, Joseph (1987 pp.22-23) suggests that the
present structure of mathematics education is Eurocentric, being based
upon four histographic pillars:-
the general disinclination to locate mathematics in a materialistic
base and thus to link its development with economic, political, and
cultural changes;
the confinement of mathematical pursuits to an elite few who are
believed to possess the requisite qualities or gifts denied the vast
majority of humanity;
the widespread acceptance of the view that mathematical discovery can
only follow from a rigorous application of a form of deductive
axiomatic logic believed to be a unique product of Greek mathematics;
hence, intuitive or empirical methods are dismissed as having little
mathematical relevance;
the belief that the presentation of mathematical results must con form
to the formal and didactic style devised by the Greeks over 2,000
years ago and that, as a corollary, the validations of new additions
to mathematical knowledge can only be taken by a small, self selecting
coterie whose control over the acquisition and dissemination of such
knowledge has a highly Eurocentric character.
Many writers (Joseph 1987; Anderson 1990; Bishop 1990) argue that the
Eurocentric bias of mathematics infuses the subject with an elitist,
racist and sexist bias. They argue that the belief in the certainty
and neutrality of mathematics and science deprives these subjects of
any cultural or social context. Hence mathematics and the natural
sciences place no value upon the historical, cultural or political
milieu within which they are located. Indeed mathematicians such as
Pythagoras, Euclid, Cauchy-Riemann, Fourier, and Newton are cited as
the source of western mathematics without any further reference to the
times within which they lived or to the influences upon their work.
They are abstracted from time and space and presented as if they and
their work are timeless, complete and the absolute truth. This
separation from culture and relevance makes mathematics inaccessible
to those already alienated from society by educational disadvantage
and by gender, race and class.
So we have outlined two incompatible views of mathematics. One is
premised on certainty, neutrality, the peek into the mind of God. The
other sees mathematics as a social construct and hence open to change,
progress and development and as an unfinished project. These differing
views lead to a fundamentally different approach to mathematics
teaching and learning and hence different attitudes of students to
learning mathematics.
- Teaching and Learning
The British education system still fails to provide a substantial
proportion of the population with even basic mathematical skills
(Cockcroft 1982). Even worse, it leaves many with an abiding dislike
of the subject. We will now examine mathematics education in the
context of the belief in the certainty and neutrality of mathematics
for part of the explanation of this failure.
The concept of mathematics as a body of infallible and objective
truth, whilst questioned by many mathematicians and philosophers,
appears to be still widely held by society, teachers and students. An
analysis of both the Cockcroft Report (1982) and a report by Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate which looked into the nature of mathematics
teaching in Britain (1985), concludes that the mathematical approach
taken in schools in Britain :
“….is that an absolutist view of mathematics is assumed.” (Ernest
1991 p.223)
This perception that mathematics is a certain and neutral subject
clearly has a number of consequences for the teaching of the subject.
Abstracted from any socio-political context, mathematics can be taught
within the strictures of its own boundaries thus retaining for the
pupils its mysticism and ritualistic nature. Certainly much work has
been done since the introduction of mathematics into the mass
education system to increase understanding of mathematics. However,
just as certainly the history of mathematics is one of failure on a
large scale for the students of mathematics. The Cockcroft Report
notes that at the time the report was written ‘about…one-third of
the year group, leave school without any mathematical qualifications
in ‘O’level or ‘CSE’(1982 p.56.)
It seems that despite calls for over one hundred years for an approach
to mathematics that interests and stimulates children at school,
mathematics is still a subject that confuses and alienates. A school
inspector wrote in 1989 that she was horrified to find that at both
primary and secondary level “nobody seemed to enjoy mathematics; not
even the teachers” (Cross 1990 p.4)
Writers such as Rogers (1969), Dewey (1964) and Knowles (1980) argue
that learners are self-directed beings who learn best when they
perceive the relevance of knowledge to their lives, and when learning
is related to problem solving. If mathematics is perceived as a fixed
and unvarying body of truth independent of social concerns, then it is
difficult to see any room for negotiation or where life experiences
can be used in the learning process. If mathematics is neutral it has
little to contribute to the learner’s knowledge of themselves or their
immediate world. All this contributes to a lack of motivation and
hence a tendency to failure. As Thom writes:
In practice a mathematician’s thought is never a formalised one…one
accedes to absolute rigour only by eliminating meaning; absolute
rigour is only possible in, and by, such destitution of meaning. But
if one must choose between rigour and meaning, I shall unhesitatingly
choose the latter. (Thom, 1973, pp202-203)
- An alternative approach
The Cockcroft Report (1982 p.71) suggested that there are three
elements in mathematics teaching – facts and skills, conceptual
structures, and general strategies and appreciation. The last is of
interest to this paper. General strategies are defined as procedures
which guide the choice of which skills to use and which knowledge to
draw on. Crucially they enable a problem to be approached with
confidence and with the expectation that a solution will be possible.
With these strategies is associated an awareness of the nature of
mathematics and attitudes towards it. An alternative approach to
mathematics teaching can be developed by adopting an alternative view
of the nature of mathematics. What follows are two examples of viewing
mathematics, not as a certain, abstract, neutral discipline but as a
human invention, a world of ideas created not by God but by human
beings.
Anderson, horrified at the high failure rate at all levels of
mathematics by non-whites in the United States (Commission on
Professionals in Science and Technology 1986), developed a non-
Eurocentric approach to mathematics teaching that by jettisoning the
absolutist approach endeavours to ensure the relevance of mathematics
and hence make it accessible to all (1990). Anderson has employed this
approach with a full spectrum of college students, but principally
Black and Latino adults (young and old). The early sessions are
discussions on the historical, cultural, and socio-political
implications of mathematics. At all stages an emphasis is placed on
the role of other races and cultures in the development of the
subject. The importance of mathematics to real people in real life is
drawn out by regular class discussions of current issues in the social
and natural sciences, the development of technology and job market
skills. The emphasis is on the quality of mathematics knowledge rather
than the quantity, thus reducing the time pressure. Anderson claims
that this approach leads to students having a more positive, self-
assured attitude about themselves successfully doing mathematics.
The Department of Adult and Continuing Education at the University of
Exeter has completed a year long research project to see if
mathematics acts as a barrier to access to higher education to adult
returners. On the basis of data gathered from a national survey of
Access courses (Benn and Burton 1993), it became clear that, as with
Anderson’s work, Access mathematics tutors were succeeding with groups
who had low levels of general education and very low levels of earlier
achievement and confidence in mathematics. Access courses are targeted
at those groups traditionally under-represented in higher education
namely women, ethnic minorities, unemployed and those from working
class backgrounds. For these groups to succeed, their attitudes and
approaches to mathematics have to be fundamentally changed. They need
to see the subject not as one more absolute, unyielding barrier but as
social construct, a tool pliable to their bidding. This is done by
breaking down the concept of mathematics as a body of infallible and
objective truth and giving ownership and control of the subject to the
students. Access mathematics tutors reported that the main elements of
their teaching is encouragement and understanding; that tutors need to
be patient and remove the often difficult and disabling pressures of
time and that Access mathematics needs to be taught in context and
have a relevancy to real life and other parts of the course. They note
that the involvement of students and tutors in free discussion and
dialogue in a supportive atmosphere helps students develop
confidence.
Initial contact with mathematics staff was seen as important, with
clear and friendly pre-course counselling essential. If possible pre-
course assistance and\or workshops should be available. Students
should be given an honest indication of the work involved. It is
reassuring for students if maths phobia and the reasons for it are
discussed early in the course. The methodological approaches
recommended are open access workshops, flexible learning tutorial
packs, self-help groups and a modular approach with one-to-one support
most frequently mentioned even in these financially constrained days.
There is an urgent need to build confidence by showing that it is
acceptable to be wrong and by placing the emphasis on methods rather
than answers; to develop a positive attitude to mathematics by
encouraging students to take ownership of mathematics by messing
around with, exploring and enjoying numbers. The survey showed that
students were coming onto the Access courses very worried by the
mathematics component but the techniques outlined gave them a sense of
confidence and control.
- Conclusion
This paper has discussed two incompatible views of mathematics, that
of a body of infallible and objective truth rooted in the belief in
the essential certainty and neutrality of the subject and that of
mathematics as a social construct.
The danger of regarding mathematics as a God-given, absolute subject
is that it may, and arguably has, lead to an absolutist pedagogy which
ensures that mathematics remains a collection of rules and facts to be
remembered, a subject that has a mystique which makes it accessible
only to a chosen few. It remains a subject that seems to have very
little relevance to life outside of the classroom, but where success
or failure has implications for a persons self or moral worth (see
Buxton 1981).
This pedagogical approach has had limited success when the whole body
of students in Britain is considered. Its failure is even more marked
with groups that consistently underachieve in our education system,
groups such as ethnic minorities, the working class and girls or
women. As has been illustrated earlier, practitioners in the field who
are teaching these groups have developed alternative approaches. They
set mathematics in a historical, cultural and socio-political
environment and they ensure a more relevant syllabus set in the
context of every-day life. They ensure mathematics is seen like other
disciplines as a negotiated journey, a quest and a voyage of
discovery.
The main result is an increase in student motivation with subsequent
increase in success. This practice, though perhaps pragmatic rather
than theoretical in origin, reflects the view of philosophers such as
Wittgenstein that mathematics far from being a body of truth is in
fact a collection of norms. Far from a peek into the mind of God, it
is not even supported by a tortoise. And, most interestingly, this
practice appears to work.
References
Anderson, S E (1990), Worldmath Curriculum: Fighting Eurocentrism in
Mathematics, jOURNAL OF nEGRO eDUCATION, 59:3.
Ashley, D and Betebenner, D (1993), Mathematics, Post-Modernism, and
the Loss of Certainty, Paper presented to the British Sociological
Association Annual Conference, University of Essex.
Benn, R and Burton, R. (1994) Access Mathematics: A Bridge over
Troubled Waters, Journal of Access Studies, 9:1.
Bishop, A J (1990), Western mathematics: The Secret Weapon of Cultural
Imperialism, Race and Class, 32:2.
Bloor, D (1973), Wittgenstein and Mannheim on the Sociology of
Mathematics, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 4:2, pp.
173 – 191.
Buxton, L (1981), Do You Panic About Maths:Coping with Maths Anxiety,
London: Heinemann
Cockcroft, W H (Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry into the Teaching
of Mathematics in Schools) (1982) Mathematics Counts, London: HMSO.
Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology (1986),
Scientific Manpower, 1987 and Beyond: Today’s Budget – Tomorrow’s
Workforce, Washington, DC.
Cross, K (1990), Sharing Perspectives: People Learning Mathematics,
Mathematics Teaching, 130.
Davis, P J (1986), Fidelity in Mathematical Discourse: Is One and One
Really Two?, in Tymoczko, T(ed) New Directions in the Philosophy of
Mathematics, Boston: Birkhauser.
Dewey, J (1964), Democracy and Education, London: Macmillan.
Ernest, P (1991), The Philosophy of Mathematics Education, London:
Falmer Press.
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate (1985), Mathematics from 5 to 16,
London:HMSO
Hersh, R(1986), Some Proposals for Reviving the Philosophy of
Mathematics, in Tymoczko, T (ed) New Directions in the Philosophy of
Mathematics, Boston: Birkhauser
Joseph, G G (1987), Foundations of Eurocentrism in Mathematics, Race
and Class XXVIII:3.
Kant, I (1783), Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics
Knowles, M S (1980), (2nd Ed) The Modern Practice of Adult Education
from Pedagogy to Andragogy, Chicago: Association Press.
Rogers, C R (1969), Freedom to Learn, Ohio:Merrill Publishing Company.
Russell, B (1956), Portraits From Memory and Other Essays, New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Thom, R (1973), Modern Mathematics: Does it Exist? in Howson, A G (ed)
Developments in Mathematical Education, Cambridge.
Wittgenstein, L (1956), Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics,
Oxford:Blackwell
——————————————————————————–
Maintained by Pam Rosenthall
email comments and suggestions
Last Modified: 18th October 1996
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~PErnest/pome/pompart2.htm
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~PErnest/pome/pome9.htm
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lead me not to temptation?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:00 pm
From: Sir Frederick
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:03:37 +0100, “White bird” wrote:
>The BORG are imaginary beings,
So is everyone else. They(‘we’) are virtually real.
In fact in a spooky way, the whole situation
is virtual, a kind of story. ‘Local’ meaning to us,
but nothing more. Filthy putative gods.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Media ignores democrat violence, as usual
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:03 pm
From: “Killing, Inc.”
On Mar 29, 5:09 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
> > Looks like the meia is ignoring sick democrats commiting violence and
> > making threats. Tea Patriots demonstrate peacefully while the left
> > throws eggs…..
>
> It’s very difficult to compete against rightard violence:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
>
> Next question?
>
> Bret Cahill
Oh, you mean that “rightard” violence that never happened?
For all you know they could have been framed, and considering how
Democrats have no shortage of made-up stories and lies about the right
and tea party protesters, a frame-up is more likely than not.
Next question.
Democrats and other “progressive” fascists are still the dumbest
creatures on the planet.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: the Death of Ath*ism… FINISHED!
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:14 pm
From: Arindam Banerjee
On Mar 30, 5:21 am, “Rod Speed” wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 4:49 am, Anarcissie wrote:
> >> In article
> >> >> egroups.com>,
> >> M Purcell wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 27, 2:55 pm, *Anarcissie* wrote:
> >>>> M Purcell:
> >>>>> On Mar 26, 8:03 am, Anarcissie wrote:
> >>>>>> M Purcell wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mar 26, 6:36 am, Anarcissie wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Zerkon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:36:26 -0700, *Anarcissie* wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> My view is that “doublethink”, as George Orwell called it in
> >>>>>>>>>> 1984 — the ability to maintain two or more contradictory
> >>>>>>>>>> models of the world more or less continuously — is of
> >>>>>>>>>> considerable advantage to life and reproduction. Our faculty
> >>>>>>>>>> for this behavior is derived from evolutionary pressures.
>
> >>>>>>>>> de-evolutionary, I’d say.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Double-think was made possible by Newspeak. Newspeak was an
> >>>>>>>>> eradication of existing concepts. Opposition to the CorpState
> >>>>>>>>> became impossible because the concept ‘opposition to state’
> >>>>>>>>> was removed so thought about this was impossible.
>
> >>>>>>>> Doublethink appeared in nature long, long before _1984_. A
> >>>>>>>> medium-sized carnivore prowling through the brush hears
> >>>>>>>> something rustling. Is it lunch or a larger-sized carnivore?
> >>>>>>>> The m.s.c.
> >>>>>>>> must simultaneously entertain both contradictory possibilities
> >>>>>>>> until something happens to fill out one pattern or the other
> >>>>>>>> and then will have only a fraction of a second to act. It will
> >>>>>>>> not have time to construct a new model of the world because
> >>>>>>>> the previous one failed. Hence it constructs two (or more)
> >>>>>>>> provisional models and keeps them both in mind, however
> >>>>>>>> contradictory they may be.
>
> >>>>>>> You seem to have a contradictory equivocation of doublethink
> >>>>>>> with the fight or flee responce (resulting from ignorance of
> >>>>>>> the enviornment) and cognative dissonance (an internal
> >>>>>>> conflict). From what I understand, doublethink is a willful
> >>>>>>> contradiction.
>
> >>>>>> A necessary contradiction, although in the case of Big Brother
> >>>>>> (a many modern politicians) much of the difficulty is
> >>>>>> self-caused, such as simultaneously creating libertarian and
> >>>>>> authoritarian rhetoric which the public is expected to consume.
> >>>>>> So what is contradictory in my equivocation, if that’s what it
> >>>>>> is? I said that animals (including humans) are ignorant, so that
> >>>>>> they need the ability to maintain contradictory views of the
> >>>>>> world. Our small predator is in exactly this situation. If the
> >>>>>> s.p. took the time to work out things logically, it would
> >>>>>> probably wind up missing lunch or being lunch.
>
> >>>>> There are different types of contradictions, doublethink is not
> >>>>> the same as cognitive dissonance and neither are the same as an
> >>>>> adrenaline rush.
>
> >>>> I suppose one could get an adrenaline rush
> >>>> from either. But you are certainly correct that
> >>>> doublethink and cognitive dissonance are not the
> >>>> same. Cognitive dissonance is a sort of mental
> >>>> excitement which doublethinkers experience, or are
> >>>> suppose to experience, when their contradictory
> >>>> ideas rub up against one another. It’s probably
> >>>> a sort of intellectual taste — as I said, most
> >>>> people have no trouble entertaining contradictory
> >>>> ideas about the world.
>
> >>> You seem to find it exciting. I suppose there is an excitement in
> >>> discovering a contradiction which can lead to new knowledge but I
> >>> don’t believe that is considered cognitive dissonance while
> >>> “doublethink” is deliberate.
>
> >> To my observation, the practice of holding two or more
> >> contradictory ideas of the world with no apparent
> >> evidence of discomfort is the default case (and this is
> >> borne out by polls on political issues, as I have
> >> mentioned). This is what I’m calling “doublethink”.
> >> It doesn’t need to be practiced intentionally if it’s
> >> naturally the default. People just do it.
> > Criminals and madmen do doublethink naturally.
>
> Almost everyone does, most obviously with religion.
No. Only the literates are capable of doublethink. Does not mean all
literates are doublethinkers.
> At the most fundamental level that if there is just one
> ‘true’ god, how come there are so many of them ?
The illiterates I know would not agree to the if statement. They
have a highly advanced metaphysics.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:21 pm
From: Immortalist
On Mar 26, 5:42 am, “bigflet…@gmail.com”
wrote:
> On Mar 26, 8:46 am, Immortalist wrote:
>
> > Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>
> More a case of ‘know thyselve’s.
>
That would be more like “relax and know thyself and get eaten alive”
theory. Being disturbed/aroused by inconsistency is probably a
survival instinct. You don’t want to forget the cave man.
Error Management Theory
Humans live in an uncertain world. We rely on our senses to pick up
information from the world, and then use our information processing
capacities to make inferences about the true state of the world. Real
threats to our survival and relationships are not always readily
apparent, given the ambiguity and uncertainty of the information.
Consider a relatively simple problem of walking through the woods and
fleetingly sensing a slithering object scurry underneath some leaves
in the path directly in front of you. There are two possible states of
reality: either there is a dangerous snake in your path or there is
not a dangerous snake in your path. Given the incomplete and uncertain
information that you have percieved, there are also two inferences you
could make. There is indeed a dangerous snake, and you act to avoid
it. Or you could conclude that there is no snake and continue walking
down the path.
There are also two possible ways that you could be wrong. You could
believe that there is a snake when in fact no snake exists. Or you
could believe that no snake when in fact a venomous rattler is lurking
right in your path. The costs of these two types of errors, however,
are vastly different. In the first case, your belief causes you to
incur the trivial metabolic cost of taking an unnecessary evasive
action. By giving a wide birth to the area that you believe harbors a
snake, you have merely gone out of your way a little, incurring a
minor delay in your walk. In the second case, however, failing to
detect a snake that is in fact lurking in your path can cost you your
life. THe two ways of being wrong carry substantially different costs.
Now imagine that this scenario not only repeats itself thousands and
thousands of times in your liftime, but billions and billions of times
over human evolutionary history. Those who made the first kind of
mistake tended to survive, whereas those who made the second kind of
mistake tended to die. As a result, modern humans have descended from
a line of ancestors whose inferences about the uncertain world erred
in the direction of believing that snakes existed more than they do.
These can be called adaptive errors.
Consider uncertainty about whether your romantic partner is having an
affair or is likely to have an affair…. Continued on page 76 The
Dangerous Passion – Why jealousy is necessary as love and sex – David
M Buss
The Dangerous Passion:
Why Jealousy Is As Necessary As Love and Sex
by David M. Buss
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684850818/
> The part of the brain that responds to actions resulting in well being
> is often countered by the part that wants inactivity and laziness.
>
> We use a common term to ‘tame’ such contradictions, but most do not
> really grasp what they are saying. The term is ‘self discipline’ ,
> more accurately ‘selfs disciplined.
>
> Either aspects can dominate, which leads to inbalance. The ‘bits of
> the brain’ do not negotiate. “You” officiate.The ‘self’ is not being
> disciplined, but disciplining.
>
> Of course there are also ‘parts of the brain’ that, not understanding
> such basic principles, come up with all sorts of weird and wonderful
> theories.Not ‘full proof’ he states….Id never have guessed!!! (that
> comes from the sarcastic part of my brain, but ‘I’ decided to use it
> to emphasise a useful insight.)
>
> BOfL
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:23 pm
From: Immortalist
On Mar 26, 4:36 am, Zerkon wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:46:55 -0700, Immortalist wrote:
> > Cognitive Dissonance Theory
>
> > “Inconsistency among related beliefs . . .produces motivation to do
> > whatever is easiest in order to regain cognitive consistency or
> > consonance among beliefs.” –Jones and Gerard
>
> > Basically, cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs
> > whenever an individual simualtaniiously holds two cognitions (ideas,
> > attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent.
>
> Is this an example?
>
> A person likes pornography. This same person thinks pornography is bad.
> .. insert some resolve here ….
>
Not a very good example, you need one where it seems believable if two
contradictory thoughts happen simultaneously, like this trying to quit
smoking example;
Suppose a person smokes cigarettes and then reads a report of the
medical evidence linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer and other
respiratory diseases. The smoker experiences dissonance. The cognition
“I smoke cigarettes” is dissonant with the cognition “cigarette
smoking produces cancer.” Clearly, the most efficient way for this
person to reduce dissonance in such a situation is to give up smoking.
The cognition “cigarette smoking produces cancer” is consonant with
the cognition “I do not smoke.”
But, for most people, it is not easy to give up smoking. Imagine
Sally, a young woman who tried to stop smoking but failed. What will
she do to reduce dissonance? In all probability, she will try to work
on the other cognition: “cigarette smoking produces cancer.” Sally
might attempt to make light of evidence linking cigarette smoking to
cancer. For example, she might try to convince herself that the
experimental evidence is inconclusive. In addition, she might seek out
intelligent people who smoke and, by so doing, convince herself that
if Debbie, Nicole, and Larry smoke, it can’t be all that dangerous.
Sally might switch to a filter-tipped brand and delude herself into
believing that the filter traps the cancer-producing materials.
Finally, she might add cognitions that are consonant with smoking in
an attempt to make the behavior less absurd in spite of its danger.
Thus, Sally might enhance the value placed on smoking; that is, she
might come to believe smoking is an important and highly enjoyable
activity that is essential for relaxation: “I may lead a shorter life,
but it will be a more enjoyable one.” Similarly, she might try to make
a virtue out of smoking by developing a romantic, devil-may-care self-
image, flouting danger by smoking cigarettes. All such behavior
reduces dissonance by reducing the absurdity of the notion of going
out of one’s way to contract cancer. Sally has justified her behavior
by cognitively minimizing the danger or by exaggerating the importance
of the action. In effect, she has succeeded either in constructing a
new attitude or in changing an existing attitude.
Indeed, shortly after the publicity surrounding the original surgeon
general’s report in 1964, a survey was conducted to assess people’s
reactions to the new evidence that smoking helps cause cancer.
Nonsmokers overwhelmingly believed the health report, only 10 percent
of those queried saying that the link between smoking and cancer had
not been proven to exist; these respondents had no motivation to
disbelieve the report. The smokers faced a more difficult quandary.
Smoking is a difficult habit to break; only 9 percent of the smokers
had been able to quit. To justify continuing the activity, smokers
tended to debunk the report. They were more likely to deny the
evidence: 40 percent of the heavy smokers said a link had not been
proven to exist. They were also more apt to employ rationalizations:
Over twice as many smokers as nonsmokers agreed that there are many
hazards in life and that both smokers and nonsmokers get cancer.
Smokers who are painfully aware of the health hazards associated with
smoking may reduce dissonance in yet another way—by minimizing the
extent of their habit. One study found that of 155 smokers who smoked
between one and two packs of cigarettes a day, 60 percent considered
themselves moderate smokers; the remaining 40 percent considered
themselves heavy smokers. How can we explain these different self-
perceptions? Not surprisingly, those who labeled themselves as
moderates were more aware of the pathological long-term effects of
smoking than were those who labeled themselves as heavy smokers. That
is, these particular smokers apparently reduced dissonance by
convincing themselves that smoking one or two packs a day isn’t really
all that much. Moderate and heavy are, after all, subjective terms.
Imagine a teenage girl who has not yet begun to smoke. After reading
the surgeon general’s report, is she apt to believe it? Like most of
the nonsmokers in the survey, she should. The evidence is objectively
sound, the source is expert and trustworthy, and there is no reason
not to believe the report. And this is the crux of the matter. Earlier
in this book, I made the point that people strive to be right, and
that values and beliefs become internalized when they appear to be
correct. It is this striving to be right that motivates people to pay
close attention to what other people are doing and to heed the advice
of expert, trustworthy communicators. This is extremely rational
behavior. There are forces, however, that can work against this
rational behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance does not picture
people as rational beings; rather, it pictures them as rationalizing
beings. According to the underlying assumptions of the theory, we
humans are motivated not so much to be right as to believe-we are
right (and wise, and decent, and good).
Sometimes, our motivation to be right and our motivation to believe we
are right work in the same direction. This is what is happening with
the young woman who doesn’t smoke and therefore finds it easy to
accept the notion that smoking causes lung cancer. This would also be
true for a smoker who encounters the evidence linking cigarette
smoking to lung cancer and does succeed in giving up cigarettes.
Occasionally, however, the need to reduce dissonance (the need to
convince oneself that one is right or good) leads to behavior that is
maladaptive and therefore irrational. For example, many people have
tried to quit smoking and failed. What do these people do? It would be
erroneous to assume that they simply swallow hard and prepare to die.
They don’t. Instead, they try to reduce their dissonance in a
different way: namely, by convincing themselves that smoking isn’t as
bad as they thought. Thus, Rick Gibbons and his colleagues recently
found that heavy smokers who attended a smoking cessation clinic, quit
smoking for a while and then relapsed into heavy smoking again,
subsequently succeeded in lowering their perception of the dangers of
smoking.
Why might this change of heart occur? If a person makes a serious
commitment to a course of action, such as quitting smoking, and then
fails to keep that commitment, his or her self-concept as a strong,
self-controlled individual is threatened. This, of course, arouses
dissonance. One way to reduce this dissonance and regain a healthy
sense of self—if not a healthy set of lungs—is to trivialize the
commitment by perceiving smoking as less dangerous. A more general
study that tracked the progress of 135 students who made New Year’s
resolutions supports this observation. Individuals who broke their
resolutions—such as to quit smoking, lose weight, or exercise more—
initially felt bad about themselves for failing but, after a short
time, succeeded in downplaying the importance of the resolution.
Ironically, making light of a commitment they failed to keep serves to
restore their self-esteem but it also makes self-defeat a near
certainty in the future. In the short run, they are able to feel
better about themselves; in the long run, however, they have
drastically reduced the chances that they’ll ever succeed in achieving
their goals.
Is this the only way to reduce the dissonance associated with failing
to achieve a goal? No. An alternative response—and perhaps a less
maladaptive one—would be to lower one’s expectations for success. For
example, a person who has been unable to give up smoking completely,
but who has cut down on the number of cigarettes smoked daily, could
interpret this outcome as a partial success rather than as a complete
failure. This course of action would soften the blow to his or her
self-esteem for having failed while still holding out the possibility
of achieving success in future efforts to quit smoking altogether.
Let’s stay with the topic of cigarette smoking for a moment and
consider an extreme example: Suppose you are one of the top executives
of a major cigarette company—and therefore in a situation of maximum
commitment to the idea of cigarette smoking. Your job consists of
producing, advertising, and selling cigarettes to millions of people.
If it is true that cigarette smoking causes cancer, then, in a sense,
you are partially responsible for the illness and death of a great
many people. This would produce a painful degree of dissonance: Your
cognition “I am a decent, kind human being” would be dissonant with
your cognition “I am contributing to the early death of a great many
people.” In order to reduce this dissonance, you must try to convince
yourself that cigarette smoking is not harmful; this would involve a
refutation of the mountain of evidence suggesting a causal link
between cigarettes and cancer. Moreover, in order to convince yourself
further that you are a good, moral person, you might go so far as to
demonstrate how much you disbelieve the evidence by smoking a great
deal yourself. If your need is great enough, you might even succeed in
convincing yourself that cigarettes are good for people. Thus, in
order to see yourself as wise, good, and right, you take action that
is stupid and detrimental to your health.
This analysis is so fantastic that it’s almost beyond belief—almost.
In 1994, under the chairmanship of Henry Waxman, the U.S. Congress
conducted hearings on the dangers of smoking. At these hearings, the
top executives of most of the major tobacco companies admitted they
were smokers and actually argued that cigarettes are no more harmful
or addictive than playing video games or eating Twinkies! In a
subsequent hearing, in 1997, James J. Morgan, president and chief
executive officer of the leading U.S. cigarette maker, said that
cigarettes are not pharmacologically addictive. “Look, I like gummy
bears, and I eat gummy bears. And I don’t like it when I don’t eat
gummy bears,” Morgan said. “But I’m certainly not addicted to them.”
This kind of public denial is nothing new, of course. Over a quarter
of a century ago, the following news item was released by the
Washington Post’s News Service:
Jack Landry pulls what must be his 30th Marlboro of the day out of one
of the two packs on his desk, lights a match to it and tells how he
doesn’t believe all those reports about smoking and cancer and
emphysema. He has just begun to market yet another cigarette for
Philip Morris U.S.A. and is brimming over with satisfaction over its
prospects. But how does he square with his conscience the spending of
$10 million in these United States over the next year to lure people
into smoking his new brand? “It’s not a matter of that,” says Landry,
Philip Morris’vice president for marketing. “Nearly half the adults in
this country smoke. It’s a basic commodity for them. I’m serving a
need. . . . There are studies by pretty eminent medical and scientific
authorities, one on a theory of stress, on how a heck of a lot of
people, if they didn’t have cigarette smoking to relieve stress, would
be one hell of a lot worse off. And there are plenty of valid studies
that indicate cigarette smoking and all those diseases are not
related.” His satisfaction, says Landry, comes from being very good at
his job in a very competitive business, and he will point out that
Philip Morris and its big-selling Marlboro has just passed American
Tobacco as the No. 2 cigarette seller in America (R. J. Reynolds is
still No. 1). Why a new cigarette now? Because it is there to be sold,
says Landry. And therein lies the inspiration of the marketing of a
new American cigarette, which Landry confidently predicts will have a
1 percent share of the American market within 12 months. That 1
percent will equal about five billion cigarettes and a healthy profit
for Philip Morris U.S.A.
It is possible that James Morgan and Jack Landry are simply lying. But
it may be a bit more complicated than that; my guess is that, over the
years, they may have succeeded in deceiving themselves. Near the close
of Chapter 3,I discussed the fact that information campaigns are
relatively ineffective when they attempt to change deep-seated
attitudes. We can now see precisely why. If people are committed to an
attitude, the information the communicator presents arouses
dissonance; frequently, the best way to reduce the dissonance is to
reject or distort the evidence. The deeper a person’s commitment to an
attitude, the greater his or her tendency to reject dissonant
evidence. You may recall that in Chapter 1,I described an incident in
which, shortly before their suicide, the members of the Heaven’s Gate
cult demanded their money back because the telescope they had just
purchased didn’t reveal the spaceship they believed was following in
the wake of the Hale-Bopp comet. Needless to say, there was no
spaceship. But if you are deeply committed to believing in the
existence of a spaceship and your telescope doesn’t reveal it, then
obviously there must be something wrong with the telescope!
Juicy anecdotes are suggestive. But they do not constitute scientific
evidence and are, therefore, not convincing in themselves. Again,
taking the cigarette example, it is always possible that Mr. Morgan
and Mr. Landry know that cigarettes are harmful and are simply being
cynical. Likewise, it is possible that Landry always believed
cigarettes were good for people even before he began to peddle them.
Obviously, if either of these possibilities were true, his excitement
about the benefits of cigarette smoking could hardly be attributed to
dissonance. Much more convincing would be a demonstration of a clear
case of attitudinal distortion in a unique event. Such a demonstration
was provided back in the 1950s by (of all things) a football game in
the Ivy League. An important game between Princeton and Dartmouth, the
contest was billed as a grudge match, and this soon became evident on
the field: The game is remembered as the roughest and dirtiest in the
history of either school. On the Princeton team was an All-American
named Dick Kazmaier; as the game progressed, it became increasingly
clear that the Dartmouth players were out to get him. Whenever he
carried the ball, he was gang-tackled, piled on, and mauled. He was
finally forced to leave the game with a broken nose. Meanwhile, the
Princeton team was not exactly inactive: Soon after Kazmaier’s injury,
a Dartmouth player was carried off the field with a broken leg.
Several fistfights broke out on the field in the course of the game,
and many injuries were suffered on both sides.
Sometime after the game, a couple of psychologists—Albert Hastorf of
Dartmouth and Hadley Cantril of Princeton—visited both campuses and
showed films of the game to a number of students on each campus. The
students were instructed to be completely objective and, while
watching the film, to take notes of each infraction of the rules, how
it started, and who was responsible. As you might imagine, there was a
huge difference in the way this game was viewed by the students at
each university. There was a strong tendency for the students to see
their own fellow students as victims of illegal infractions rather
than as perpetrators of such acts of aggression. Moreover, this was no
minor distortion: It was found that Princeton students saw fully twice
as many violations on the part of the Dartmouth players as the
Dartmouth students saw. Again, people are not passive receptacles for
the deposition of information. The manner in which they view and
interpret information depends on how deeply they are committed to a
particular belief or course of action. Individuals will distort the
objective world in order to reduce their dissonance. The manner in
which they will distort and the intensity of their distortion are
highly predictable.
A few years later, Lenny Bruce, a perceptive comedian and social
commentator (who almost certainly never read about cognitive
dissonance theory), had the following insight into the 1960
presidential election campaign between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy:
I would be with a bunch of Kennedy fans watching the debate and their
comment would be, “He’s really slaughtering Nixon.” Then we would all
go to another apartment, and the Nixon fans would say, “How do you
like the shellacking he gave Kennedy?” And then I realized that each
group loved their candidate so that a guy would have to be this blatant
—he would have to look into the camera and say: “I am a thief, a
crook, do you hear me, I am the worst choice you could ever make for
the Presidency!” And even then his following would say, “Now there’s
an honest man for you. It takes a big guy to admit that. There’s the
kind of guy we need for President.”
People don’t like to see or hear things that conflict with their
deeply held beliefs or wishes. An ancient response to such bad news
was literally to kill the messenger. A modern-day figurative version
of killing the messenger is to blame the media for the presentation of
material that produces the pain of dissonance. For example, when
Ronald Reagan was running for president in 1980, Time published an
analysis of his campaign. Subsequent angry letters to the editor
vividly illustrated the widely divergent responses of his supporters,
on the one hand, and his detractors, on the other. Consider the
following two letters:
Lawrence Barrett’s pre-election piece on Candidate Ronald Reagan
[October 20] was a slick hatchet job, and you know it. You ought to be
ashamed of yourselves for printing it disguised as an objective look
at the man.
Your story on “The Real Ronald Reagan” did it. Why didn’t you just
editorially endorse him? Barrett glosses over Reagan’s fatal flaws so
handily that the “real” Ronald Reagan came across as the answer to all
our problems.
Needless to say, the diversity of perception reflected in these
letters is not unique to the 1980 campaign. It happens every 4 years.
During the next presidential election, check out the letters to the
editor of your favorite news magazine following a piece on one of the
leading candidates, and you will find a similar array of divergent
perceptions.
The Social Animal – Elliot Aronson – 8th Edition 1999
> I do not think this is an example of ‘two’ opposite ideas or beliefs.
> The pornography is object while the response or attraction is a
> complexity composed of many things. The feeling of bad also is not just
> one thought but one word which sums up complexity.
>
> The concept of double bind better captures this same basic condition, I
> think, in that it centers on communication or the process that results in
> the person ‘holding’ the conflict. It also does not make it seem as if
> the contradiction/conflict is made of two equally weighed ideas, each
> equally approachable by reason.
>
> It also suggests that if this is a given condition inside of the
> environment it can have distinct negative consequences.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:33 pm
From: Immortalist
On Mar 26, 1:56 am, jillaront…@webtv.net wrote:
> From: Immortalist
>
> QUOTE…
> ..snip…
> Basically, cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs
> whenever an individual simualtaniiously holds two cognitions (ideas,
> attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent.
> Stated differently, two cognitions are dissonant if, considering these
> two cognitions alone, the opposite of one follows from the other.
> ..snip…
> ====================
> Response
>
> Mort,
>
> This text is an ad hoc proposition about memory.
>
> One quickly can dismiss it when one considers dreams are layered
> contradictory memories which the latest brain science confirms that the
> term ‘cognitive dissonance’ is actually bio-physical ‘adrenaline’ which
> comes from a location in the brain and not from any unpublic term called
> ‘simualtaniously holds’. Adrenaline shots will repeat throughout the day
> b/c there is a physical mechanism in our memory function triggered in
> the sleep cycle.
>
> Sweet dreams are made in another locaction of the brain; a different
> bio-chem effect. As you know ‘location’ has been a scienctific term
> since Aristotle. And though Whitehead tried to dispell it, his Lowell
> Lectures of 1925 were flawed by accepting ‘idealism’ as a part of
> philosophy. Root philosophy was never about ‘mind’. Psychology is a
> European progressive corruption of naturalism. Brain science is using an
> ancient naturalist approach without a progression into unpublic
> terminology.
>
> regards,
> Vjillaris
Cognitive dissonance is the state of tension one feels after making a
decision, taking an action, or being exposed to some information that
is contrary to a prior attitude (Zimbardo et al., 1999, p. 752). The
state of tension is psychologically unpleasant, so something must
change to reduce the dissonance — usually the prior attitude.
When we experience two conflicting ideas we might adjust one or other
belief to fit with the other. Then “next time” these cognitions arise
we will have “adapted them” by lengthening nerve fibers and raising or
lowering resistences to chemo/electical flows across synapses.
Cognitive consistency
The tendency to seek consistency in one’s cognitions.
// REM COMMENT
But with dreaming you raise another case. I was talking about wide
awake thought processes. Researchers in the past have claimed that
memorable dreams are mainly about waking because outside noises are
intruding into the dream during rem or sensitive to the external sleep
opposed to deep and vulnerable sleep. Rem sleep for 20 minutes about
every hour and a half. But the dissonance of dreams has been claim to
be the attempt to integrate repetitive short term memories; memories
of the last days or week, trying to be integrated with life long
memories. This is where nightmares come from; noisy environments of
the transfer of short term into long term memories. I would say that
you are creating a straw man argument of the general argument about
wakeful cognitive dissonance, a noted empirical theory with much
evidence of cause and effect support man.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Abortion improves and increases the value of life!
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:14 pm
From: The Chief Instigator
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:12:45 -0700 (PDT), yarrido@aol.com wrote:
> On Mar 28, 1:06?pm, elizabeth wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 12:38?pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 26, 2:16?pm, elizabeth wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 26, 8:52?am, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Mar 25, 11:25?am, elizabeth wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Mar 24, 12:00?pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Mar 23, 12:26?pm, elizabeth wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Mar 22, 3:48?pm, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 1:03?pm, SkyEyes wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > On Mar 20, 10:35?am, “yarr…@aol.com” wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 7:34?pm, Rob Par wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:42:06 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes
>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > > > > > – Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > > > So, you aren’t animal, mineral or vegetable, and thus, you claim you
>> > > > > do not exist.
>>
>> > > > ? ? ?I exist, you just don’t believe it. You think that my body
>> > > > exists, ?not me.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > – Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > YOu exist, it’s just you don’t believe no one wants you to.
>>
>> > How do you know that I exist?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > – Show quoted text -
>>
>> It’s too bad you don’t. ?I’m sure everyone in the world aware of your
>> miserable existance agrees with me.
>
> You have no evidence that I exist. These letters you see here have
> just randomly appeared from nowhere and assembled themselves in this
> arrangement by themselves because it is the substance from which they
> are made that makes them do so. Your pattern seeking mind then
> interpreted them into words and sentences and meanings and information
> to fool you into thinking that there is a mind behind them. But the
> reality is that cannot possibly be the case since you cannot see me,
> touch me or in any way empirically verify my existence. So, I don’t
> actually exist. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. You
> believe in a myth.
You’re doing an execrable job of proving you exist. Thank the wipeout that
you paid to post your self-worship, anonymous coward.
–
Patrick L. “The Chief Instigator” Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI’s 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Peoria 5, Houston 4 (SO, March 28)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, March 31 vs. Chicago, 7:05
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:31 pm
From: “bigfletch8@gmail.com”
On Mar 30, 5:23 am, “White bird” wrote:
> If you have imaginary friends as a child, it is considered
> quite normal and healthy.
>
> If you have imaginary friends as an adult, it is considered
> schizophrenia.
* CERN, LHC. Tomorrow, the 30-th of March, despite to our protests, CERN plans
to perform the first collisions of protons with the energy 3.5 TeV per proton (
7 TeV per collision). – 1 messages, 1 author
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:05 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 28, 10:11 pm, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> On Mar 28, 11:47 pm, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 4:08 am, Don Stockbauer wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 23, 5:29 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 17, 6:37 am, “Inertial” wrote:
>
> > > > > “Y.Porat” wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:179c6e78-3047-41f6-b04e-653c5fee202d@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com…
>
> > > > > > On Mar 15, 11:26 pm, glird wrote:
> > > > > >> On Mar 15, 3:12 pm, “Ken S. Tucker” wrote:
>
> > > > > >> > On Mar 15, 11:06 am, Bob_for_short
> > > > > >> > wrote:
>
> > > > > >> > > No, quantum transitions are not instantaneous.
> > > > > >> > If we use the definition of energy as the ‘rate of action’, then a
> > > > > >> > photon such as E=hf == (h/t), should have 2 actions to establish that
> > > > > >> > rate? >
>
> > > > > >> If you invent definitions that fit whatever you want to prove, then
> > > > > >> you will always be right, even if you are wrong.
> > > > > >> In this case you are both right even if the proof is not.
> > > > > >> (It will take 2pir/c’ = 1.5791584 x 10^-16 seconds per emission per
> > > > > >> photon.)
>
> > > > > >> glird
>
> > > > > > ——————–
> > > > > > no !!
> > > > > > have a look to my much deeper insight
> > > > > > inmy thread:
>
> > > > > You have no insights
>
> > > > > > ‘a better new definition for the real single
> > > > > > photon energy emission’
> > > > > > i used there for the first time
> > > > > > the **Plank time**and the samallest possible
> > > > > > time duration for photonenergy!!
>
> > > > > You took those arbitrary numeric values, stipped them of their units and
> > > > > multiplied them to get a small value. This has nothing to do with anything
> > > > > in nature
>
> > > > > > it is
> > > > > > 5.38 exp-44 seconds !!!!
> > > > > > and than i derived form it
> > > > > > the smallest possoble
> > > > > > PHOTON ENERGY !!!
>
> > > > > No .. you didn’t “derive” anything, by ANY use of that word. You just
> > > > > performed an arbitrary operation on arbitrary numbers and claimed that was
> > > > > photon energy.
>
> > > > > EXPERIMENT shows that energy of a single photon is related to the frequency
> > > > > of the EMR by E = hf.
>
> > > > > > if we will divide it by c^2
>
> > > > > You get a smaller arbitrary number
>
> > > > > > we wil get the revolutionary finding:
> > > > > > The mass of the smallest photon !!!
>
> > > > > There is no ‘smallest’ photon. Just a photon.
>
> > > > > The mass is zero
>
> > > > > > it will be in the order of magnitude
> > > > > > smallest photon mass:
> > > > > > ie
> > > > > > exp-90 Kilograms !!
> > > > > > alter i will bring the exact figure
> > > > > > in my above thread
>
> > > > > > and only now you start to understand
> > > > > > why the mass of the photon was considered as zero
> > > > > > it is close to zero
> > > > > > but in PRINCIPLE ** not zero** !!!
>
> > > > > There is no ‘principle’ that says it is nonzero. There is no experimental
> > > > > evidence to support it being non-zero.
>
> > > > > > btw
> > > > > > since you involved here the math nG
> > > > > > i can tell all the mathematicians :
> > > > > > THAT IS EXACTLY THE DIFERENCE
> > > > > > BETWEEN A MATHEMATICIAN
> > > > > > AND A REAL PHYSICIST
> > > > > > physics is not leaded by mathematician !!
> > > > > > ie
> > > > > > people that heir mathematics understanding
> > > > > > is bigger than their physics understandings
>
> > > > > I’ll tell you what math and physics have in common.: You understand neither.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Light comes out of matter that is in two times. Light since first
> > > > formed is in one time flow.
>
> > > Light is two times or maybe one time comes out in two times babble
> > > flow medicines formed in one time flow matter in two times drool
> > > masturbate general chilton cheyenne mountin angerstein pribyl
> > > bethlehem nuner oak boom boom all die why? they deserved to die hic-
> > > cup fart ants covering body orgasm extinction.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > What size does a light wave begin at when first radiated by an
> > electric particle?
> > Does it appear nonlocally all at once across space or does it expand
> > to full wavelength spatially?
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> As the nuns say, Mitchsky, “These are mysteries that you’ll learn when
> you die.”- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
It can easily be addressed right now if light formation is a local
phenomenon.
Mitch Raemsch
==============================================================================
TOPIC: the Death of Ath*ism… FINISHED!
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:16 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
> Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> environment, with time constants and so forth.
>
> But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
>
> Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
>
> –
> Rich
What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
“co·her·ence
4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
“co·her·ent
4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
the particle when the particle is detected.
The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
bow wave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
“This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
by the double solution theory
Louis de BROGLIE’
“I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
of an external field acting on the particle.”
“This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
located.”
de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
the wave.
In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
the available slits.
In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
interference.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:39 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 5:16 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
>
> > Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> > the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> > the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> > interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> > function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> > environment, with time constants and so forth.
>
> > But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> > which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> > the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
>
> > Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
>
> > –
> > Rich
>
> What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
>
> “co·her·ence
> 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
>
> “co·her·ent
> 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
> phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
>
> Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
>
> You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
> correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
> the particle when the particle is detected.
>
> The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
> detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
> the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
> bow wave.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
>
> “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
>
> ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> by the double solution theory
> Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
> “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
> wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
> of an external field acting on the particle.”
>
> “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> located.”
>
> de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave.
>
> In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
> double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
> the available slits.
>
> In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> interference.
Continuity is the backbone of Unification.
Mitch Raemsch
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:49 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 8:16 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
>
> > Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> > the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> > the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> > interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> > function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> > environment, with time constants and so forth.
>
> > But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> > which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> > the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
>
> > Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
>
> > –
> > Rich
>
> What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
>
> “co·her·ence
> 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
>
> “co·her·ent
> 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
> phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
>
> Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
>
> You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
> correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
> the particle when the particle is detected.
>
> The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
> detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
> the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
> bow wave.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
>
> “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
>
> ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> by the double solution theory
> Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
> “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
> wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
> of an external field acting on the particle.”
>
> “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> located.”
>
> de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave.
>
> In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
> double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
> the available slits.
>
> In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> interference.
The way I understand the nonsense of Feynman is knowing ‘which way’
the particle travels causes decoherence. This is what is meant by the
role the Observer plays. If the ‘which way’ information is known, then
there will not be interference.
However, that is complete nonsense. In order to know ‘which way’ the
particle travels the particle must be detected. Detecting the particle
physically turns the associated wave into chop. Physically destroying
the coherence of the associated wave (decoherence) does not allow the
waves to create interference upon exiting the slits. If there is no
interference created by the waves then the direction the particle
travels is not altered and there will not be an interference pattern
formed.
It gets even more absurd than that. If the ‘which way’ information is
detected far enough before the particle interacts with the slits then
an interference pattern will still be formed.
Obviously, if the boat is detected by the buoys and continues on,
given enough time the coherence of the bow wave will once again exist.
All the nonsense of ‘which way’ and the role of the Observer is not
understanding there is a physical particle and a physical wave in wave-
particle duality.
But, again, what I referred to in the previous post is de Broglie Wave
Mechanics where the associated wave is an aether wave and the
generally accepted ‘understanding’ is of ‘which way’ and the role of
the Observer and the other ridiculous nonsense Feynman arrived at
based upon the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:57 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 5:49 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 29, 8:16 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
>
> > > Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> > > the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> > > the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> > > interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> > > function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> > > environment, with time constants and so forth.
>
> > > But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> > > which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> > > the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
It requires light at the holes not an observer to see.
Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
>
> > > –
> > > Rich
>
> > What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
>
> > “co·her·ence
> > 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
>
> > “co·her·ent
> > 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
> > phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
>
> > Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
>
> > You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
> > correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
> > the particle when the particle is detected.
>
> > The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
> > detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
> > the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
> > bow wave.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
>
> > “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> > any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
>
> > ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> > by the double solution theory
> > Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
> > “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
> > wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
> > of an external field acting on the particle.”
>
> > “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> > theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> > where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> > natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> > be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> > located.”
>
> > de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> > and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> > the wave.
>
> > In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
> > double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
> > the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
> > the available slits.
>
> > In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> > The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> > associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> > slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> > slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> > the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> > displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> > interference.
>
> The way I understand the nonsense of Feynman is knowing ‘which way’
> the particle travels causes decoherence. This is what is meant by the
> role the Observer plays. If the ‘which way’ information is known, then
> there will not be interference.
>
> However, that is complete nonsense. In order to know ‘which way’ the
> particle travels the particle must be detected. Detecting the particle
> physically turns the associated wave into chop. Physically destroying
> the coherence of the associated wave (decoherence) does not allow the
> waves to create interference upon exiting the slits. If there is no
> interference created by the waves then the direction the particle
> travels is not altered and there will not be an interference pattern
> formed.
>
> It gets even more absurd than that. If the ‘which way’ information is
> detected far enough before the particle interacts with the slits then
> an interference pattern will still be formed.
>
> Obviously, if the boat is detected by the buoys and continues on,
> given enough time the coherence of the bow wave will once again exist.
>
> All the nonsense of ‘which way’ and the role of the Observer is not
> understanding there is a physical particle and a physical wave in wave-
> particle duality.
>
> But, again, what I referred to in the previous post is de Broglie Wave
> Mechanics where the associated wave is an aether wave and the
> generally accepted ‘understanding’ is of ‘which way’ and the role of
> the Observer and the other ridiculous nonsense Feynman arrived at
> based upon the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.-
Light collapsing the wave is why there is no Observer Created Reality
of the Copenhagen interpretation.
Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
There is no decoherence if there is no togetherness. Things cannot
come apart if the do not come together.
Mitch Raemsch
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:59 pm
From: YBM
mpc755 a �crit :
> On Mar 29, 8:16 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
>>
>>> Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
>>> the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
>>> the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
>>> interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
>>> function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
>>> environment, with time constants and so forth.
>>> But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
>>> which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
>>> the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
>>> Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
>>> –
>>> Rich
>> What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
>>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
>>
>> “co�her�ence
>> 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
>>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
>>
>> “co�her�ent
>> 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
>> phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
>>
>> Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
>>
>> You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
>> correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
>> the particle when the particle is detected.
>>
>> The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
>> detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
>> the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
>> bow wave.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
>>
>> “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
>> any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
>>
>> ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
>> by the double solution theory
>> Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>>
>> “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
>> wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
>> of an external field acting on the particle.”
>>
>> “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
>> theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
>> where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
>> natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
>> be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
>> located.”
>>
>> de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
>> and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
>> the wave.
>>
>> In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
>> double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
>> the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
>> the available slits.
>>
>> In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
>> The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
>> associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
>> slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
>> slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
>> the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
>> displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
>> interference.
>
> The way I understand
Stop lying. You don’t understand anything.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:05 pm
From: YBM
mpc755 a �crit :
> n Mar 29, 8:16 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> – Hide quoted text -
> – Show quoted text -
>> On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
>
>>> Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
>>> the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
>>> the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
>>> interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
>>> function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
>>> environment, with time constants and so forth.
>
>>> But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
>>> which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
>>> the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
>
>>> Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
>
>>> –
>>> Rich
>
>> What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherence
>
>> “co�her�ence
>> 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
>
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
>
>> “co�her�ent
>> 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
>> phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
>
>> Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
>
>> You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
>> correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
>> the particle when the particle is detected.
>
>> The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
>> detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
>> the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
>> bow wave.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
>
>> “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
>> any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
>
>> ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
>> by the double solution theory
>> Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
>
>> “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
>> wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
>> of an external field acting on the particle.”
>
>> “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
>> theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
>> where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
>> natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
>> be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
>> located.”
>
>> de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
>> and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
>> the wave.
>
>> In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
>> double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
>> the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
>> the available slits.
>
>> In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
>> The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
>> associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
>> slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
>> slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
>> the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
>> displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
>> interference.
>
> The way I understand the nonsense of Feynman is knowing ‘which way’
> the particle travels causes decoherence. This is what is meant by the
> role the Observer plays. If the ‘which way’ information is known, then
> there will not be interference.
>
> However, that is complete nonsense. In order to know ‘which way’ the
> particle travels the particle must be detected. Detecting the particle
> physically turns the associated wave into chop. Physically destroying
> the coherence of the associated wave (decoherence) does not allow the
> waves to create interference upon exiting the slits. If there is no
> interference created by the waves then the direction the particle
> travels is not altered and there will not be an interference pattern
> formed.
>
> It gets even more absurd than that. If the ‘which way’ information is
> detected far enough before the particle interacts with the slits then
> an interference pattern will still be formed.
>
> Obviously, if the boat is detected by the buoys and continues on,
> given enough time the coherence of the bow wave will once again exist.
>
> All the nonsense of ‘which way’ and the role of the Observer is not
> understanding there is a physical particle and a physical wave in
> wave-
> particle duality.
>
> But, again, what I referred to in the previous post is de Broglie Wave
> Mechanics where the associated wave is an aether wave and the
> generally accepted ‘understanding’ is of ‘which way’ and the role of
> the Observer and the other ridiculous nonsense Feynman arrived at
> based upon the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
Multiposting again, mpc ? Abuse reports sent.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:06 pm
From: mpc755
> On Mar 26, 7:47 pm, RichD wrote:
> > Decoherence is a new theory which attempts to explain
> > the quantum/classical paradox. It supposedly removes
> > the discontinuity, the either/or nature of the older
> > interpretations, via a more gradual approach; the wave
> > function ‘decoheres’ continuously as it interacts with its
> > environment, with time constants and so forth.
> > But still, we’re left with the double slit experiment -
> > which Feynman called “the central mystery”- where
> > the observer evidently plays a crucial role.
> > Does anyone understand decoherence, and how it explains that?
> > –
> > Rich
> What follows is not the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
> “co·her·ence
> 4. Physics, Optics. (of waves) the state of being coherent.”
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coherent
> “co·her·ent
> 4. Physics, Optics. of or pertaining to waves that maintain a fixed
> phase relationship, as in coherent light.”
> Decoherence: waves that lose a fixed phase relationship.
> You understand the concept of ‘chop’ when discussing water waves,
> correct? This is what occurs physically to the wave associated with
> the particle when the particle is detected.
> The analogy is placing a bunch of buoys in front of a boat in order to
> detect the boat. Detecting the boat with the buoys is going to turn
> the bow wave into chop. Detecting the boat causes decoherence of the
> bow wave.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie
> “This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that
> any moving particle or object had an associated wave.”
> ‘Interpretation of quantum mechanics
> by the double solution theory
> Louis de BROGLIE’http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
> “I called this relation, which determines the particle’s motion in the
> wave, “the guidance formula”. It may easily be generalized to the case
> of an external field acting on the particle.”
> “This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present
> theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave
> where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite
> natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always
> be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is
> located.”
> de Broglie’s definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave
> and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave.
> In Aether Displacement (AD), the external field is the aether. In a
> double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of
> the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits
> the available slits.
> In AD, the C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave.
> The C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit while the
> associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available
> slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the
> slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting
> the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether
> displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no
> interference.
The way I understand the nonsense of Feynman is knowing ‘which way’
the particle travels causes decoherence. This is what is meant by the
role the Observer plays. If the ‘which way’ information is known, then
there will not be interference.
However, that is complete nonsense. In order to know ‘which way’ the
particle travels the particle must be detected. Detecting the particle
physically turns the associated wave into chop. Physically destroying
the coherence of the associated wave (decoherence) does not allow the
waves to create interference upon exiting the slits. If there is no
interference created by the waves then the direction the particle
travels is not altered and there will not be an interference pattern
formed.
It gets even more absurd than that. If the ‘which way’ information is
detected far enough before the particle interacts with the slits then
an interference pattern will still be formed.
Obviously, if the boat is detected by the buoys and continues on,
given enough time the coherence of the bow wave will once again exist.
All the nonsense of ‘which way’ and the role of the Observer is not
understanding there is a physical particle and a physical wave in
wave-
particle duality.
But, again, what I referred to in the previous post is de Broglie Wave
Mechanics where the associated wave is an aether wave and the
generally accepted ‘understanding’ is of ‘which way’ and the role of
the Observer and the other ridiculous nonsense Feynman arrived at
based upon the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: ABOUT THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:21 pm
From: “Sue…”
On Mar 29, 8:04 pm, Stamenin wrote:
> On Mar 28, 9:40 pm, “Sue…” wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 12:08 am, Stamenin wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 27, 1:42 pm, “Sue…” wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 27, 3:05 pm, Stamenin wrote:
>
> > > > > NOT THE CONSEQUENCES BUT THE ASSUMPTIONS
> > > > > This is an article that has been published in group science-physics-
> > > > > relativity, but having a big importance about the determination of the
> > > > > ways in which we can determine that Einstein theory of relativity is
> > > > > errant or not, consider that must be published again and uploaded in
> > > > > galilei-newton-group. It must be read in correlation with mine
> > > > > article: The relativity as method of asking the truth.
>
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/galilei-newton-group
> > > > < > > > theory as being the only correct theory in physics
> > > > about the description of motion of material bodies.>>
>
> > > > Have you found a way to express this with
> > > > Newoton’s mechanics?
>
> > > About this question I have published in a lot of articles in my group
> > > galilei-nevton-group. If you like one example it is the the false math
> > > relation the LT.
>
> > I was not asking about the LT.
> > Please visit the web page so you know
> > what it conveys.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
>
> > If you are really serious about the subject
> > of your group you might find some help in
> > a recent post to this group.
>
> I do not need any help Sir.
>
>
>
> > Timo Nieminen:
> > ”The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic
> > theory by Aepinus is a superb example of the progress
> > that can be made by being willing to work
> > with “enough”, and being prepared to ignore
> > Cartesian would-be-burdens. There’s a nice
> > discussion in the English translation of his book.”
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/51ddd073eab…
>
> > > compare it with Galilei transformation and will see
> > > which of them is valid and which is errant. And a second example
> > > compare the Principle of the equivalence with the four mathematical
> > > relation, the three laws of the mechanics and the law of the universal
> > > attraction and say who is right, Galilei and Newton or Einstein. For
> > > any physical phenomenon these two theories can’t correct simultaneouly
> > > both of them.
>
> > =====================
>
> > > So if you like Einstein to be correct you have to
> > > demonstrate that Galilei and Newton are errant. Please do that.
>
> > What if I show that none are errant?
>
> You will not be accused, but first you have to do that.
>
> > <
> > All inertial frames are totally equivalent
> > for the performance of all physical experiments.
>
===============
> No, it is not true. All inertial coordinate systems are equivalent
> only for the description of the motion of material bodies.
For the the immaterial stuff, you might
find some interest here:
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:33 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 5:21 pm, “Sue…” wrote:
> On Mar 29, 8:04 pm, Stamenin wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 9:40 pm, “Sue…” wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 12:08 am, Stamenin wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 27, 1:42 pm, “Sue…” wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 27, 3:05 pm, Stamenin wrote:
>
> > > > > > NOT THE CONSEQUENCES BUT THE ASSUMPTIONS
> > > > > > This is an article that has been published in group science-physics-
> > > > > > relativity, but having a big importance about the determination of the
> > > > > > ways in which we can determine that Einstein theory of relativity is
> > > > > > errant or not, consider that must be published again and uploaded in
> > > > > > galilei-newton-group. It must be read in correlation with mine
> > > > > > article: The relativity as method of asking the truth.
>
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/galilei-newton-group
> > > > > < > > > > theory as being the only correct theory in physics
> > > > > about the description of motion of material bodies.>>
>
> > > > > Have you found a way to express this with
> > > > > Newoton’s mechanics?
>
> > > > About this question I have published in a lot of articles in my group
> > > > galilei-nevton-group. If you like one example it is the the false math
> > > > relation the LT.
>
> > > I was not asking about the LT.
> > > Please visit the web page so you know
> > > what it conveys.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
>
> > > If you are really serious about the subject
> > > of your group you might find some help in
> > > a recent post to this group.
>
> > I do not need any help Sir.
>
> > > Timo Nieminen:
> > > ”The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic
> > > theory by Aepinus is a superb example of the progress
> > > that can be made by being willing to work
> > > with “enough”, and being prepared to ignore
> > > Cartesian would-be-burdens. There’s a nice
> > > discussion in the English translation of his book.”
>
> > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/51ddd073eab…
>
> > > > compare it with Galilei transformation and will see
> > > > which of them is valid and which is errant. And a second example
> > > > compare the Principle of the equivalence with the four mathematical
> > > > relation, the three laws of the mechanics and the law of the universal
> > > > attraction and say who is right, Galilei and Newton or Einstein. For
> > > > any physical phenomenon these two theories can’t correct simultaneouly
> > > > both of them.
>
> > > =====================
>
> > > > So if you like Einstein to be correct you have to
> > > > demonstrate that Galilei and Newton are errant. Please do that.
>
> > > What if I show that none are errant?
>
> > You will not be accused, but first you have to do that.
>
> > > <
> > > All inertial frames are totally equivalent
> > > for the performance of all physical experiments.
>
> ===============
>
> > No, it is not true. All inertial coordinate systems are equivalent
> > only for the description of the motion of material bodies.
>
> For the the immaterial stuff, you might
> find some interest here:http://www.psychicwaves.com/freespiritualadvice.html
>
> Sue…- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
Motion is detecfable when it is created through acceleration which
has weight. A test mass fluctuatiuon in weight can be measured giving
the end speed of an acceleration. Acceleration and its new motion are
detectable.
Mitch Raemsch
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:35 pm
From: “Inertial”
“Stamenin” wrote in message
news:ef08a067-5898-41da-90d2-eaa2715a5df3@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com…
> On Mar 28, 9:40 pm, “Sue…” wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 12:08 am, Stamenin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 27, 1:42 pm, “Sue…” wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 27, 3:05 pm, Stamenin wrote:
>>
>> > > > NOT THE CONSEQUENCES BUT THE ASSUMPTIONS
>> > > > This is an article that has been published in group
>> > > > science-physics-
>> > > > relativity, but having a big importance about the determination of
>> > > > the
>> > > > ways in which we can determine that Einstein theory of relativity
>> > > > is
>> > > > errant or not, consider that must be published again and uploaded
>> > > > in
>> > > > galilei-newton-group. It must be read in correlation with mine
>> > > > article: The relativity as method of asking the truth.
>>
>> > >http://groups.google.com/group/galilei-newton-group
>> > > <> > > theory as being the only correct theory in physics
>> > > about the description of motion of material bodies.>>
>>
>> > > Have you found a way to express this with
>> > > Newoton’s mechanics?
>>
>> > About this question I have published in a lot of articles in my group
>> > galilei-nevton-group. If you like one example it is the the false math
>> > relation the LT.
>>
>> I was not asking about the LT.
>> Please visit the web page so you know
>> what it conveys.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
>>
>> If you are really serious about the subject
>> of your group you might find some help in
>> a recent post to this group.
>
> I do not need any help Sir.
It seems that you do
>> Timo Nieminen:
>> “The Newtonianisation of electrical and magnetic
>> theory by Aepinus is a superb example of the progress
>> that can be made by being willing to work
>> with “enough”, and being prepared to ignore
>> Cartesian would-be-burdens. There’s a nice
>> discussion in the English translation of his book.”
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/51ddd073eab…
>>
>> > compare it with Galilei transformation and will see
>> > which of them is valid and which is errant. And a second example
>> > compare the Principle of the equivalence with the four mathematical
>> > relation, the three laws of the mechanics and the law of the universal
>> > attraction and say who is right, Galilei and Newton or Einstein. For
>> > any physical phenomenon these two theories can’t correct simultaneouly
>> > both of them.
>>
>> =====================
>>
>> > So if you like Einstein to be correct you have to
>> > demonstrate that Galilei and Newton are errant. Please do that.
>>
>> What if I show that none are errant?
>
> You will not be accused, but first you have to do that.
>
>> <>
>> All inertial frames are totally equivalent
>> for the performance of all physical experiments.
>
> No, it is not true. All inertial coordinate systems are equivalent
> only for the description of the motion of material bodies.
Please provide an example of an experiment where the principle of
equivalence doe not apply
>> In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
>> experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
>> between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton’s
>> laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
>> Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of
>> relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the
>> same form in all inertial frames.
>
> It is not true.
Refute it then
> the principle of the equivalence is complete mistaken
Why .. what is your grounds for that claim
> and because of that he concluded that all laws of physics take same
> form in all inertial coordinate systems. I use the term coordinate
> system because it allows to use analytical geometry.
You’ve still not shown why it is wrong
>>>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
>>
>> [1]<> theory of relativity, in its most essential formal
>> properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the
>> three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space.
>> In order to give due prominence to this relationship,
>> however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by
>> an imaginary magnitude
>>
>> sqrt(-1)
>
> And this assumption is totally mistaken. There is wrong used
> Pithagoras theorem.
And wrong spelled
>> ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the
>> natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special)
>> theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which
>> the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same r�le as
>> the three space co-ordinates. >>http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html
>
> Unfortunately it is not an evidence, and this affirmation is errant.
Do YOU have any evidence. So far all experimental evidence confirms SR
>> <> can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments
>> which involve measuring the force of attraction between
>> two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying
>> wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments
>> must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all
>> inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the
>> same in all inertial frames.
>> >>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
>>
>> Would you care to point out a problem with
>> the above statements?
>>
>> Sue…
>>
>>
>>
>> > > Sue…
>>
>> > > > Stamenin
>>
>>
>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: DARK ENERGY AND DARK MINDS
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:21 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 28, 11:21 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The journal Nature exercising itself in crimestop in 1979:
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v277/n5698/abs/277633a0.html
> Nature 277, 633 – 635 (22 February 1979)
> Photon decay in curved space-time
> D. F. CRAWFORD
> School of Physics, University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006,
> Australia
> “RECENT astrophysical observations have raised doubts as to whether
> the large redshifts of distant galaxies (the Hubble redshift) are due
> entirely to cosmological expansion. The strongest argument in favour
> of cosmological expansion is that there is no known hypothesis
> consistent with the laws of physics (other than the Doppler shift
> hypothesis) that can explain the observed redshifts. An alternative
> explanation – a gradual energy loss of photons due to their
> interaction with curved space-time – is considered here.”
>
> http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
> George Orwell: “Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
> though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
> includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
> logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
> inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
> thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
> Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.”
>
> The dangerous thought at the threshold of which the journal Nature
> will always stop short: It is reasonable to assume that “energy loss
> of photons” can be explained in terms of “speed loss of photons”.
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> The only reason behind Dark Energy:
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
> “More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
> under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
> of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage.”
>
> Sometimes the correct solution to the problem (the speed of light
> decreases with distance and this causes Hubble’s redshift) is hinted
> at in Einsteiniana but then billions may not come and Einsteinians
> promise not to hint anymore:
>
> http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
> “Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
> stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
> ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
> universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
> not constant?…..Couldn’t it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
> acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
> cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn’t a stick plunged into the pool
> appear bent as the light is refracted and won’t that affect all our
> observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
> Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
> Books to explain this apparent anomaly…..”You are entirely right,”
> he told me, “there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
> light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
> of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
> correct for them.” “In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,”
> adds Susskind, “An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
> gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
> ‘spurious’ effects so that people like me can just say ‘light travels
> with the speed of light.’ So, there you have it. My concern about
> cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
> physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
> physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
> can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe.”
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.pdf
> Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
> Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci
> “Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate
> for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally
> thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is
> more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an
> expanding spacetime geometry (…) …any photon gradually loses its
> energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the
> universe.”
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757145,00.html
> Monday, Dec. 14, 1936: “Other causes for the redshift were suggested,
> such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great
> stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the
> expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a
> cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had
> shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation
> of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more
> improbable than a non-expanding one.”
>
> In the end dark minds enter the stage and things get irreversible
> (billions are guaranteed):
>
> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/87150187.html
> “Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (…) “We have a
> complete inventory of the universe,” Sean Carroll, a California
> Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, “and it makes no
> sense.”
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedo…
> Martin Rees: “Over the past week, two stories in the press have
> suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
> issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
> mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
> pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist.”
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7522026/Hubble-telesc…
> “And the astronomers found that the universe was growing faster and
> faster with time, as predicted by Einstein in his theory of general
> relativity. Scientists claim that the universe is made up of three
> different components – normal matter, which is the physical objects in
> the universe such as the planets – dark matter, which is invisible
> matter that creates the gravitational pull that causes galaxies to
> form – and an unknown energy referred to as “dark energy”, the force
> which causes the universe to expand. Einstein’s theory of general
> relativity claims that space and time are a geometrical structure
> which can be changed by the behaviour of the matter inside it. So
> proof that the expansion of the universe is speeding up shows that the
> contents of the universe, such as the “dark energy” causing it to
> inflate, are influencing its structure. Ludovic Van Waerbeke, of the
> Department of Physics and Astronomy at Leiden University in the
> Netherlands, said: “Our results confirmed that there is an unknown
> source of energy in the universe which is causing the cosmic expansion
> to speed up, stretching the dark matter further apart exactly as
> predicted by Einstein’s theory.”
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva…@yahoo.com
Intelligent design?
You have to be intelligent to see it.
Mitch Raemsch
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can’t be
serious.
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:24 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 5:12 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > > >
>
> > > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > > “quin·tes·sence
> > > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > > –noun
> > > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > interactions with matter”
>
> > > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > > gravity.
>
> > > Thanks for the link.
>
> > Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> > and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> > substance.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> The matter which is the Earth is displaced far beyond the Moon. This
> aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the aether
> displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the Earth
> equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the distance
> the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
You are avoiding my point. If rotation goes for and against aether
creating different pressures of gravity then gravity is not a constant
for the Earth. How do you address that?
Mitch Raemsch
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:25 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
> On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > >
>
> > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > “quin·tes·sence
> > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > –noun
> > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > interactions with matter”
>
> > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > gravity.
>
> > Thanks for the link.
>
> Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> substance.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
The matter which is the Earth displaces the aether far beyond the
Moon. This aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the
aether displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the
Earth equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the
distance the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of
the Earth. The Earth’s momentum in orbit around the Sun is negligible
in terms of the pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the Earth.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:32 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 8:24 pm, BURT wrote:
> On Mar 29, 5:12 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > > > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > > > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > > > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > > > “quin·tes·sence
> > > > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > > > –noun
> > > > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > > > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > > > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > > > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > > > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > > > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > > > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > interactions with matter”
>
> > > > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > > > gravity.
>
> > > > Thanks for the link.
>
> > > Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> > > and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> > > substance.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > The matter which is the Earth is displaced far beyond the Moon. This
> > aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the aether
> > displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the Earth
> > equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the distance
> > the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > – Show quoted text -
>
> You are avoiding my point. If rotation goes for and against aether
> creating different pressures of gravity then gravity is not a constant
> for the Earth. How do you address that?
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Rotation does NOT go for and against aether creating different
pressures of gravity.
Gravity is NOT the pressure associated with objects moving through the
aether ENTRAINED by the Earth.
Gravity is the pressure exerted by the aether towards the Earth which
is DISPLACED by the Earth.
The aether displaced by the Earth and entrained by the Earth is the
same aether.
Gravity, the downward pressure associated with the aether displaced by
the Earth has nothing to do with the pressure associated with object
moving through the aether entrained by the Earth.
Aether entrainment is not related to the downward force associated
with the aether displaced by the Earth.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:37 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 5:32 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 29, 8:24 pm, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 5:12 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > > > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > > > > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > > > > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > > > > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > > > > “quin·tes·sence
> > > > > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > > > > –noun
> > > > > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > > > > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > > > > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > > > > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > > > > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > > > > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > > > > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > interactions with matter”
>
> > > > > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > > > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > > > > gravity.
>
> > > > > Thanks for the link.
>
> > > > Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> > > > and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> > > > substance.
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > The matter which is the Earth is displaced far beyond the Moon. This
> > > aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the aether
> > > displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the Earth
> > > equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the distance
> > > the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > You are avoiding my point. If rotation goes for and against aether
> > creating different pressures of gravity then gravity is not a constant
> > for the Earth. How do you address that?
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> Rotation does NOT go for and against aether creating different
> pressures of gravity.
But you have already claimed that it is.
>
> Gravity is NOT the pressure associated with objects moving through the
> aether ENTRAINED by the Earth.
>
> Gravity is the pressure exerted by the aether towards the Earth which
> is DISPLACED by the Earth.
>
> The aether displaced by the Earth and entrained by the Earth is the
> same aether.
>
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:40 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 8:37 pm, BURT wrote:
> On Mar 29, 5:32 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 8:24 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 5:12 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > > > > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > > > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > > > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > > > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > > > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > > > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > > > > > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > > > > > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > > > > > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> > > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > > > > > “quin·tes·sence
> > > > > > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > > > > > –noun
> > > > > > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > > > > > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > > > > > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > > > > > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > > > > > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > > > > > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > > > > > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > interactions with matter”
>
> > > > > > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > > > > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > > > > > gravity.
>
> > > > > > Thanks for the link.
>
> > > > > Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> > > > > and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> > > > > substance.
>
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > The matter which is the Earth is displaced far beyond the Moon. This
> > > > aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the aether
> > > > displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the Earth
> > > > equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the distance
> > > > the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > You are avoiding my point. If rotation goes for and against aether
> > > creating different pressures of gravity then gravity is not a constant
> > > for the Earth. How do you address that?
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > Rotation does NOT go for and against aether creating different
> > pressures of gravity.
>
> But you have already claimed that it is.
>
No, you misinterpreted it that way. I never said rotation had anything
to do with gravity.
I said an atomic clock traveling eastward is moving against the ‘flow’
of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick slower.
An atomic clock traveling westward is moving with the ‘flow’ of
aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick faster.
Not once did I relate aether ‘flow’ or ‘entrainment’ with gravity.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:51 pm
From: BURT
On Mar 29, 5:40 pm, mpc755 wrote:
> On Mar 29, 8:37 pm, BURT wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 5:32 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 8:24 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 5:12 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > > > > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > > > > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > > > > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > > > > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > > > > > > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > > > > > > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > > > > > > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> > > > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > > > > > > “quin·tes·sence
> > > > > > > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > > > > > > –noun
> > > > > > > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > > > > > > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > > > > > > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > > > > > > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > > > > > > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > > > > > > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > > > > > > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > > interactions with matter”
>
> > > > > > > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > > > > > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > > > > > > gravity.
>
> > > > > > > Thanks for the link.
>
> > > > > > Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> > > > > > and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> > > > > > substance.
>
> > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > The matter which is the Earth is displaced far beyond the Moon. This
> > > > > aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the aether
> > > > > displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the Earth
> > > > > equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the distance
> > > > > the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > > You are avoiding my point. If rotation goes for and against aether
> > > > creating different pressures of gravity then gravity is not a constant
> > > > for the Earth. How do you address that?
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > Rotation does NOT go for and against aether creating different
> > > pressures of gravity.
>
> > But you have already claimed that it is.
>
> No, you misinterpreted it that way. I never said rotation had anything
> to do with gravity.
>
> I said an atomic clock traveling eastward is moving against the ‘flow’
> of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick slower.
>
> An atomic clock traveling westward is moving with the ‘flow’ of
> aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick faster.
>
> Not once did I relate aether ‘flow’ or ‘entrainment’ with gravity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> – Show quoted text -
NO. When you make a mistake and I call you on it you cannot get away
with saying it was just my misinterpretation when it was not.
I will give you the fact that maybe you do not remember what you say
mpc.
Mitch Raemsch
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:03 pm
From: mpc755
On Mar 29, 8:51 pm, BURT wrote:
> On Mar 29, 5:40 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 8:37 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 5:32 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 8:24 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 29, 5:12 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 29, 8:00 pm, BURT wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 29, 4:50 pm, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 29, 5:22 pm, Uncle Al wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > mpc755 wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Moving in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, eastward, causes a
> > > > > > > > > > greater Aether pressure than moving in the direction against the
> > > > > > > > > > Earth’s rotation, westward.
>
> > > > > > > > > [snip rest of crap]
>
> > > > > > > > > HEY FUCKING STOOOPID – READ
>
> > > > > > > > >
>
> > > > > > > > “A possible candidate for dark energy that avoids some of the fine-
> > > > > > > > tuning problems associated with the cosmological is quintessence, a
> > > > > > > > very low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > > > known universe. In addition to its effect on the expansion of the
> > > > > > > > universe, quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > > > interactions with matter and radiation.”
>
> > > > > > > >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quintessence
>
> > > > > > > > “quin·tes·sence
> > > > > > > > /kwɪnˈtɛsəns/ Show Spelled[kwin-tes-uhns] Show IPA
> > > > > > > > –noun
> > > > > > > > 1. the pure and concentrated essence of a substance.
> > > > > > > > 2. the most perfect embodiment of something.
> > > > > > > > 3. (in ancient and medieval philosophy) the fifth essence or element,
> > > > > > > > ether, supposed to be the constituent matter of the heavenly bodies”
>
> > > > > > > > A low-energy field with a wavelength comparable to the size of the
> > > > > > > > known universe is aether as a one something.
>
> > > > > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material.
>
> > > > > > > > Aether is the pure essence of matter.
>
> > > > > > > > “quintessence might also manifest itself through its possible
> > > > > > > > interactions with matter”
>
> > > > > > > > Aether interacts with matter by being displaced by matter.
>
> > > > > > > > The pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter manifests itself as
> > > > > > > > gravity.
>
> > > > > > > > Thanks for the link.
>
> > > > > > > Gravity is not different for the two sides of the Earth rotating for
> > > > > > > and against the aether pressure. Therefore aether pressure has no
> > > > > > > substance.
>
> > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > The matter which is the Earth is displaced far beyond the Moon. This
> > > > > > aether ‘displaces back’. The pressure associated with the aether
> > > > > > displaced by the Earth is exerted towards and throughout the Earth
> > > > > > equally to each and every part of the Earth based upon the distance
> > > > > > the pressure is being applied in relation to the center of the Earth.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > – Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > You are avoiding my point. If rotation goes for and against aether
> > > > > creating different pressures of gravity then gravity is not a constant
> > > > > for the Earth. How do you address that?
>
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > Rotation does NOT go for and against aether creating different
> > > > pressures of gravity.
>
> > > But you have already claimed that it is.
>
> > No, you misinterpreted it that way. I never said rotation had anything
> > to do with gravity.
>
> > I said an atomic clock traveling eastward is moving against the ‘flow’
> > of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick slower.
>
> > An atomic clock traveling westward is moving with the ‘flow’ of
> > aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will tick faster.
>
> > Not once did I relate aether ‘flow’ or ‘entrainment’ with gravity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > – Show quoted text -
>
> NO. When you make a mistake and I call you on it you cannot get away
> with saying it was just my misinterpretation when it was not.
> I will give you the fact that maybe you do not remember what you say
> mpc.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Find the post. They are all on this thread.
What I said is the aether is ‘entrained’ by the Earth. The further
from the surface of the Earth the aether is the less ‘entrained’ it
is. If you were standing on the Earth looking up and were able to see
the aether it would move east to west. The ‘entrained’ aether is
moving west to east but at a slower rate than the Earth rotates.
An atomic clock on an airplane flying eastward is flying against the
‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will be
under greater aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and
will tick slower than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
An atomic clock on an airplane flying westward is flying with the
‘flow’ of aether, relative to the surface of the Earth, and will under
less aether pressure than a similar clock on the Earth and will tick
faster than the clock on the surface of the Earth.
Not once did I relate the above to gravity.
If you think I did go find the post.
What I have said consistently is the rate at which a GPS satellite
ticks is based upon both its motion with respect to the aether and the
pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth (gravity).
The rate at which an atomic clock ‘ticks’ is based upon the aether
pressure in which it exists. In terms of motion, the speed of a GPS
satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether
and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS
satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest
with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to
“result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day”. The aether pressure associated
with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS
satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth “causing the GPS
clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day”. The aether pressure
associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with
respect to the aether and the aether pressure associated with the
aether displaced by the Earth causes “clocks on the GPS satellites
[to] tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground.”
(quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).
==============================================================================
TOPIC: CERN, LHC. Tomorrow, the 30-th of March, despite to our protests, CERN
plans to perform the first collisions of protons with the energy 3.5 TeV per
proton (7 TeV per collision).
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 5:48 pm
From: eric gisse
Magnetic wrote:
> On Mar 30, 1:56 am, “J. Clarke” wrote:
>> On 3/29/2010 4:23 PM, John Christiansen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > “Uncle Al” skrev i en meddelelse
>> >news:4BB0C8DF.E4006D50@hate.spam.net…
>> >> Magnetic wrote:
>>
>> >>> Tomorrow, despite to our protests, CERN plans to perform the first
>> >>> collisions of protons with the energy 3.5 TeV per proton (7 TeV per
>> >>> collision).
>> >>> I give about 50% that the dangerous microscopic object will be
>> >>> created. It will grow, ruining the ordinary matter, and can ruin our
>> >>> planet or a part of it.
>> >> [snip crap]
>>
>> >>http://physics.aps.org/articles/v2/104
>> >>
>> >>http://arxiv/abs/1003.2030
>> >>
>>
>> >> idiot
>>
>> >> –
>> >> Uncle Al
>> >>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
>> >> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
>> >>http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
>>
>> > Not even a billion collisions would create enough energy to heat 1
>> > liter of water by 1 K. Magnetic has obviously no idea how little 1 TeV
>> > is.
>>
>> That last sentence has five more words than it needs
>
> ========
> +++++++++++++++
> 6 700 000 000 ++++++++++
> ++++++++++++++++++
So when nothing happens, what will you do?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Please listen with respect to Mr Banerjee, an vastly superior
aristocratic mind indeed !!!
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:03 pm
From: Arindam Banerjee
On Mar 30, 1:08 am, Marshall wrote:
> On Mar 29, 5:19 am, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tell me, dear doggie, ain’t it rum
> > How the choicest of the net scum
> > Blasts the stink from its tum
> > So that none may near it come?
> > None good, that is; some
> > Are fools, to heed that bum.
> > Too much rot, that’s the sum
> > Of the jBm’s keyboard’s thrum.
>
> I like your poetry every bit as much as I like you science!
> It’s just as good!
>
> Marshall
Wow, thanks a lot! Great to have appreciation! Now, shall we throw
out the wrong notions of relativity from the textbooks? Please,
please…
As for my poetry, I have only had few opportunities to recite them in
public. My friend and partner Ilya (the well-known poet, philosopher
and translator) has been most eager, but distances here are too great.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:21 pm
From: John Larkin
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:19:47 -0500, Vladimir Vassilevsky
wrote:
>
>
>John Larkin wrote:
>
>
>> Each channel has its own ARM with a 12-bit ADC and a 10-bit DAC. The
>> ADC will measure the voltage drop across a shunt resistor, to get loop
>> current, and also our terminal voltage. The DAC drives a series linear
>> mosfet to regulate output. It will behave like a constant-voltage,
>> current-limited power supply, in that the user can program current and
>> voltage and it will operate in the appropriate mode, depending on the
>> load.
>>
>> It’s a 100 MHz 32-bit cpu, and the fastest I can digitize the pair of
>> inputs is 100 KHz, and I could run the loop at 50 or even 25 KHz, so
>> there should be tons of cpu cycles available.
>
>This is not a lot. The loop cutoff frequency can hardly be done higher
>then 1/(6 x total delay in the loop), so if you run at 25kHz, it is
>going to be 4kHz or so. You probably want at least 20dB of feedback, so
>400 Hz it is; unless real fancy feedback arrangements. Pretty slow.
>
>Vladimir Vassilevsky
>DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
>http://www.abvolt.com
I could tolerate a 1 millisecond risetime, which is in fact in the
ballpark of 400 Hz. If I run at 50K, things should be OK. I can maybe
run at 100K, which gives me 1000 CPU cycles per whack. This is a
32-bit machine with a single-cycle multiply.
John
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:24 pm
From: John Larkin
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:07:37 -0700, Tim Wescott
wrote:
>John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:31:02 -0700 (PDT), pnachtwey
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 29, 11:53 am, John Larkin
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:20:31 -0400, Jerry Avins wrote:
>>>>> Tim Wescott wrote:
>>>>>> Fred Bartoli wrote:
>>>>>>> Tim Wescott a �crit :
>>>>>>>> Fred Bartoli wrote:
>>>>>>>>> John Larkin a �crit :
>>>>>>>>>> I’m designing a gadget that uses an ARM uP, with 12-bit mux’d ADC and
>>>>>>>>>> a 10-bit DAC, to essentially make a current and voltage regulated
>>>>>>>>>> power supply. The ADC will measure voltage and current and the DAC
>>>>>>>>>> will control a fairly soft source-follower series-pass mosfet. The
>>>>>>>>>> customer load could be most anything.
>>>>>>>>>> I think it would be time-effective to simulate the control loop while
>>>>>>>>>> the PC board is being fabbed, so we don’t have to play with dynamics
>>>>>>>>>> as much in the critical delivery path.
>>>>>>>>>> I can simulate it as an analog loop using LT Spice, as I’m familiar
>>>>>>>>>> with that and could get it done quickly. It would be handy if I could
>>>>>>>>>> also use the same model in digital mode, which would add sampling
>>>>>>>>>> delays and maybe even quantization.
>>>>>>>>>> Any thoughts on how to do this?
>>>>>>>>>> I note here that more and more formerly-analog control loops, things
>>>>>>>>>> like switching power supplies, motor drivers, power amps, will be
>>>>>>>>>> going digital in the future. Some of the ARM chips are selling for
>>>>>>>>>> under a dollar. Analog parts will, I think, increasingly be used for
>>>>>>>>>> things like amplification, and less for computation.
>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>> It can easily done with spice.
>>>>>>>>> The software delay can be modeled as a TLINE provided it is constant
>>>>>>>>> in your system.
>>>>>>>>> For switchers you model the switch as an averaged one (continuous
>>>>>>>>> model). The sampling action is modeled by a 2 poles TF (look at
>>>>>>>>> Ridley’s paper “Accurate and practical small signal model for
>>>>>>>>> current mode control”, or I can try to dig in one of my previous HDs).
>>>>>>>>> With good modeling you can have average transient and AC (loop
>>>>>>>>> gain,…) simulations which are real close to the actual circuit.
>>>>>>>>> That won’t give you quantization though, and I guess this can’t be
>>>>>>>>> modeled as with sigma delta since you have a first order loop and
>>>>>>>>> probably an almost constant signal.
>>>>>>>>> Maybe, but I never tried this, you can discretize the loop (only for
>>>>>>>>> transient analysis) with use of B “arbitrary sources” within which
>>>>>>>>> you use some integer part function. I don’t know whether LTspice
>>>>>>>>> support B sources, but you should find something equivalent…
>>>>>>>> Quantization looks like infinite gain, though, so unless it is
>>>>>>>> wrapped inside of a sampled-time section it’ll really slow down — or
>>>>>>>> completely crash — the simulation.
>>>>>>>> You can analyze fairly well for quantization by treating it as noise
>>>>>>>> at the magnitude of the quantization, and the worst possible
>>>>>>>> frequency. Just inject a signal at the quantization point, do a
>>>>>>>> frequency sweep to figure out the sensitivity of the output to the
>>>>>>>> quantization, and take the worst spot.
>>>>>>>> Quantization always seems to seek to do the most damage possible, so
>>>>>>>> treating it as worst case isn’t paranoid. In this case, it really is
>>>>>>>> out to get you!
>>>>>>> It’s been a while I’ve looked at this but IIRC it’s only one bit
>>>>>>> quantizer that have infinite gain. Multibit quantizers, as I guess
>>>>>>> John will use since he has plentiful bits ADC/DAC, have unit gain.
>>>>>>> I once used an ARM with 12b ADC/DACs to build a low OSR SD converter
>>>>>>> with real high resolution at almost no cost (the ARM was mandated for
>>>>>>> other things). Of course it wasn’t more linear than the DAC on large
>>>>>>> signals, but the app was OK with that…
>>>>>> At the point of the quantization step the input moves an infinitesimal
>>>>>> amount, and the output moves a finite amount. That’s an infinite gain.
>>>>>> With a 12-bit device, it happens 4095 times, instead of once.
>>>>> It really plays havoc when computing a simple “derivative”.
>>>>> Jerry
>>>> Derivatives usually cause more trouble than they do good. My “PID”
>>>> controller will almost certainly have D=0.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>> Many systems don’t require a derivative gain. It depends on the
>>> number of poles in your plant and we have no idea what you are trying
>>> to do.
>>>
>>> I am a big believer in derivative gains since I must tune under damped
>>> systems. The trick is a have very fine resolution feed back that is
>>> almost noise free or a good model. I would use 16 bit analog feedback
>>> devices to get the finer resolution. I was just at a site where I
>>> used the second derivative gain and it was necessary.
>>>
>>> Sometime a low pass filter on the output helps too. If you are clever
>>> you can calculate the gains and take the low pass filter into
>>> consideration. This is better than trying to tweak each gain one a
>>> time along with the output filter.
>>>
>>> Do you have excess CPU time?
>>>
>>> Peter Nachtwey
>>
>> This is my VME module, with 12 channels of 4-20 mA isolated outputs.
>> Each channel has its own ARM with a 12-bit ADC and a 10-bit DAC. The
>> ADC will measure the voltage drop across a shunt resistor, to get loop
>> current, and also our terminal voltage. The DAC drives a series linear
>> mosfet to regulate output. It will behave like a constant-voltage,
>> current-limited power supply, in that the user can program current and
>> voltage and it will operate in the appropriate mode, depending on the
>> load.
>>
>> It’s a 100 MHz 32-bit cpu, and the fastest I can digitize the pair of
>> inputs is 100 KHz, and I could run the loop at 50 or even 25 KHz, so
>> there should be tons of cpu cycles available.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>You may be surprised at how quickly you can use up 1000 CPU cycles.
Depends on the C compiler, I guess. If I were doing this in assembly
on a 68332 with a 20 MHz clock, I’d have no problem doing this PID in
10 microseconds. You’d think a 100 MHz ARM, with a single-cycle
multiply, could match that.
This will be interesting.
John
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:28 pm
From: John Larkin
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:13:24 -0700 (PDT), john@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk
wrote:
>On 29 Mar, 17:11, John Larkin
> wrote:
>> I’m designing a gadget that uses an ARM uP, with 12-bit mux’d ADC and
>> a 10-bit DAC, to essentially make a current and voltage regulated
>> power supply. The ADC will measure voltage and current and the DAC
>> will control a fairly soft source-follower series-pass mosfet. The
>> customer load could be most anything.
>>
>> I think it would be time-effective to simulate the control loop while
>> the PC board is being fabbed, so we don’t have to play with dynamics
>> as much in the critical delivery path.
>>
>> I can simulate it as an analog loop using LT Spice, as I’m familiar
>> with that and could get it done quickly. It would be handy if I could
>> also use the same model in digital mode, which would add sampling
>> delays and maybe even quantization.
>>
>> Any thoughts on how to do this?
>>
>> I note here that more and more formerly-analog control loops, things
>> like switching power supplies, motor drivers, power amps, will be
>> going digital in the future. Some of the ARM chips are selling for
>> under a dollar. Analog parts will, I think, increasingly be used for
>> things like amplification, and less for computation.
>>
>> John
>
>Recently did a sampled oscillator ALC loop using an AVR chip (10 bit
>ADC+a bit of free dither and ‘Course/fine’ PWM as a DAC setpoint). Was
>tedious to figure out and redraw various interesting loop mechanisms
>in LTspice, so used Powerbasic. Much quicker in trialing a seemingly
>infinite number of valid control methods.
I am still considering doing the sim in PowerBasic, but LT spice has
all those nice graphics and scope probes, and it’s easy to fiddle
values and save files and print and stuff. Just easier to drive.
PBCC would of course do the time-sample and quantization bits easily.
John
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:27 pm
From: Joerg
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:53:39 -0700, Joerg wrote:
>
>> D from BC wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>> jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says…
[...]
>>>> Seismology has been called The Jesuit Science.
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
>>>>
>>> I’m sure they all have very intelligent reasons for why they believe in
>>> Jesus and God and Noah that guy that lived in a fish.
>>
>> Ahm, the guy in the fish was Jonah
>
> Whales are fish? Who wudda thunk.
>
Ok, BIG fish
Or in biblical terms leviathan-sized …
[...]
–
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
“gmail” domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:34 pm
From: D from BC
In article ,
eather@tpg.com.au says…
>
> On 30/03/2010 10:16 AM, D from BC wrote:
> > Checked link
> > http://www.biblicalconcourse.com/BiblicalWorldviewEngineering.pdf
> > huh.. A Christian Engineering Education Conference in 2004
> >
> > clipped from article page 3:
> >
> > ‘Redemption was effected by God, when His Son, Jesus the Christ, paid
> > the penalty for man?s unrighteous
> > actions. This redemption has a two-fold effect on humankind.’
> >
> > I agree but for different reasons.
> > 1) It’s a good way of knowing what engineers can detect bullshit.
> > Jesus didn’t make a sacrifice if he ain’t permanently dead on earth and
> > in imaginary dimensions. iows ..no resurrection.
>
> Well that might be true if you exclude the pain of getting beaten for
> hours sold, flogged, having big nails driven through your wrists and
> feet, the emotional cost of all that plus the betrayal of a close
> friend, abandonment by everyone, and total rejection by his nation,
> mockery, humiliation, shame and the pain of dying of congestive heart
> failure,while naked and splayed out for public view with both shoulders
> dislocated.
>
> Of course if you think that is no great thing you can prove it – I will
> bring the hammer and nails, but first we will have to flog most of your
> skin off.
Sorry .. But Jesus is disqualified in raising an emotion here.
This is due to God = Jesus. An all powerful God gets harmed??
This is like kicking superman in the balls.. It doesn’t do anything.
I’m sure Jesus = God can handle a Mel Gibson style beating while
answering prayers and doing miracles on the other side of the globe
without blinking.
(Note: Doesn’t apply to all 38000 christian denominations.)
There’s no sacrifice.. It’s just God putting on a gore show.
>
> >
> > 2) It’s a good way of knowing what engineers can detect illogic.
> > Christians (not all there’s 38000 denominations) have God = Jesus =
> > Father = Son = Holy Spirit = Holy Ghost and it’s not considered a
> > redundancy.
> >
> >
>
> It is described as a scared mystery. It is fully accepted that this
> appears and indeed is illogical to our way of understanding.
Ha! A positive spin on illogic.
It’s a mystery when 1 = 3.
Square circles are a mystery too!
A bowl of sleep is a mystery!
Love on toast is a mystery!
The illogic of God = Son = Father = Holy spirit is not a mystery. It’s
poo poo.
(Note: Doesn’t apply to all 38000 christian denominations.)
>
> Now, don’t troll. If the newsgroup is uninteresting post something useful.
–
D from BC
British Columbia
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:44 pm
From: “krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz”
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:31:00 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:59:07 -0700 (PDT), mpm
>wrote:
>
>>On Mar 29, 6:35�pm, D from BC wrote:
>>> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so…
>>> Time for another mega-troll.
>>>
>>> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering?
>>> How can Christian electronics designers still do a good job with
>>> Christian concepts in their head. This seems like a mind combo that can
>>> have an impact and lead to potential problems.
>>>
>>> 1) Do designers believe electronic designs will work without evidence?
>>> 2) Do designers pray that the test equipment is accurate? Does the
>>> prayer avoid calibration 100% ?
>>> 3) Does all your electronic knowledge come from one book?
>>> 4) Does it feel pointless to do good engineering because it’ll all be
>>> over soon and you’ll finally have joy in the afterlife?
>>> 5) Do you resort to obfuscation, red herrings, lying, diversion,
>>> digression, deception, personal attacks,circular reasoning and logical
>>> fallacies to convince people you have the best design?
>>> 6) Do you think that other designers that do design differently will
>>> burn in hell?
>>> 7) Do you stone designers that don’t follow UL?
>>> Do you talk to Jesus when you are stuck on a tough electronics
>>> problem?
>>> 9) Do he answer?
>>> 10) Do you believe in God the creator of everything because every
>>> circuit has a creator?
>>> 11) Do you make safe circuits(shock/fire) so that God doesn’t send you
>>> to hell for killing someone?
>>> 12) When a circuit doesn’t work do you fling your arms in the air and
>>> say ‘God’s plan!’ But when it does work it’s a miracle!
>>> 13) When written electronics theory doesn’t fit your design ideas, do
>>> you change the theory with excuses such as mistranslation or
>>> misinterpretation?
>>> 14) Do you make designs work with wishful thinking?
>>> 15) Have you designed all your circuits with sin included?
>>> 16) When nobody can disprove if an Ebay oscilloscope is broken then it
>>> must work?
>>> 17) Do you believe in stories of burnt circuits magically coming back to
>>> life?
>>> 18) Have you sacrificed an oscilloscope lately?
>>> 19) Do you think radio waves go up into the firmament?
>>> 20) You see no reason to make electronics for treating cancer cause
>>> prayer works.
>>> 21) If you believe in God, Jesus and Satan then how is that different
>>> than believing in transistor fairies?
>>>
>>> –
>>> D from BC
>>> British Columbia
>>
>>Substitute God for God and Goddess, delete Jesus and Satan, and change
>>Christian to Wicca and you got yourself a deal.
>>After all, they don’t call it solder wick for nothin’.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Sign in a parking lot near here:
>
>
> WITCH PARKING ONLY
>
> all other will be toad
Bumper sticker I saw a few years ago (and want one for my wife’s car), “I’ve
been in a bad mood since the house fell on my sister”.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:49 pm
From: D from BC
In article ,
eather@tpg.com.au says…
>
> On 30/03/2010 10:33 AM, D from BC wrote:
> > In article,
> > jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says…
> >>
> >> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:35:39 -0700, D from BC
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so…
> >>> Time for another mega-troll.
> >>>
> >>> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering?
> >>> How can Christian electronics designers still do a good job with
> >>> Christian concepts in their head.
> >>
> >> I know a couple of seriously Christian electronics designers and
> >> programmers who are literally a couple of orders of magnitude better
> >> than you are.
> >>
> >> Some of the best scientists and mathematicians have been Jesuits.
> >> Seismology has been called The Jesuit Science.
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
> >>
> >
> > I’m sure they all have very intelligent reasons for why they believe in
> > Jesus and God and Noah that guy that lived in a fish.
> > Maybe you can list what their reasons are.
> >
> >
>
> I can, if you are actually interested.
Sure..
Do Larkin’s intelligent scientists and intelligent engineers and
intelligent mathematicians have an intelligent reason for why they
believe the story of Jonah (that biblical guy that lived for days in a
fish) or Noah or God or Jesus?
–
D from BC
British Columbia
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 8:22 am
From: Robert Baer
D from BC wrote:
> Checked link
> http://www.biblicalconcourse.com/BiblicalWorldviewEngineering.pdf
> huh.. A Christian Engineering Education Conference in 2004
>
> clipped from article page 3:
>
> ‘Redemption was effected by God, when His Son, Jesus the Christ, paid
> the penalty for man?s unrighteous
> actions. This redemption has a two-fold effect on humankind.’
>
> I agree but for different reasons.
> 1) It’s a good way of knowing what engineers can detect bullshit.
> Jesus didn’t make a sacrifice if he ain’t permanently dead on earth and
> in imaginary dimensions. iows ..no resurrection.
>
> 2) It’s a good way of knowing what engineers can detect illogic.
> Christians (not all there’s 38000 denominations) have God = Jesus =
> Father = Son = Holy Spirit = Holy Ghost and it’s not considered a
> redundancy.
>
>
Re: #2, now you know (one reason) why Muslims “dis” Christians…
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 8:22 am
From: Robert Baer
D from BC wrote:
> In article ,
> jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says…
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:35:39 -0700, D from BC
>> wrote:
>>
>>> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so…
>>> Time for another mega-troll.
>>>
>>> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering?
>>> How can Christian electronics designers still do a good job with
>>> Christian concepts in their head.
>> I know a couple of seriously Christian electronics designers and
>> programmers who are literally a couple of orders of magnitude better
>> than you are.
>>
>> Some of the best scientists and mathematicians have been Jesuits.
>> Seismology has been called The Jesuit Science.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jesuit_scientists
>>
>
> I’m sure they all have very intelligent reasons for why they believe in
> Jesus and God and Noah that guy that lived in a fish.
> Maybe you can list what their reasons are.
>
>
*NOT* a fish!
Get your facts straight first…
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 8:24 am
From: Robert Baer
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:35:39 -0700, D from BC
>> wrote:
>>
>>> mmm sseems a little quiet in SED so…
>>> Time for another mega-troll.
>>>
>>> Are Christian beliefs in conflict with good electronics engineering?
>>> How can Christian electronics designers still do a good job with
>>> Christian concepts in their head. This seems like a mind combo that can
>>> have an impact and lead to potential problems.
>>>
>>> 1) Do designers believe electronic designs will work without evidence?
>>> 2) Do designers pray that the test equipment is accurate? Does the
>>> prayer avoid calibration 100% ?
>>> 3) Does all your electronic knowledge come from one book?
>>> 4) Does it feel pointless to do good engineering because it’ll all be
>>> over soon and you’ll finally have joy in the afterlife?
>>> 5) Do you resort to obfuscation, red herrings, lying, diversion,
>>> digression, deception, personal attacks,circular reasoning and logical
>>> fallacies to convince people you have the best design?
>>> 6) Do you think that other designers that do design differently will
>>> burn in hell?
>>> 7) Do you stone designers that don’t follow UL?
>>> Do you talk to Jesus when you are stuck on a tough electronics
>>> problem?
>>> 9) Do he answer?
>>> 10) Do you believe in God the creator of everything because every
>>> circuit has a creator?
>>> 11) Do you make safe circuits(shock/fire) so that God doesn’t send you
>>> to hell for killing someone?
>>> 12) When a circuit doesn’t work do you fling your arms in the air and
>>> say ‘God’s plan!’ But when it does work it’s a miracle!
>>> 13) When written electronics theory doesn’t fit your design ideas, do
>>> you change the theory with excuses such as mistranslation or
>>> misinterpretation?
>>> 14) Do you make designs work with wishful thinking?
>>> 15) Have you designed all your circuits with sin included?
>>> 16) When nobody can disprove if an Ebay oscilloscope is broken then it
>>> must work?
>>> 17) Do you believe in stories of burnt circuits magically coming back to
>>> life?
>>> 18) Have you sacrificed an oscilloscope lately?
>>> 19) Do you think radio waves go up into the firmament?
>>> 20) You see no reason to make electronics for treating cancer cause
>>> prayer works.
>>> 21) If you believe in God, Jesus and Satan then how is that different
>>> than believing in transistor fairies?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Sheeeesh!
>
>
> Is it any wonder that the transistor fairies are all Canadian?
>
>
What is it again? “how many transistors can dance on the head of a
pin?” ..
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:29 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In , Archimedes’ Lever wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT), osr@uakron.edu wrote:
>
>> I’ve yet to see a “synthetic” yellow that ever comes close
>>to a direct yellow.
>
> Would not “compiled” be a better term?
>
> There is a video of a Thai dance that used a lot of yellow lasers.
>
> Quite a beautiful dance, even though it gives the impression that young
>girls and women are enslaved to such “service” in life. Then they pick
>the best and prettiest dancers from that crop to actually put “on
>display”.
>
> A lot of them look real hot, but then my 18 or older alarm starts
>sounding, because even though some of them are surely of adult age, many
>did not look that way.
>
> Anyway, they had a LOT of pure yellow lasers going and it certainly
>does light everything up with a real yellow tinge.
>
> Still, an LCD panel is a backlit filter array more than anything else,
>so this added ‘pixel’ into the ‘pixel mosh pit’ might make for a
>’compiled pixel’ that actually expands the color space use quite a bit.
>
> Funny how I had to explain to a guy at work the other day how the three
>colors add up to black on a printer and white on a display. I had to
>explain to him the differences between additive and subtractive color
>mixing and how an opaque “color” will add together to form black.
>
> He acted like he still didn’t believe me as he went back to his
>workstation. I did not have time from my work to go into any great depth
>of show him how a display adds up the same three colors differently than
>the printer does. Most all printers use opaque inks, not transparent
>inks
If that is true, than Canon BJC600 and i560 printers are other than
“most all printers”, at least as far as the colored inks go.
However, transparent inks follow subtractive color mixing well.
– Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 6:48 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In , Archimedes’ Lever wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT), osr@uakron.edu wrote:
>
>>With 8 bit RGB alone, I have a theoretical 16.8 million color
>>system. In reality, we would use 32 or 64 color palettes. More then
>>that is overload.
>
> We cannot even see what a modern display is capable of. They can all
>pretty much produce colors that we are not able to discern. Our useable,
>readable, “seeable” “color space” is INSIDE of what they can produce
>already.
At least nearly all red laser pointers, many red LEDs and a fair number
of red traffic signals (mainly incandescent ones and the GaAlAsP LED ones
common in Philadelphia but not anywhere else I have been) have a red color
that I easily find to be a deeper, more pure shade of red than the red
phosphor in CRT monitors and TV sets, the main reddish wavelength of most
CCFL lamps, and the usaul InGaAlP red LEDs.
And how about a usual green InGaAlP LED filtered by a layer or two of
green Plexiglas or the like? I have yet to see any monitor or TV set
produce a green like that, let alone the nice deep emerald green of the
514.9/515.3 nm line pair of high pressure sodium or the deep blue-green
of the 497.9/498.3 line pair of high pressure sodium, or the vivid deep
blue-greenish turquoise of the 486.1 nm line of hydrogen.
Heck, I have yet to see a monitor or TV set achieve the deep lime
green of 532 nm laser pointers, but sometimes some look close. And
turquoise-side blue InGaN LEDs have a color that I have yet to see in a
monitor or a TV set, so does a 473 nm turquoise blue laser.
– Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 1:58 am
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:05:05 -0700, mike wrote:
>Greegor wrote:
>> Is there any truth to their claim that adding Yellow to RGBY
>> enables them to represent colors that RGB cannot?
>>
>> Are Yellows hard to produce with RGB Displays?
>>
>Ability of the display is only part of the equation.
>What about the source material?
>If I’m watching a 5 year old DVD manufactured for a 3-color
>display, will I perceive any difference.
>
>Can’t watch pictures of yellow synthetic fish all day…
Did they ‘create’ that fish inside of a computer simulator, or are you
full of shit and they filmed that fish with a four sub-pixel camera?
Bwuahahahahaah!
I already posted that the source material would also have to contain
additional information for such a system to work correctly. Would be no
harder to store the data, but one would have to engineer a new set of
source generation tools.
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 2:00 am
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:05:36 -0700, Fred Abse
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:57:17 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> I used to love the way US newscasters drifted between ghoulish green and
>> purple in the days before they were clamped to pale orange leather. I
>> always believed it was a limitation of NTSC broadcast signals until I
>> lived in Japan where they manage to do it correctly.
>
>Newscasters *are* orange
And my head jerks a lot when I watch them…
Or is that *him* shaking ?
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 2:01 am
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:05:36 -0700, Fred Abse
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:57:17 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> I used to love the way US newscasters drifted between ghoulish green and
>> purple in the days before they were clamped to pale orange leather. I
>> always believed it was a limitation of NTSC broadcast signals until I
>> lived in Japan where they manage to do it correctly.
>
>Newscasters *are* orange
For some reason, I also thought of ‘Liquid Sky’
Even though there isn’t even the most remote connection.
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 2:01 am
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:36:14 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:57:17 +0100, Martin Brown
> wrote:
>
>>I used to love the way US newscasters drifted between ghoulish green and
>>purple in the days before they were clamped to pale orange leather. I
>>always believed it was a limitation of NTSC broadcast signals until I
>>lived in Japan where they manage to do it correctly.
>
>NTSC = No True Skin Colors?
>
>>Regards,
>>Martin Brown
Cover the entire gamut… Never Twice Same Color
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:07 pm
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:29:31 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
>In , Archimedes’ Lever wrote:
>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT), osr@uakron.edu wrote:
>>
>>> I’ve yet to see a “synthetic” yellow that ever comes close
>>>to a direct yellow.
>>
>> Would not “compiled” be a better term?
>>
>> There is a video of a Thai dance that used a lot of yellow lasers.
>>
>> Quite a beautiful dance, even though it gives the impression that young
>>girls and women are enslaved to such “service” in life. Then they pick
>>the best and prettiest dancers from that crop to actually put “on
>>display”.
>>
>> A lot of them look real hot, but then my 18 or older alarm starts
>>sounding, because even though some of them are surely of adult age, many
>>did not look that way.
>>
>> Anyway, they had a LOT of pure yellow lasers going and it certainly
>>does light everything up with a real yellow tinge.
>>
>> Still, an LCD panel is a backlit filter array more than anything else,
>>so this added ‘pixel’ into the ‘pixel mosh pit’ might make for a
>>’compiled pixel’ that actually expands the color space use quite a bit.
>>
>> Funny how I had to explain to a guy at work the other day how the three
>>colors add up to black on a printer and white on a display. I had to
>>explain to him the differences between additive and subtractive color
>>mixing and how an opaque “color” will add together to form black.
>>
>> He acted like he still didn’t believe me as he went back to his
>>workstation. I did not have time from my work to go into any great depth
>>of show him how a display adds up the same three colors differently than
>>the printer does. Most all printers use opaque inks, not transparent
>>inks
>
> If that is true, than Canon BJC600 and i560 printers are other than
>”most all printers”, at least as far as the colored inks go.
>
> However, transparent inks follow subtractive color mixing well.
>
> – Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
Stacking the three bases overlapped makes what color in the center
overlapped area from a jet printer?
And then from a laser? Are toner powders transparent dyes, not opaque
fine powders?
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:09 pm
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:48:14 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:
>In , Archimedes’ Lever wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 05:28:34 -0700 (PDT), osr@uakron.edu wrote:
>>
>>>With 8 bit RGB alone, I have a theoretical 16.8 million color
>>>system. In reality, we would use 32 or 64 color palettes. More then
>>>that is overload.
>>
>> We cannot even see what a modern display is capable of. They can all
>>pretty much produce colors that we are not able to discern. Our useable,
>>readable, “seeable” “color space” is INSIDE of what they can produce
>>already.
>
> At least nearly all red laser pointers, many red LEDs and a fair number
>of red traffic signals (mainly incandescent ones and the GaAlAsP LED ones
>common in Philadelphia but not anywhere else I have been) have a red color
>that I easily find to be a deeper, more pure shade of red than the red
>phosphor in CRT monitors and TV sets, the main reddish wavelength of most
>CCFL lamps, and the usaul InGaAlP red LEDs.
>
> And how about a usual green InGaAlP LED filtered by a layer or two of
>green Plexiglas or the like? I have yet to see any monitor or TV set
>produce a green like that, let alone the nice deep emerald green of the
>514.9/515.3 nm line pair of high pressure sodium or the deep blue-green
>of the 497.9/498.3 line pair of high pressure sodium, or the vivid deep
>blue-greenish turquoise of the 486.1 nm line of hydrogen.
> Heck, I have yet to see a monitor or TV set achieve the deep lime
>green of 532 nm laser pointers, but sometimes some look close. And
>turquoise-side blue InGaN LEDs have a color that I have yet to see in a
>monitor or a TV set, so does a 473 nm turquoise blue laser.
>
> – Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
You look into lasers?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Through Hole vs. Surface Mount
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 7:50 am
From: Robert Baer
Joerg wrote:
> Robert Baer wrote:
>> Joerg wrote:
>>> Martin Riddle wrote:
>>>> “Chris” wrote in message
>>>> news:fbd910e4-f10e-42d8-a193-bb9c7a1cd19f@c2g2000pre.googlegroups.com…
>>>>
>>>>> I have just completed a designing a board that has 5 16 pin ICs. I
>>>>> was planing on etching and drilling myself, but after my last project
>>>>> took for ever to drill far fewer holes, I was considering going
>>>>> surface mount. I am only planing to make three at first. Should I
>>>>> stick to through hole for the ease of hand soldering, or should I
>>>>> switch to decaf and wait a month and try my hand at surface mount.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> A glass of Guinness works much better
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Comments Welcome,
>>>>> Chris Maness
>>>>
>>>> I second the SMT try. It’s not as difficult as it seems. Get a
>>>> good magnifier , headband type.
>>>> A good pair of tweezers, fine tips for your iron, and fine 0.015″
>>>> solder helps too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I like 0.015″ Kester No-Clean best. No mess.
>>>
>>>
>>>> There are some good parts out there that only come in SMT.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, like tons of great RF transistors or fast opamps.
>>>
>> “No-Clean”? GACK! avoid that junk like the plague it is…
>
>
> I’ve had no issues at all with it. Very clean solder joints, and they
> stay clean.
>
1) What do you use to clean the glop off?
2) What about leakage current issues?
3) What about high voltage issues?
4) What about reliability issues if glop is left alone?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anybody know a decent scanner that works in Linux?
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 7:56 am
From: Robert Baer
Jan Panteltje wrote:
> Anybody know a decent scanner that works in Linux?
> Preferably not Canon.
What you really mean is “are there any decent scanners that have
available Linux drivers”.
Am sure there are a fair number of decent scanners…
Pick one you like, find the maker on the web, check for a driver or
ask. Next see if there is a 3rd party driver.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: NiCad batteries not in use for a long time/discharged
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 1:55 am
From: Archimedes’ Lever
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:58:26 -0700, mike wrote:
>Gary Peek wrote:
>> Any NiCad battery experts out there? For a NiCad battery pack that
>> has not been in use for a long time, like a year, and has discharged
>> well below the point of operating the circuit it was powering, what
>> is the best way to restore it to use? Is charging it in the normal
>> manner good enough, or are a couple of charge/discharge cycles better?
>>
>> — news://freenews.netfront.net/ – complaints: news@netfront.net —
>
>beware shorted cells.
>I’ve seen many a wall-wart melted because they’re designed to charge
>all-good cells. When one or more cells shorts, the wall-wart has
>insufficient current to blow out the short, so it burns itself up
>trying to stuff unlimited current into fewer cells. That can also
>over heat the good cells. Happens a lot with power tools.
>
Well, it does NOT happen with the wall wart type you describe. For one
thing, they charge in pairs, and one pair does not affect the other, so
at the very most, you would surge ONE already charged battery.
However, they also nearly all have a watchdog circuit that checks the
batteries at the first insertion and application of power (plugging it
in). I have never seen one that could or would charge or apply a charge
or surge, that could heat it or the battery up to the melting point of
the plastic, much less its flash point.
>It’s safer to use an external supply to zap any shorts and get the
>pack voltage up past 1V/cell before attempting to use the stock charger.
Seal packs are a different case, for sure. Single cells, had they
NEVER been commonly referred to as “batteries” to begin with, would have
solved any ambiguities that still exist there. Folks would understand
discussions about memory effect, etc. far better.
Parts is parts. We should call a single cell a cell and a battery a
battery.
They are AAA, AA, C, and D CELLS. It is a ‘Nine Volt BATTERY’.
The BATTERY pack on your computer, drill, Portable DVD player, etc.,
are made up of two or more CELLS of various and sundry sizes and voltages
and electro-chemical energy storage technologies.
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 30 2010 8:12 am
From: Robert Baer
messianic light wrote:
> I am just starting with idea to design a digitally controlled analogue
> synthesizer
>
> does anyone have basic analogue synthesizer circuits to get me going
> with breadboard design?
The Theremin comes to mind…
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:12 pm
From: a7yvm109gf5d1@netzero.com
Just installed the 9.0 PADS suite from Mentor, I’m using it as a
viewer to look at a contractor’s pcb work.
I’m having a hard time with two simple things:
1) I can’t for the life of me figure out how to turn on the rat’s
nests. I think they’re called unroutes in the PADS world. The designer
somehow turned them all off and I’ve tried in vain to get them to show
again. How do you do this?
There’s a net visibilty window and the settings here seem to affect
nothing. It doesn’t seem to be a color issue either.
2) Reporting and selecting things on-screen seem weak in PADS. I’m
more of an Allegro guy. In Allegro I can select a bunch of things and
generate a report on all the items. PADS seems to be able to handle
only one item at a time in its properties dialog. This can not be
real…
Suppose I select 24 items on the screen with the nets filter, how can
I generate a text file with all the relevant info for the 24 nets?
TIA
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Reverse or inverse ARP from windows/linux – no way (!?!?)
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 29 2010 7:22 pm
From: Didi
On Mar 30, 1:44 am, Hans-Bernhard Bröker
wrote:
> Didi wrote:
> > I tried today to figure out a simple way to give users of our
> > new netmca (http://tgi-sci.com/tgi/nmcatb.htm) to locate its
> > IP address once it gets one via dhcp when there is no internet
> > at the moment
>
> I believe that, strictly speaking, that can’t happen. If you have no
> internet at the moment, you don’t have DHCP either. Remember that DHCP
> itself is a UDP service. UDP in turn works on top of IP, and that, for
> better or for worse, is “internet”.
Oh no. Here we go again. I got quite a few really insightful replies
and
now this.
There are DHCP servers in the absence of internet. For example, a
popular
type of cable models do assign IP addresses of the 192.168…. kind
when it has no link over the TV cable. Routers do that whether they
are linked to the internet or not. On which planet do you live.
>
> > Turned out there is nothing like an easy way to do that!
>
> Well, the problem is nowhere near as easy as it appears at first sight.
> It’s called a “network” because it’s _work_ to set up a properly
> functioning net.
Thank for the opinion. But you are posting to groups where some
minimal
understanding of how things work is implied, these are not general
talk
forums. Have a look at the thread in its entity and you will see what
I mean. No offense meant, just being practical and trying to save time
to myself and the rest of the people who really had something to say.
>
> > How on Earth is that possible?!
>
> You’ll want to look up “zero config networking”. That’s what the big
> guys came up with to address this very same issue. You’ll see Apple
> mentioned rather a lot, for their “Rendezvouz”/”Bonjour” project.
No. I was quite particular explaining what I wanted, the fact that you
did not understand it should have indicated to you that you are
about to post to a thread you do not understand.
>
> And let me point out I’m completely flabbergasted that nobody mentioned
> this before me — not over here in c.a.embedded, anyway. I mean, come
> on guys: not a single owner of an Apple Airport base station speaking
> up, wondering what all these people keep talking about for days, when a
> “normal” WLAN box just does the job???
Same answer. The fact that you did not understand what we were talking
about should have been sufficient for you to grasp that the topic is
outside of your competence and that you have nothing to contribute.
Do you talk to Jesus when you are stuck on a tough electronics