Subject: Today on Galileo - September 5, 1996
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Date: 5 Sep 1996 16:18 UT
TODAY ON GALILEO
September 5, 1996
Countdown: 1 day to Ganymede flyby
Yesterday's orbital adjustment was cancelled because targeting after
the previous adjustment was determined to be sufficiently accurate.
Today, Galileo's camera continues taking selected images of a crescent Io to
look for plumes against the dark sky as Galileo gets closer to Jupiter. The
spacecraft is now only 25 Jupiter radius distances from the giant planet,
and it is 700 million km from Earth. This morning, the NIMS instrument
completes its global map of Jupiter looking at 5 infrared "colors", and the
UVS instrument observes Europa again to look at its surface properties.
Throughout the day, the Fields and Particles continue their collection of
magnetospheric data. Of particular interest to these intruments, in the late
morning, Galileo passes through Callisto's L-shell, the region where
magnetic field lines cross Jupiter's magnetic equator. Tomorrow, the main
activities start for closest approach to Ganymede.
Additional information on Galileo and its mission is available on the
Galileo home page:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/galileo/
___ _____ ___
/_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
| | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab |
___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ Pasadena, CA | Either man is alone in the
/___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| | universe, or he is not. Either
|_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | alternative is mind-boggling.
Subject: Re: New groups - discussion - philosophy
From: Richard Adams
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 13:51:34 -0700
Oliver Seeler wrote:
>
>
> All of my private mail to date - every bit of it - reflects my
> view, often in much less kind terms than I've been using here, that
> Adams is the problem.
Okay I concede to Oliver's brilliant wit.
Why not apply it by contributing something to the
proposals being discussed? It's clear that you're not
in favor of it. Good for you. If there aren't any
additional particular issues you'd like to discuss,
and need some more of my writings to continue your
marvelous personal attacks, please utilize my recently
posted response to Mary Corman in ca.eq. I'd be
happy to forward that to any members of s.g.g and s.g.e.
that don't have access to ca.eq upon request.
About the private mail (e-mail?), please inform the
senders that any e-mail sent to me which requests no
follow up response will not be responded to by me,
so mail away your positives, negatives, or attacks
with complete impunity. I wonder if all the mail
Oliver is referring to is just stuff he's mailed
to himself.
Richard
Subject: Re: New groups - discussion - response to Oilver Seeler
From: mcorman@netcom.com (Mary Corman)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 20:43:54 GMT
Richard Adams (happypcs@oro.net) wrote:
: Sure there are various "personalities"
: involved in the discussion. After the
: discussion is finished and the vote is
: taken, all relevance of the personalities
: will vanish. The useless current attacks
: against the personalities will be forgotten
: while the documents recorded are the real
: result which will live on.
Richard, I posted a similar question on ca.earthquakes yesterday
which hasn't shown up on some newsreaders yet. My apologies to
those who see it twice, but it also is relevant to your cross-
posted comments on sci.geo.earthquakes. Below is part of a long
proposal you posted on 8/30 (this copy is from a newsgroup reply
which you posted later). Is it one of the recorded documents that
you indicate "are the real result which will live on"?
It has no provision for newsgroup participants to vote to replace
a moderator who doesn't follow the charter. If the moderator
decides to resign, he or she will select the successor (without
participant choice then either). Please explain why your proposal
shouldn't be viewed as an attempt to control those groups.
>
> REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION (RFD)
> moderated group sci.geo.earthquakes.calif-world
> moderated group sci.geo.earthquakes.predictions
[many lines snipped]
> Moderator Selection and Replacement
> -----------------------------------
>
> 16. The present moderator selects their own replacement, or
> may delegate moderation of one or both groups to another
> person or persons.
>
> 17. A moderator serves until he or she resigns. A moderator
> may resign at any time. A moderator is requested to give
> the group adequate notice in order to insure an orderly
> transition.
>
> 18. A moderator may designate a back-up moderator for vacation
> or emergency or other periods, and is requested to give the
> group adequate notice. The back-up moderator shall only
> function to collect and tally votes and maintain the BL,
> substituting for and having the same power as the moderator.
>
> END CHARTER.
>
> MODERATOR INFO: all groups
>
> Moderator: Richard Adams
>
> END MODERATOR INFO.
>
--
Mary Corman
mcorman@netcom.com marycorman@aol.com tybg72a@prodigy.com
Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationists
From: gjunghei@ix.netcom.com(Gregory Jungheim)
Date: 5 Sep 1996 21:22:25 GMT
In <50nel7$9pt@Mars.mcs.com> krolczyk@MCS.COM (Chris Krolczyk) writes:
>
>Terran@pwshift.com (Terran) writes:
>
>>Anyone who thinks arguing with creationists is tiring, try arguing
>>with evolutionists. A religion is a religion is a religion...
>
>As pointed out before, this is fallacious. I'd like to add to the
>obviousness of the fallacy by stating that I haven't noticed any
>evolutionist _churches_ holding mass on thursdays or any other day of
the
>week.
>
Now you did it Chris,
Those Unitarian-Univeralists are gonna _flame_ your ass! (No mass
but they give good wine and cheese).
Greg (Pope, True and Original Church of Chuck, Atheist) Jungheim
>Chris Krolczyk krolczyk@mcs.com
>
Subject: Science and its relationship with religion
From: dbeckst294@aol.com (DBeckst294)
Date: 5 Sep 1996 18:11:11 -0400
As it seems to me, science and religion is not completely inseperable.
Many times science doesn't say why something happened, just that it did
and this is how it happened. While religion on the other hand just says
why something happened, and says nothing of how it happened. For all we
know the six days mentioned in the bible, these days were on somekind of
logrithmic scale and that we called our 24 hour periods 'days'
incorrectly. Also when one reads about the seperation of the red sea one
doesn't think about that the red sea is very shallow where Moses crossed
and the on extrodinary tides could be to blame for this. Also if one looks
at the area where Biblical cities have been "swallowed into the Earth", my
money is on some faults to lie under the city.
What many scientists seem to lack is religious faith, and faith is
what religion depends on. Science on the other hand has its own faith
sometimes, for instance the 'ether' that had been contrieved to explain
the propigation of light waves though space. The difference being that
science is always looking for a better explanation and religion has all
the explanation it needs.
For me this is a way of not diminishing or degrading one belief or
another, because if one has an open mind, on both sides of the argument,
one can see that religion and science can coexist.
Darren Beckstrand
Mormon and geology major
Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationists
From: wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:45:11
In article <50nel7$9pt@Mars.mcs.com> krolczyk@MCS.COM (Chris Krolczyk) writes:
>Terran@pwshift.com (Terran) writes:
>>Anyone who thinks arguing with creationists is tiring, try arguing
>>with evolutionists. A religion is a religion is a religion...
>As pointed out before, this is fallacious. I'd like to add to the
>obviousness of the fallacy by stating that I haven't noticed any
>evolutionist _churches_ holding mass on thursdays or any other day of the
>week.
At our church (The First Church of Darwin) we have regular services. After
a while, we find that we have have grown extra fingers and our IQ's
have doubled.
Bill
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, Sr. Scientist, Transducer Research, Inc.
600 North Commons Drive, Suite 117
Aurora, IL 60504
708-978-8802, fax -8854, email wpenrose@interaccess.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of fine gas sensors and
contract R&D; to this and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************
Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationists
From: wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:45:11
In article <50nel7$9pt@Mars.mcs.com> krolczyk@MCS.COM (Chris Krolczyk) writes:
>Terran@pwshift.com (Terran) writes:
>>Anyone who thinks arguing with creationists is tiring, try arguing
>>with evolutionists. A religion is a religion is a religion...
>As pointed out before, this is fallacious. I'd like to add to the
>obviousness of the fallacy by stating that I haven't noticed any
>evolutionist _churches_ holding mass on thursdays or any other day of the
>week.
At our church (The First Church of Darwin) we have regular services. After
a while, we find that we have have grown extra fingers and our IQ's
have doubled.
Bill
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, Sr. Scientist, Transducer Research, Inc.
600 North Commons Drive, Suite 117
Aurora, IL 60504
708-978-8802, fax -8854, email wpenrose@interaccess.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of fine gas sensors and
contract R&D; to this and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Francis Giovanni Smith
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 16:10:58 -0700
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> In article <322BB966.1B14@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons writes:
> >meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> >> In article <3227B6F5.D2C@mindspring.com>, Leonard Timmons writes:
> >> >So if we cannot devise a test to prove or disprove the existence
> >> >of God, then theism and atheism are equivalent in that they are
> >> >both based on pure conjecture.
> >>
> >> I think we agree here. That's why I'm not saying "I don't believe in
> >> God" but "I believe there is no God". There is a subtle difference.
> >
> >I think I understand this difference. In the first assertion you admit
> >the existence of God, but see no sense in following him. In the second,
> >you assert that a supernatural being as defined above does not exist.
> >It is not possibe even in theory that you could be proved wrong.
> >
> Right. But there is something more in the second phrase, something
> which I would call an expression of humility (no snickers, please).
> It is an admission of lack of certainty or, if you prefer, of the
> certainty that I'm not certain and can never be.
>
> >However, when I defined God as the natural laws of the universe as
> >above, does your assertion change in any way? Or do you simply reject
> >my definition as specious?
>
> No, I don't reject it, I can't. I can just say that when we reach
> this stage, if we don't want to play in semantics (and I'm sure that
> this is not your intention) these issues become a matter of inner
> convictions, which are personal.
> >
> >> >The only way we could know whether
> >> >a supernatural being exists is if we were (at least in some way)
> >> >the supernatural beings in the universe. Then we would know
> >> >that there is no one beside us (I have read this in the Bible
> >> >somewhere, too).
> >>
> >> Yep, I think that logically that's the most that can be said.
> >
> >By the way, I am now going to assert that we are partly supernatural,
> >so it is possible for us to know whether God exists, since we have a
> >supernatural nature just as God does.
>
> Well, good you put this "partly" there as an escape hatch, else I
> would argue that a supernatural being would've the knowledge of being
> supernatural and I don't have such knowledge. But then, maybe just
> the ability to think about such issues is supernatural.
>
> Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
> meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Without FAITH it is impossible to KNOW God or please Him.
Subject: Re: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationists
From: Eric Shafto
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 15:39:13 -0500
John Wilkins wrote:
>
> In article , Leonardo
> Dasso wrote:
>
> | On Tue, 3 Sep 1996, Matt Silberstein wrote:
> |
> ...
> | >
> | > Matt Silberstein
> | > ===========================================
> | >
> | > Because I am human, nothing human is beyond me.
> | >
> | > Saint Augustine.
> | Saint Augustine? I am sure that quote is from Terencius: "Homo sum, nihil
> | humanum a me alienum puto".
> |
> | Leonardo
>
> I thought it was Tertullian. You remember more of the Latin than I do, though.
And I was sure it was Elvis Presley, and that the quotation was, "Homo
sum. Nihil humani alienum a me puto."
Okay, not too sure about the Elvis Presley part.
Subject: Re: SURVEY: Take back your news group from the nonsense off topic posts
From: tom.farr@jpl.nasa.gov (Tom Farr)
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 13:38:43 -0800
In article , davids@amsci.org
(D. Schoonmaker) wrote:
>
> Ah, could one more wise than I tell me how to set up a killfile in
> Newswatcher for the Mac--my operation's institutional newsreader? Back in
> the days when I had a Unix shell account, I had killfiles. With
> Newswatcher, I'd love the same capability.
>
You need Yet-Another-Newswatcher (AKA YA-Newswatcher), available at the
usual shareware sources. The author added the filter capability that was
left unimplemented on the original Newswatcher. Otherwise, it's the same
program.
--
Tom Farr NASA/JPL Radar Program
Jet Propulsion Lab http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/
Pasadena, CA
tom.farr@jpl.nasa.gov
This email address may not be added to any commercial mail list
Subject: Re: Mars Life Scam Rigged By NASA, NSF
From: Jim Kelly
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 18:35:04 -0500
Kennedy wrote:
>
> In article <322D9DC8.5750@bgu.edu>, Jim Kelly writes
> > Kennedy, you are a vortex of complexity that
> >has no source of energy other than what you
> >pull from the reality(or people within) that
> >you orbit.
> Does anyone?
Yes.
> Without input from others, none of us learn anything
Is that so. And when have you aquired/started using
this philosophy?
- or are you some
> island of self generated intellect and knowledge and self delusion
> (otherwise known as a hermit) ?
Hermit? Use the dictionary, not the almanac!
Now, if I were to consider my nationality superior
to yours would that definition above, apply
to me? How about if I made that point clearly
visible to thousands? Why would I want to
put myself into that sort of interaction?
Myself, I'm another boring face in the crowd who has
been wrong in the past and anticipate being wrong
in the future as well.
> > Have fun looking that one up in your
> >almanac! :-)
> I have many textbooks but confess I do not possess an almanac, sorry ;=)
Sorry don't believe that one! :-)
_______________________________________________________
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> Python Philosophers
--
Best Regards,
-Jim Kelly
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Unity of Science and Religion.
From: wpenrose@interaccess.com (William R. Penrose)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 16:38:58
In article <50hghd$i3s@news.ghgcorp.com> kenhall@ghgcorp.com (Ken Hall) writes:
>>...Why can't God be the
>>motivating force behind the miracle of the Universe? It's as valid as any
>>other explanation, and has a comfortable commonsense appeal to it.
>Occam and I disagree that the existence of a creator god is "just as
>valid" if, by that, you mean "just as likely". A god isn't just as
>likely as other explainations.
Looks like I'm getting smeared with the stain of theism, which is an odd thing
to happen to an agnostic.
Occam was presenting a rule for selecting among alternative and
equally likely hypotheses, not for proving one or the other correct.
>The laws of probability make less complex things more likely to happen
>than more complex things.
Not in Nature. Nature always does everything bass-ackwards. A good engineer
looking at the way biological systems are constructed will throw up his hands
at the sheer amateurishness of the designs. Why do we have backup nostrils
and lots of toes but only one heart or spinal cord? Why is our vital heart
muscle supplied by arteries that are barely large enough to carry the load and
tend to get clogged more easily than any other blood vessels in the body?
Classical Newtonian mechanics works great. So why did God/Whatever make the
universe relativistic? This really complicates things unnecessarily.
(This doesn't mean that I am not amazed and delighted that the whole
contraption works at all.)
It is not necessary to postulate a God as an essential component of the
universe, but that is no proof that He/he/it doesn't exist.
>Complexity alone is not evidence of yet more complexity.
You've probably heard of the concept of "emergence". As a simple system is
made more complex, or if simple systems are just piled together, the whole
system develops new "emergent" properties that could not have been predicted
from the properties of the original simple system(s).
Did you hear that sound? It was Occam getting cut by his own razor.
Bill
************************************************************
Bill Penrose, Sr. Scientist, Transducer Research, Inc.
600 North Commons Drive, Suite 117
Aurora, IL 60504
708-978-8802, fax -8854, email wpenrose@interaccess.com
************************************************************
Purveyors of fine gas sensors and
contract R&D; to this and nearby galaxies.
************************************************************
Subject: Creation VS Evolution
From: tomitire@vegas.infi.net
Date: 6 Sep 1996 01:24:45 GMT
On 1996-09-03 matts2 said:
>In talk.origins tomitire@vegas.infi.net wrote:
>>On 1996-09-01 lefty said:
>But the programs can beat any and all of their creators.
>>If you still wish to go with computers, how about you start
>>with a computer I build, which will not have a microcoded
>>CPU to begin with. I will bet that computer will do zilch
>>except sit there.
>If the world were different it would be different. But we can
>build simple compute system that evolve complex code.
>Matt Silberstein
Ah, but you still have to build the system, and no matter how
simple you wish to make it, you must still microcode it. All
would like that to be different. There were hopes and dreams for
that over 50 years ago. Ah, artificial intelligence! It still
needs an impetus in the form of some bootstrap code.
Just like life, you can't get away from that.
Tomi
`[1;37;45mNet-Tamer V 1.05.1 - Registered
Subject: Utter Futility of Arguing With Creationists
From: tomitire@vegas.infi.net
Date: 6 Sep 1996 01:26:21 GMT
On 1996-09-03 darklady said:
>> We are getting too many divisions philosophically,
>> religion, nonreligion, overall culture, language, it will
>> probably end in an actual, physical separation. Probably
>> by war. Such differences are usally settled in this
>> manner.
>Yes, this is how religionists generally choose to resolve
>conflict.
Oh, no one but religionists fight wars? (I hate to even answer
this because I am not a religionist, but you seem to be so hung
up on the point.)
>> It is happening now throughout Bosnia, Chechnya, Israel, Iraq,
>> Muslims/Jews, Muslims/Russians, Muslims/Croats/Serbs.
>Nice, peace-loving, god fearing nations. Another ringing
>endorsement for the healing force of religion.
I wouldn't know about any of that. I fought in two wars and
there were all kinds. I don't really remember much discussion
about religion or lack of religion during all that time, except
when some were dying.
>> And all of them against us as we march proudly into the 21st
>> Century at the head of the UN Vanguard!
The above was merely a statement that were are not making any
friends, although we do influence them with all sorts of power.
>Oh, are they concerned about creationism vs. evolution in the
>U.S. school systems? Or maybe they find our abortion
>policies problematic? No, wait! It's women...they're really
>upset about the liberties those U.S. bitches have...why in
>their countries they know how to deal with such immorality!
>Here...in this holy book, let me show you...oh, your view of
>god is different from theirs? Well, infidel, meet your god
>in its pathetic hell tonight! Yeah, I'm running out to
>convert right now.
>---- Darklady
Lot of religion in there somewhere. Could you leave it out when
replying to me. I do not use religion as any premise for my
posts. Why try to translate?
Tomi
`[1;30;40mNet-Tamer V 1.05.1 - Registered
Subject: Re: When did "total" solar eclipses begin?
From: ronkanen@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen)
Date: 6 Sep 1996 04:36:50 +0300
In article <50hgnj$c4c@electra.saaf.se>,
Paul Schlyter wrote:
>In article <509o74$e3n@myntti.helsinki.fi>,
>Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
>>
>> Is it hard to calculate those, i.e. does it require massive resources?
>
>Not today -- any decent desktop PC equipped with the appropriate
>software will be able to produce these data in an hour or less. If
>you cannot find suitable commercial software, you can write it yourself
>using the algorithms in e.g. Jean Meeus' "Astronomical Algorithms"
>(which will provide solar and lunar positions to you) and his
>"Total solar eclipses 1950-2200" (which will provide the solar eclipse
>formulae, plus Besselian elements for all solar eclipses 1950-2200).
>
>I didn't compute this myself though, instead I looked it up in
>available literature: the 1715 eclipse can be found in Oppolzer's
>"Canon of Eclipses" (published in German at the end of last century,
>reprinted by Dover Books more recently), and from Jean Meeus' "Canon
>of solar eclipses 1900-2500" I found the eclipses around 2300.
But you have calculated the eclipses in Finland that can be seen at
http://www.seds.org/pub/software/general/solecl.fin ?
>
>The 1715 eclipse in Stockholm has its own, quite interesting, story:
>at that time anyone was allowed to publish almanacs. In Stockholm,
>there were four popular almanacs at this time, and all of them failed
>to predict that this eclipse would be total as seen from Stockholm!
>Therefore this total eclipse was a surprise to the people in this
>city! Shortly afterwards, to ensure accurate information in future
>almanacs, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences got the exclusive
>privilege to publish almanacs in Sweden; nobody else was allowed to
>do it. This exclusive privilege lasted until 1973.
>
Ah. it's because of that! Here publishing almanacs was an exclusive
privilege of the University for up to 1990's or so. I've always
wondered why. The priviledge covered all almanacs printed in Finnish
or Swedish, even simple wall calendars.
>> Also are there any limits on how far one can calculate in the future
>> with current data on the orbits?
>
>Of course there is -- but there is one uncertainty that's bigger than
>the orbital errors: our incomplete knowledge of the exact rotation
>rate of the Earth and how it changes with time. Here ancient total
>solar eclipses are our best information about the Earth's rotation
>rate a few thousand years ago, since the totality is visible over such
>a narrow area on the Earth.
Well that's what I meant with current data.
Osmo
Subject: Creation VS Evolution
From: tomitire@vegas.infi.net
Date: 6 Sep 1996 01:24:07 GMT
On 1996-09-03 aleph said:
>tomitire@vegas.infi.net wrote:
>> On 1996-09-01 lefty said:
>You are missing a subtle point. The software of the computer
>is to the CPU as the laws of physics are to reality.
No problem. Regardless, you are agreeing that the laws of
physics are the microding. That still supports intelligence as
the initial impetus.
>I put it to you that GOD does not tinker around with the
>universe like so many legos, or a giant erector set. If you
>want to talk about "creation" and inteligent design then you
>must talk about the structure and design of the very fabric
>of reality, not the curent state of the universe.
I am a theist, not a deist. The difference is that I believe the
Creator can mess with the soup when He wishes. If this is true,
then from time to time He will do so. No matter what has been
discovered, it was there in the beginning. You seem to be saying
there is no possibility of an upgrade.
God does not monkey around with "things"
Oh, that can be disrpved.
>I find it more satifying to think that GOD simply said "let
>there be light", or maby just "let there be", and the rest is
>a trivial outgroath of his/her initial creation of infinite
>subtlely Personaly, I find the fact that life and existance
>seems not to need an "assembler" to be the greatest reason
>for a beliefe in a designer.
I could not believe in a Creator without considering design. Do
you think a Creator was simply playing craps?
>I figure it will be about 3 years before we see man made,
>self replicating "compounds", and probably another 3 years
>before it is demonstrated that similar conditions were ultra
>wide spread on the early earth, and possible mars, and
>europa.
Che Creator messing with the microcoding will occur a great deal
sooner than that. It already exists, I believe.
Tomi
`[1;30;42mNet-Tamer V 1.05.1 - Registered