Newsgroup sci.geo.geology 31699

Directory

Perhaps, if we wish to continue this point, we should move to direct
E-Mail. It's off subject, at least for my news Group, Sci.geo.geology.
However:
In article <4vhjll$s3u@dole.uninett.no>, Onar Aam  wrote:
>In article , Bob Berger  wrote:
>>All right all you experts, is geometry (or any branch of mathematics) a
>>science? Seems to me mathematics is a game. You select a set of "rules",
>>apply them to a set of "objects", see what happens when you do. It has
>>nothing to do with reality.
>This shows that you have no fundamental understanding of mathematics
>whatsoever.
Thirty years ago, that's what my senior thesis advisor kept saying for
almost a year, only he wasn't so polite about it. Geez, does it still
show?...
>There is a general conception that mathematics is an intermediate between
>empirical and fantasmic structures. These "rules" that you call them are not
>chosen randomly. They are very much inspired by the structure of our own
>perception, consciousness and language, which in turn was shaped by the world
>we live in. A set, for instance, isn't just an arbitrary concept. It's a concept
>that tries to capture the essence of conceptual structure. Similarly, geometry is
>strongly inspired by what we see. The world appears geometrical to us and this
>has inspired mathematicians to abstract what they have seen into a language:
>geometry.
The problem is: there isn't one geometry, there are many. Consider the
works of Gauss, Bolyai, Lobachevsky, and Riemann on non-Euclidean
geometries. What I'm referring to is Euclid's fifth postulate (rule):
(which can be stated as) "through a given point can be drawn only one
line parallel to a given line". There are at least two other
possibilities: there are no such lines, or there are many. If one is
careful about the crafting of the other four postulates, these two
assumptions lead to consistent geometeries. And these, until general
relativity, had little to do with the world as we experience it.
As a reference on what mathematics is, let me suggest "An Introduction
To the Foundations & Fundamental Concepts Of Mathematics" by Eves and
Newsom, published in 1958 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston. It's real easy
reading; and chapter 3, especially pages 63 through 72, covers the
question I raised. To quote (without permission) a bit:
  "... there are consequences of the consistency of the non-Euclidean
   geometries which are much more far-reaching than the statement of
   the parallel postulate problem. One of the chief of these is the
   liberation of geometry from its traditional mold. The postulates of
   geometry become, for the mathematician, mere hypotheses whose
   physical truth or falsity need not concern him; the mathematician
   may take his postulates to suit his pleasure, so long as they be
   consistent with one another. A postulate, as the word is employed
   by the mathematician, has nothing to do with "self-evidence" or
   "truth".
   "Indeed, the consistency of the non-Euclidean geometries not only
   liberated geometry but had a similar effect on mathematics as a
   whole. Mathematics emerged as an arbitrary creation of the human
   mind, and not as something essentially dictated to us of necessity
   by the world in which we live".
Also, (again without permission) from "The Development Of Mathematics"
by E. T. Bell, page 300, published in 1945 by McGraw-Hill:
   "In precisely the same way that a novelist invents characters,
    dialogs, and situations of which he is both author and master,
    the mathematician devises at will the postulates upon which he
    bases his mathematical systems. Both the novelist and the
    mathematician may be conditioned by their environments in the
    choice and treatment of their material; but neither is compelled
    by any extrahuman, eternal necessity to create certain characters
    or invent certain systems".
The sciences, on the other hand, attempt to describe the real world, I
think; and thus my question.

jimbone@speed.net (Jim Bone) wrote:
>Does anyone know of a good sci.geo.geology.? group that
>bans cross-posts?
>_help!_
  I wish!   That asinine "my country is better than yours"
thread is about as juvenile as they come.   Unfortunately
the only solution I know of is equally repugnant, a
moderated newsgroup.

In article <4vdp5l$1hi@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>Frank_Hollis-1@sbphrd.com (Triple Quadrophenic) wrote:
>} 
>} Name three. Oh, and as you're so keen on correct scientific procedure, all 
>} three places must be capable of producing this type of rock with the correct 
>} elemental and isotopic compositions.
>
>singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) writes:
>>
>>You must be implying that you know so much about planetary formation
>>processes that there could only be a single place in the cosmos which
>>could produce such ratios.  Now which is more unlikely, these particular
>>ratios or planets in the cosmos which might have life on them?  
>
>You tell us.  At one time or another you have claimed some sort of 
>expertise on planetary geology.
Not so, Jim.  I've never claimed to be an expert on planetary geology. 
I've only claimed to have a new mechanism for planetary formation besides
the old saw 'accretion'. This new mechanism provides a means for a planet
to increase both its volume and its mass over geologic time periods.
>  You have asserted that there are 
>far more plausible explanations than a Martian origin for this 
>meteorite.  Name some.  I will settle for two. 
Well, we have debris in an orbit between Mars and Jupiter which could be
the remenants of a planet or a moon or perhaps of both.  That there is no
currently known mechanism for the explosion of a planet from internal
sources does not mean that one does not exist so that there may have been
a planet which exploded and left most of the remenants of that explosion
in its previous orbit.  Meteorites which have devastated the surface of
Mars, our moon, probably our planet and other planets are likely from that
planet and as such originated from every strata right down to the core.
>>So we would have to look closer to home.  What do you know about isotope
>>ratios, say, from 10 miles below the surface to the core of our own
>>planet?  
>
>You would have to come up with a plausible mechanism to transport those 
>rocks from deep within the earth to Antarctica while never appearing 
>from volcanoes or in the vicinity of impact craters.  Try again. 
If you assume that the volume and the surface of the earth was always the
same then that becomes problematic.  But you are tossing a red herring
here because I was pointing to the paucity of data on information of about
isotope ratios just in the strata of our own planet let alone our lack of
knowledge about it for other planets and moons.   Perhaps the material
came from the moon originally by a very deep blasting asteroid?  How many
planets and moons in our solar system are capable of being hit by an
asteroid and having ejecta which have escape velocities sufficiently low
to avoid destruction of the material being exjected itself.  Even the
earth, if significantly smaller in its ancient past, could have served as
the source of the material.
>>Or perhaps of any other planet in the solar system?  
>
>If it is extraterrestrial, that is as significant as if it were Martian. 
Only if it really contains conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial life
(which means that the earth itself could not have been its source - taking
into account that the earth might have been significantly smaller in its
ancient past).
>>The real
>>facts are that our data table is practically empty except for that info we
>>have been able to gain from surface observations.  
>
>It happens that the meteorite was found on the surface. 
Non-sequitor, Jim.  I'm saying what data we have in our data table which
fills in our knowledge about the abundance of various isotope ratios
originated from surface samples only or from near the surface (core
samples).
-- 
C. Cagle
Singularity Technologies, Inc.
1640 Oak Grove Road, N.W.
Salem, OR  97304
Ph: 503/362-7781
"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas.  If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
                - Howard Aiken

In article <321CC31E.5D6E@ssl.berkeley.edu>,
Steve Geller   wrote:
>The theory about the Moon that I find most interesting is the notion
>that the pumping action of the tides was responsible for life.
Or maybe for life emerging from the sea.
No significant Martian moon currently.
However, the Sun causes diurnal tides too, but of lesser amplitude.
People who live on the coasts during winter storms are well aware
of the synergestic effects of the solar and lunar tides.  
The earth is nearest to the Sun in January.

In article <$Kbg+SAtKOHyEwvw@kennedym.demon.co.uk>, Kennedy  writes:
>In article <4vhrme$m48@news.sandia.gov>, Kent Budge  writes
>>Kennedy  wrote:
>>..
>>>To quote the big E on receipt of his Nobel Prize :
>>>"I may have seen further than anyone else, but I stood on a lot of
>>>peoples shoulder's to do so!"
>>
>>I thought it was Newton who said this.  
>
>Na, Newton was far to arrogant to admit that others had helped him along
>the way and, of course he couldn't have been a Nobel Laureate ;=)
>
Actually, it was Newton.  The quote as I recall it goes "If I have 
seen further then others, that's because I stood on the shoulders of 
giants".  While being arogant, he could recognize greatness in others.
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

In article , spwebb@iafrica.com (Sean Webb) writes:
> 
> On 8/20/96 7:51PM, in message , 
> Andy Newman  wrote:
> 
> > In article , Sean Webb
> >  writes
> > >
> > >
> > >how many americans know where the netherlands are ??
> > >
> > 
> > I heard some disturbing rumours a while back about the percentage of
> > American graduates who couldnt point to the USA on a world map...never
> > mind the netherlands... 20% I think it was...
> > 
> > Almighty, Inviolate, and Omnipresent  -  Physics.
> >         Squint.
> 
> They conducted a test some years back , late 80's i think. They showed an outline 
> Map of europe & GB and asked them to mark where london would be.
> Less than 20% were any where near close.
> 
> Sean Webb
> 
> 'Ignorance is bliss provided to keep it to yourself'
> 
that is because nobody wants to go there...
rp
-- 
 Intel, Corp.
 5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
 Chandler, AZ  85226

In article <4v796k$dtf@skipper.netrail.net>, kaz@upx.net (KAZ Vorpal) writes:
>In Newsgroup alt.life-mars, Zepp (zepp@snowcrest.net) wrote:
>>)There's one enormous problem with your argument, Peter -- the cost of the 
>>)entire NASA program is roughly equivalent to the Capitol cafeteria funds, 
>>)plus maybe the funds spend on bullshit "elect ME" mailout privs for 
>>)congresscritters.  Eliminating NASA altogether would redcuce the deficit, ok 
>>)-- for, oh, about ten minutes.  Then the difference would be gone.  Ever 
>>)hear the phrase "penny-wise, pound-foolish"?  That's what that argument is. 
>>) The fallout, in terms of tech advances, from the space program far 
>>)outweighs the cost of same.  The more we do, the bigger said tech advances 
>>)become.  In case you hadn't noticed, things're getting just a smidge crowded 
>>)down here.  Do you really think it's wise to have all our eggs in one, 
>>)rather fragile, basket?  All it would take, right now, is one mid-sized 
>>)asteroid, and bye-bye humans.  We CAN develop the means to solve that 
>>)problem -- but we have to go out into space to do it.  Me, I'm for survival.
>
>
>	You are exactly wrong. On what do you base the ridiculous claim 
>that we would lose ANY technology if we disbanded NASA tomorrow? The fact 
>that the Shuttle is over twenty years out of date, and will be well over 
>thirty when it's finally disbanded, thirty years too late? Is this your 
>wonderful technological advancement? More like technological lead weight, 
>keeping us from moving forward and being /current/. By the time the 
>shuttle replacement gets up and running, it will /already/ be twenty 
>years out of date itself.
umm the thing works from a technical prespective.  besides those o-rings
what about it needs updating that would justify the cost of doing the
updating, since you seem to be so concerned about economic justifications.
until it can not proform its job safely or it is majorly outdated( what
would it take to really out date a chemical based propolsion system??)
it will be used, this is what businesses do all the time or have you
not noticed. by this logic we should never use any navy ships that are
over say ten years old, or do you want to pay for building a new fleet 
every 10 years?
>	NASA works by slogging along, making "advancements" which are 
>primarily re-engineering. It is like the difference between pine/lynx, 
>created in the "academic" world building marginally on elm, which built 
>marginally on mail, and Eudora/MSEI against Netscape. The private sector 
>is always more efficient, more progressive, and is always /justified/, 
>because it is funded on resources /voluntarily/ provided. This means it 
>is always "worth" what it is payed, not funded by money which, 
>apparently, nobody feels it is worth. NASA could not, you socialists 
>maintain, survive as a private business...well then, it is not /worth/ 
>surviving, since value is what people are willing to exchange for 
>something.
never mind that there are about 10 aerospace companies that would never
have produced anything close to what they have done by working, admited
only slightly, together if they had worked alone.  NASA is not just the
agency itself, it is a network of aerospace companies working hand in
hand with that agency to accomplish its goals.  without NASA as a middle
man do you think that lockheed would ever talk to any other aerospace
company or share information with the public?
>	Thus your statement that "technological advances far outweigh the 
>costs" is obviously false, even ignoring the lack of said advances. If 
>they were even /worth/ the cost, then the private sector would by 
>definition be able to fund it.
what lack of advances? or do you still ride around in single engine
airplanes and use a sliderule to do math.  much of the technology that
is under and running our current society was produced by the drive
to put something on the moon.  most of the advances are in the sciences
so the average person does not see or feel them, but they are there.
you see there is a reason why historians refer to the end of the
20th century as the space age, because the space race is what turned
the culture toward wanting to develope high tech.  high tech does not
fund itself immediately, just look at how long it took computers to
get into homes. 
>	And talk about putting all of your eggs in one basket! What 
>exactly do you think NASA is? It's one damned basket, with no competition 
>against which it can be measured, and no need to return /value/ which can be 
>measured against the burden of its expenses. If NASA, and government 
>interference in aerospace, didn't exist, then instead of our eggs all 
>FORCED into one bureaucratized, historically /failed/ basket, we would 
>have a diversity of experiments and exploration of /new/ technologies 
>with the same money. Sure, no one business will have the massive funds 
>that NASA has, but the cumulative effect will be much greater, as each 
>business will be /responsible/ to justify its expenses versus a fair set 
>of measurements.
no you would have about 5 or so individual companies all doing the
EXACT same thing and none of them talking to each other or sharing
any data with the public.  the fact that the companies would not
work together is why they would not have accomplished nearly as much.
currently projects are mainly worked on by one company( which ever
one got the plans done first usually), so there is not major duplication
of work.  also there is a decent level of sharing of information learned.
>	Speaking of accumulation, you ignore another HUGE problem with 
>the government's destruction of our society which DOES mean that NASA 
>must be de-funded. The death of a thousand cuts. "A billion here, a 
>billion there, and eventually it adds up to real money". Not only are 
>government leeches so good at stealing trillions from the People that 
>they no longer consider a hundred billion wasted on some program to be a 
>big deal(give me a hundredth of a percent of THAT!), but worse, there a a 
>LOT of programs...none of which INDIVIDUALLY would affect the budget, but 
>which /cumulative/ add up to many times more than the deficit. We must 
>cut MANY of them...and the fact that no ONE program will make a dent 
>means cutting that ONE program is that much more urgent, because the 
>problem is far bigger than anything one program could solve.
ok get rid of the $400 hammers, then start talking about cutting
actually projects.  or do you not realize that the military wastes
more money than is spent by NASA?  or yeah and next time you see a
weather forcast think about the how and why it can be made.  or do
you want the weather service de-funded as well?  what will make a 
noticable dent in the budget is cutting the defense budget or at 
least getting rid of the insane over charging that is done in that
budget, or but i forget that is just free market greed at work we
cant comdem that now can we.
also find out what the actual budget for NASA is and what all is done
by NASA sometime.  from what you are saying i highly doubt you know
both of these.  NASA does more that space research, but if you know
what the name was you would know that now wouldnt you.
--
buckysan: does anyone else like ani-mayhem? 
          http://www4.ncsu.edu/eos/users/j/jgward/WWW/animay.html
annapuma and unapumma in 96'
 " the realization that the pursuit of knowledge can be an
   end unto itself is the beginning and highest form of wisdom"

In article <321A8AA2.24CB@nb.sympatico.ca>, Jim Grant
 wrote:
[snip]
> Do you think that Hebrew 
> peasants 4000 years ago would understand evolution if it were explained 
> to them?
Maybe they would have understood, if it were explained to them. They
just did not have the imagination and perspective to think of it out of
the blue.
Neither has science now, of course. We are just trying to make sense
of fossil finds, and their relation to living nature.
-- 
Regards, Cees Roos.
I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than
to have answers which might be wrong.  Richard Feynman 1981

>peter nelson (pnelson@lagoon.ultranet.com) wrote:
>:   I just don't see why the government, with its MASSIVE debt
>:   and deficit, should be spending money on anything that's 
>:   non-essential.   Let's face it, if we don't discover whether
>:   there's life on Mars, this is not going to have a big material
>:   impact on our lives.   You could argue that there are large
>:   "cosmic" or "spiritual" reasons to address questions like
>:   that but that's not what I pay taxes for.  
well there is the potential for biological and medical discoveries,
but i guess the chance of finding a cure for some of those pestky
disease is not important.  hey they could even find a virus that
can be used by the military, wonder if that would have it worth
these people time.
--
buckysan: does anyone else like ani-mayhem? 
          http://www4.ncsu.edu/eos/users/j/jgward/WWW/animay.html
annapuma and unapumma in 96'
 " the realization that the pursuit of knowledge can be an
   end unto itself is the beginning and highest form of wisdom"

In article <4vfrr9$156i@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, tfile@ibm.net (t-files) wrote:
> Currently the geology newgroup is in a total mess. What are the
> options available for moderation? What about the retromoderation that
> is being discussed for sci.bio.paleontology? Are there subscribers to
> this group that would be willing to act as moderators? And like Steve
> wrote is there somebody who will take on the project of changing this
> to a moderated newsgroup?
> 
> BT wrote:
> 
> >Otherwise today's sci.geo.geology is mulch for tomorrow's crop.
I agree in general, but I think it's important for us scientists to keep
an eye on issues such as creationism, so I'd err on the side of having the
posts (off-topic as they are) in the open where we can see them. The
danger of having the list moderated is that creationists will claim, as
they often do, that scientists are "suppressing" their point of view, or
are covering up "evidence" that refutes evolution. We can't afford to
ignore this.

Hi! I'm a producer of underwater video and photography who is looking for
partners for endorsements and joint ventures! If interested, please reply
to:  apinto@easyway.net
For more about what I do, point your browser to
http://www.htmlcreator.com/apinto/
-- 
True Freedom Needs Cash!!!
http://www.freedomstarr.com/PI0469031.rep
"You make your own luck" 

In article <4vilsp$k6s@news.unocal.com>, stgprao@sugarland (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>However, the Sun causes diurnal tides too, but of lesser amplitude.
>People who live on the coasts during winter storms are well aware of
>the synergestic effects of the solar and lunar tides.  The earth is
>nearest to the Sun in January.
Tides fall off inverse cube.  I doubt the delta has any effect.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

I could've used this course several months ago.  "What is radar
interfereometry?" was asked on my written and oral doctorate exams. 
Ahhhhhhh!

alt.solar.photovoltaic                                                          unsubscribedIn article , Kennedy  writes:
> In article , Sean Webb
>  writes
> >On 8/19/96 2:20AM, in message 
> >, Kennedy 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> >Charles Cagle wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >[A lot of drivel deleted]
> >> >
> >> >> 
> >> >>  (I am not decrying US scientistsm,
> >> >> >who are no worse or no better than most other scientists. I just don't 
> >like
> >> >> >the blanket "everybody follows the US because we are so grat" mentality).
> >> >> 
> >> >> Now I know I've hooked one full of ignorant prattle.  You have let your
> >> >> national pride set your mouth in motion without your brain being in gear.
> >> >> That's what makes for easy fishing by the way.  Listen Aussie, go to your
> >> >> library and see if you can figure out just how many things which are
> >> >> taught in modern physics were purely Australian inventions compared to,
> >> >> say, purely American.  Or let's talk modern technology like the 
> >> 
> >> >telephone,
> >> Alexander Graham Bell : Scotland
> >> 
> >> >> motion pictures, 
> >> Louis & Auguste Lumiere : France
> >> 
> >> >television,
> >> John Logie Baird : Scotland
> >> 
> >> > transistors,
> >> William Bradford Shockley : England.
> >> John Bardeen : US
> >> Walter Brattain : China 
> >> 
> >> Ain't found the US as the pure - or even prime - inventors of any of the
> >> modern technology you refer to.  
> >> 
> >> Maybe the reason most of the great scientists in the US are foreigners
> >> is because the US wastes most of its eduacation budget trying to teach
> >> DICKHEADS LIKE YOU! 
> >> _______________________________________________________
> >> Kennedy
> >> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> >> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> >> Python Philosophers
> >
> >You forgot nicolas Tesla !!
> >
> >father of the 20th century. Did most of his work in the USA but was most 
> >definately not american. The first person ever to turn down a scientific nobel 
> >prize.
> >
> >The american don't invent , they buy the brains.
> >
> >The american space program ?
> >
> >Von Braun and his cronies courtesy of Germany.
> >
> >Einstein ?
> >
> >Why are so many forgein people in the states doing MOST of the work.
> >Cause they have the bucks , nothing else.
> >
> >As for american schooling ? backward !!
> >
> >Why do the yanks take 5 years for the PHD , when in the UK they take 3 ??
> >Because they need the extra two to catch up , pure and simple.
> >
> >The american schooling system classes below 85 IQ as being below entry level to 
> >state schools , Dooh !!
> >
> >Sean Webb
> >
> I think it is very difficult and misleading to make comparisons between
> education systems based on the number of years taken to obtain a certain
> grade or qualification.  Even in the UK you will find a large variation
> in the time required to obtain PhD's and even first degree's, depending
> on the content and the amount of field work or industrial placement
> involved.  Taking 5 years to obtain a doctorate does not mean that you
> are starting from a lower level than someone who takes 3 years, neither
> does it mean that you obtain a higher level - it all depends on how the
> educational programme is structured, and the culture under which it is
> considered.
> 
> The real reason that the majority of Americans are thick compared to
> their European and Far Eastern equivalents is that the media and culture
> which dominates their lives caters purely for the lowest common
> denominator and is driven by bean counters considering things like the
> ratings indices.  In the UK a large percentage of the TV airtime, for
> example, is educational, whether this is science and arts programming,
> news and documentary, historical drama or cultural awareness.  In the US
> this medium is virtually devoted to the entertainment of the mindless
> masses.  The same can be said for almost all of the media influences
> that the typical American is subjected to.  To an outsider the US media
> appears as an instrument for subduing the population at large.
> 
> This doesn't mean the the US does't have any good scientists or other
> professionals, they do and in many cases the individuals can be envied
> by the rest of the world.  However, given the cultural circumstances
> that they have to cope with, these *successes* have to be quite special
> individuals in the first place and/or have to work damned hard to make
> their achievements.
> 
> Under similar circumstances, how long would it have taken you to get a
> PhD ?
> _______________________________________________________
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> Python Philosophers
amazing!
rp 
-- 
 Intel, Corp.
 5000 W. Chandler Blvd.
 Chandler, AZ  85226

In article ,
   singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle) wrote:
>In article <4vdp5l$1hi@ds8.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) 
wrote:
>
>>  You have asserted that there are 
>>far more plausible explanations than a Martian origin for this 
>>meteorite.  Name some.  I will settle for two. 
>Well, we have debris in an orbit between Mars and Jupiter which could be
>the remenants of a planet or a moon or perhaps of both.  That there is no
>currently known mechanism for the explosion of a planet from internal
>sources does not mean that one does not exist so that there may have been
>a planet which exploded and left most of the remenants of that explosion
>in its previous orbit.  Meteorites which have devastated the surface of
>Mars, our moon, probably our planet and other planets are likely from that
>planet and as such originated from every strata right down to the core.
Isn't this rather ironic. Charles, the champion of non-falsifiable evidence, 
anti the Big Bang despite all the evidence to the contrary, Charles, who says 
that no theory should be propounded if it is not demonstrably, 100% correct, 
comes up with some hocus-pocustheory that a planet between Mars and Jupiter 
mysteriously exploded from some heretofore unknown mechanism!!! Ever heard of 
any reasonable balance of probabilities, Charles? You absolutely roast the 
findings of life on Mars, and then come up with some absolutely crackpot idea, 
with no supporting evidence whatsoever (Mars life does at least have some 
supporting evidence), and then expect us all to take it seriously!
Physics and the universe according to the demigod of science, Charles Cagle.
Dennis

In Newsgroup alt.life-mars, Brian Pickrell (pmaker@eskimo.com) wrote:
>)KAFOOOOOOOM!  Consider yourself massively flamed for these remarks.  You
>)are proposing a moratorium on sending people to Mars because there may be
>)bacteria there.  This is unacceptable because:
>)10) Why should it be a high priority?
>)9) You're risking gaining a reputation as a bacteria-hugger.
>)8) Your namesake would never have suggested anything like this.
His namesake, Heinlein, would have suggested that we end socialized space 
exploration and privatize it, methinks.
--
Words of the Sentient
Essential Reading List:
/The Ominous Parallels/ by Richard Peikoff
       mailto:kaz@upx.net | http://www.kaz.org/ | telnet://umb.upx.net:22
       See also #Polyamory, #Heinlein, and #Libertarian on the Undernet...

In article , Kennedy  writes:
>In article , daan
>Strebe  writes
>>You silly twit, the U.S. isn't supposed to, and doesn't want to, sustain
>>its current position if its most fundamental and important policies work.
>>And so far they *are* working. In the long run, the United States secures
>>its safety and future by seducing the rest of the world into similar
>>governmental and economic systems. If all goes as planned, eventually the
>>U.S. will constitute 4% of the world economy... and there won't be any
>>reasons left to engage in the kinds of wars Europe's superior educational
>>system has fomented over the past century.
>Like Vietnam.
>>
Comparing Vietnam to the European wars of this century is like 
comparing common cold to AIDS and saying "they're both viral 
diseases".  I suggest you look up the number of casualties in Vietnam 
and chack to how many days of the Somme this number corresponds.
>So, from the above statement we can conclude that the US has no wish to
>retain its position as the dominant market driving the development of
>technology and standards for the rest of the world to follow.
>
>I think this is where I came in to the Dumb & Dumber thread, to dispute
>the claims that it did.
>
>Case proven.
Commonly called "proof by obfuscation".  The thread was about the 
whether the US is driving the development of science and technology in 
the world, not about whether it has a wish to maintain this position.  
Mati Meron			| "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu		|  chances are he is doing just the same"

Felix J. Thibault wrote:
>Judson McClendon Wrote:
> >Felix J. Thibault wrote:
> >> Enlighten me as to why the following don't count,I forgot already:
> >>    Humans with-
> >>               appendices
> >>               males with nipples
> >>               body hair
> >>               segmental abdominal muscles
> >>               pinky toes
> >>               wisdom teeth
> >>               muscles to move ears (my granpa's worked-I'll be a monkey's
> >>               caudal vertabrae      uncle!-sorry guys,couldn't resist)
> >>               physiological responses to emotion suited to life in the
> >>               wilds,not the city.
> >>    Whales with vestigial pelvic girdles
> >>    Pythons with vestigial hind limbs[snip]
> 
> >All of these strike me as either trivial or something we just don't
> >understand.  Except that last one.
> 
> >  So the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this,
> >  you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the
> >  field; on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the
> >  days of your life. (Genesis 3:14)
> 
> >Did snakes used to walk, and are those the withered legs?  ;)
> 
> Could you explain why these structures are trivial? It seems to me that
> the original poster asked why there are no species in transition if we are
> evolving. My reply was a list of several features that could be
> transitional is some different animals, that fit in with the gradual
> notions of evolutionary change we have,and not the fairytale notions that
> the original poster suggested. Please enumerate why each stucture should
> not be considered confirmation of the evolutionary prediction that
> transitional forms will exist and explain why the omniscient omnipotence
> that is God would do a halfway job of removing legs from the ancestors of
> snakes if he was not using evolution to do it. Also,please note that I am
> not asking for alternative explanations, I am asking why these structures
> don't support evolution. This requires an answer,not a dismissal, as in
> your previous post.
Actually, my post was intended to be humerous.  I aplogize for not 
making that clear.  
I did not read the earlier posts in the thread, but I assume you listed 
these items as candidates for useless, perhaps half-formed somethings, 
indicating an intermediate form of some sort.
Oddly enough, I happen to have some knowledge of teeth.  I have written 
a significant amount of software for the department of health, much of 
which is for dental health.  To be sure, I verified what I am about to 
say with the director of dental health.  Wisdom teeth are not useless.  
In the 'great majority' of people, the wisdom teeth (3rd molars) are as 
useful as the other molars.  Also, when a 1st or 2nd molar is lost, the 
following molars move forward to close the gap.  In such cases the 
wisdom teeth serve as spares.  In cultures with poor dental health, this 
is pretty common.  The reason wisdom teeth are often pulled is NOT 
because they are useless, but because they are sometimes hard to brush, 
so are more prone to cavities.  The local health department does not 
advocate this unless there are problems with the wisdom teeth.
We see many things about the universe which seem to be there just to be 
beautiful or pleasing.  To my mind these are arguments for creation by a 
loving Creator.  An evolutionary process might produce lust, but love?  
Attraction maybe, but why beauty?  Why art?  I would place male nipples, 
pinkey toes and ear muscles in this category.  They are pleasing (ear 
muscles) or fitting (male nipples, pinkey toes).  Human body hair is 
actually useful to keep in heat, as well as pleasing.  I don't see these 
as arguments for evolution.
As for 'physiological responses to emotion suited to life in the wilds, 
not the city', I'm not sure which ones you mean, but if the Biblical 
account of creation is correct, Adam and Eve started out (after the 
fall) in pretty primitive conditions.  Cities were built later by man.
I haven't a clue what appendices or vestigial pelvic girdles would be 
for, but just because we don't know is no proof they don't have a 
function.  Aeronautical engineers didn't know why birds had those funny 
shaped tail feathers until they tried them in a wind tunnel.  I 
understand what that shape does with turbulence blew the engineers' 
socks off. :)
I can think of two very good reasons why God would leave those vestigial 
hind limbs on snakes.  One is a testament that He really did curse the 
serpent, and the other is that God definately has a sense of humor.
 1 Why do the nations rage, and the people plot a vain thing?
 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel
together, against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
 3 "Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from
us."
 4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; the LORD shall hold them in
derision.
 5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His
deep displeasure:
 6 "Yet I have set My King on My holy hill of Zion."
 7 "I will declare the decree: the LORD has said to Me, `You are My
Son, today I have begotten You.
 8 Ask of Me, and I will give You the nations for Your inheritance,
and the ends of the earth for Your possession.
 9 You shall break them with a rod of iron; you shall dash them to
pieces like a potter's vessel.'"
10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings; be instructed, you judges of the
earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and you perish in the way, when His
wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their
trust in Him. (Psalm 2)
-- 
Judson McClendon
Sun Valley Systems
Email: judsonmc@ix.netcom.com

Andrew Poulos writes:
"I recently saw a book called The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy
by Charles Officer and Jake Page. I skimmed through it while at the
bookstore and gathered that they think the Alvarez hypothesis is a
bunch of hooey. They not only disbelieve that an extraterrestrial body
impacting Earth caused the K-T extinction but claim that the Chicxulub
structure (crater) was caused by volcanism and not an impacting
asteroid/meteorite. What's the latest scoop on these theories? Do most
scientists still give credence to the Alvarez hypothesis or is it now
considered passe?"
My reply: Yes, I do think most scientists do give credence to the Alvarez
impact hypothesis as fitting most of the known observations, and that the
Chicxulub crater is most likely the site of the K-T impact event.  Quite a
few disagree about some of the details, such as whether the extinction of
any particular group of plants or animals was or was not a direct result
of the impact.  My personal opinion is that those scientists who are still
trying to argue that the impact did not happen, or that the Chicxulub
structure is other than an impact structure, are swimming upstream against
the current of knowledge--like those who, in decades past, persisted in
trying to argue that continental drift does not happen.
                                                  Peter J. Modreski
(U.S.G.S., Denver CO)

R. J. Register wrote:
[massive cut]
> In the area of origins, the use of science is very problematic.
[one more massive cut]
> I frankly do not see how any theory of origins can truly be called
> scientific, be it Creation, Evolution, Panspermia, or any other.
I have to agree with you on this one.  I had a discussion in 
sci.astro entitled "Hard Science" and another entitled 
"philosophy of Science cannot debate creationism and vice versa".
These are probably now only available in Deja News.  In these
I give a definition of science that is equivalent to the one
that folks normally use but that excludes much of the detective
work that scientists do that they often call science when it is 
really only detective work.  I think that you would enjoy the 
threads.
-leonard

trin@one.net wrote:
> Trouble?  Isn't God supposed to be forgiving?  
Actually, no.  From the discription of him given in the Bible, 
God is a vicious bastard who would just as soon rip your fucking
heart out as to look at you.  Now, most people cannot accept this,
so the myth of a forgiving God sprung up.  God does forgive 
people who confess, however.  Somehow folks have forgotten the
confession part.
> I went to church, and I
> went to chemistry and physics.  I simply followed what lines of
> thought made more sense to me.  Was this divine intervention?  Was
> this the devil's work?  Or was it my free will that made me decide?
> The free will that God gave me.  Gave me?  What am I, God's toy?  Are
> we just some big ant farm for Him to amuse himself with?
Actually, yes.  One of the prophets in the old testament recounts a
parable about the relationship between God and man (I forget now 
where it is).  He says that God is a potter and we are the pots that
he makes out of clay.  As the pots are turned on the wheel, some of
them show themselves to be defective.  He molds them back into line.
The pots are then fired.  If some still prove to be defective, then
he violently breaks them up, because they are useless.  He does note,
however, how breaking up the defective pots increases the value of
those which are not defective.  (This is probably not exactly right, 
since this is from memory.)
> I find just as much proff of Greek Mythology as I do of Christianity.
> Why is it wrong?  Ever notice how all religions teach morals?  How all
> religions have striking similarities throughout them.  I believe
> religion to have evolved from a very old and primitive system of
> keeping people in line, recording history, entertaining, and
> maintaining power.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying there isn't a God.  Perhaps God lives in the
> uncertainty principle as Steven Hawkings suggests.
If Steven Hawkings said this, then he knows nothing about God, or 
he is trying to confuse a lot of people.  The statement simply makes
no sense.
> If that is the
> case, and all God can do is modify parameters that will not affect our
> immediate measurements, then all of Physics holds, and evolution is
> still possible.  What's the difference if God has existed for eternity
> or the Universe has?
Let me give you a quote that doesn't contain nearly as much bullshit as
the one by Hawking (I apologize if someone has said it before):
God is to the Universe as Axioms are to Mathematics.
You can quote me if you want ;-)
-leonard

RICHTER SAID  -- .
.
Predictions based on positions of the sun and moon have to be regarded 
a trifle more
seriously, since there is evidence that tidal forces may occasionally 
act as triggers for
earthquakes otherwise on the point of taking place; in this way the 
date and hours of
occurrence  ( occurrence -two r's) may show a  slight statistical 
correlation with the
tides.
This theory is at an early stage and is  EXPERIMENTAL only.
Next window is for Aug.25th, 1996- A window is operational 1200 hours 
centering the given date and sometimes a few hours before and after 
the window - 
Thus 1200 Aug. 24th through 1200 hours Aug.26th - UTC is used.  This 
theory is not 
"yet" recognized by the scientific community or USGS and indicate only 
the possibility
for UNUSUAL and HIGH seismic activity.  Previous windows (see sample 
later on) have
accurately pin pointed earthquakes of a minimum of 6.0 and well above 
6.5.  " As above
as below", everything is interconnected.  The windows do not stop at 
earthquakes (HIGH)
probability/intensity but include various ways of  mother nature 
expressing herself
through destructive weather pattern.  
This negative celestial energy (cyclonic reasonance) also affects 
sophisticated electronics
equipments (planes/ boats/ trains/cars/ airport traffic control 
towers, generators/
electronics) thus the high possibility to experience 
failures/accidents leading to a lost of
general power as experienced with both "state blackouts" that struck 
inside my windows.  
Those windows do also affects "physical" computers (viruses) and 
(spiritual) computer
(brain) which is reacting with the subtle but real outside "stimuli". 
 Thus under those
windows, the worse elements of our society  will respond and act out 
(robotic
expressions) the will of the cosmos "Rodney King dilemma, Los Angeles 
riots etc.
producing dramatic news with the police force".
Please bear with me, but newcomers to this group need to read the 
following for themselves.
Sample - I have TONS of posts/ windows like this one. 
USGS - Message -ID: DG1t4Hv@goodnet.com -sender
news@goodnet.com (News Administrator) -Dr. Turi 
Newsgroups
-  sci.geo,sci.geo.geology,ca.earthquakes,hkbu,geog.maps - WEEKLY USGS 
Quake
Report 9/28-10/4/95  - in articleDG1t4H.v@goodnet.com>Oct 6h, 1995
drturi@goodnet.com says...
>From Dr. Turi - Dear Sirs: -  On Oct.8th and Oct.9th a very unusual 
seismic activity
will be noticeable and will produce many quakes above 6.1. More 
information are
available pertaining to my method if requested.  
Respectfully
Dr. Turi        
SUBJECT: RE:  Weekly USGS Quake Report
Full proofs of predictions:  
Oct. 8th a 7.0 EARTHQUAKE HIT SUMATRA (INDONESIAN ISLANDS)
Oct. 9th a 7.6 EARTHQUAKE HIT MEXICO -ARIZONA AMTRAK TRAIN
TERRORIST ATTACK ON THE POSTED "WINDOW" - A VOLCANOE ERUPTED
ON THE SIBERIAN COAST AND THREE TORNADOES HAPPENED "MID-WEST" 
ON THOSE DAYS.
/////@pl.nasa.gov   "drturi@goodnet.com>" Subject: request for 1996 
Top 
Universal Predictions. Content length 603 -  Newsgroups -   
sci.geo.geology, 
ca.earthquakes, hkbu, geo. maps -WEEKLY - USGS Quake report  
9/28-10/4/95 
   Message -ID: DG1t4Hv@goodnet.com
         Kudos to you Dr. Turi!
     I surf the Internet periodically for predictions on forthcoming 
events, 
specifically all relating to earthquake activities.  You hit the 
11/22/95 
Egypt/Israel/Saudia Arabia 7.2 quake smack dab on the head, per your 
earlier 
prediction. Congratulations again!
E-Mail       Keep up the good work.  
Appreciatively, private 
For 1996 - 1997 Universal Predictions visit -  
http://www.salemctr.com/newage.html
Respect fully to all.
Dr. Turi

In article , Chris Jacobs  wrote:
>
>I never saw this either. Moreover it seems that once the account of AP was
>suspended because of anti-semitic postings in its own name (something with
>the jew york times). 
>
>1. This makes it unlikely that there are now anti-semitic postings of him
>in the name of others.
"unlikely"??
You haven't been paying attention.
I posted stuff several times and AP intentionally misquoted
it, putting in his anti-semitic sentiments, which he attributed
to me.
(Claims that Einstein only won the Nobel prize because
the news media are all controlled by Jews, etc.)
He worked the names of officials at my institution into
his posts as an implied threat against me.
I quoted his posts, correctly attributing his misquotes to him.
He's a real scumbag.
Check back through dejanews.com for these posts,
if you're interested.
-- 
John Chandler
jpc@a.cs.okstate.edu

 Achim Recktenwald  writes:
>system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>> 
>[snip]
>> 
>> Given a decent telescope the old proof of seeing a ships sails before
>> the hull, as well as other proofs listed earlier in this thread
>> shows fairly simply that the Earth is round and that that would
>> have been known to the contemporaries of Columbus.
>> 
>[snip]
>You have a small problem, the telescope was invented about 200years
>after Columbus.
sigh, I knew I should have looked that up.
One can make the arguement without a telescope but it is weaker, since
the sails are larger than the ship.  I don't know enough about the
details of the size of ships in those days.  All moot since
historical records show they knew that it was round.
OTOH I grew up in Waukegan, Illinois USA, just 10 miles south of
Zion, where the flat earthers were going strong at least into the
1920s.  I am not sure what was taught in the schools though.
>Achim
Robert
Morphis@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers

In article <321DA054.387D@paragon-networks.com>, Doug McKean
 writes
>
>
>Like I said. Best to compare england to Maine.
>
Why.  Only your uncorroborated ramblings suggest anything other than
like Maine, England is only a part of the larger sovereign state.
You might as well post 'Best to compare Dalrymple to Goleta'
or 'Best to compare Chelmsford, Ma. to Chelmsford, Essex'
or 'Best to compare Billericay to Billerica'
or 'Best to compare Ermintrude the Ayrshire to Griselda the Texas
Longhorn'   ;=)
_______________________________________________________
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers