Re: Antineutrons
lockyer@best.com (Thomas N. Lockyer)
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:49:16
In article <33B2E1FC.ABD@handel.phys.nwu.edu> Todd Pedlar writes:
>From: Todd Pedlar
>Subject: Re: Antineutrons
>Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 16:41:16 -0500
>Thomas N. Lockyer wrote:
>>
>> In article Anthony Potts writes:
>> >From: Anthony Potts
>> >Subject: Re: Antineutrons
>> >Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 08:53:53 GMT
>>
>> >On Tue, 24 Jun 1997, Thomas N. Lockyer wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> Anthony, I have to assume that when three things always occur together, i.e.
>> >> spin, rest mass and magnetic moment, that they are all intimately and
>> >> inseparably connected. That is, spin, mass and magnetic moment cannot exist
>>
>> >But the fact is, they don't always occur together.
>>
>> >That is the whole point.
>>
>> Anthony, the spin of one half h bar always does. That is my problem with the
>> neutrino theory. The fact remains that spin angular momentum stores energy
>> locally, and that denotes rest mass. We cannot repeal the laws of physics.
>Yet you wish to repeal the conservation of angular momentum?
No, the conservation of angular momentum is an algebraic rule that seems to
work out statistically. Spin angular momentum has a fixed value. You cannot
say something is conserved if you start out with say, a neutron with spin 1/2
and end up with three particles with spin 1/2. 1/2 does not equal 1/2 +1/2
+1/2 in anybody's book.
>> My contention is that the neutrinos only spin when part of a composite
>> particle. In the final analysis, that is why theory applied a spin of one
>> half to the neutrino, the neutrino had to add it's spin to the composite ,
>> just to satisy the spin statistics. After the neutrino decouples from the
>> composite, it no longer needs to spin, and this is what the vector neutrino
>> models indicate.
>So you have apparently decided to forgo the conservation of angular
>momentum by allowing the neutrino to "stop spinning" because it "no
>longer needs to". This is the corner into which you have painted
>yourself...
No, see above. The spin angular momentum of the vector neutrino is created
in concert with the electron. When they separate, the energy content is still
there, but the vector neutrino stops spinning.
>------------------------------------------------------------------
> Todd K. Pedlar - Northwestern Univ., Nucl. & Particle Physics
> FNAL E835 Homepage: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
>------------------------------------------------------------------
> Phone: (847) 491-8630 (630) 840-8048 Fax: (847) 491-8627
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way --and the
>fools know it.
> Oliver Wendell Holmes
>------------------------------------------------------------------
Regards: Tom: http://www.best.com/~lockyer/home.htm
Re: physics question
"David Knaack"
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 15:12:52 -0700
Anthony Potts wrote in article ...
>On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Robert Stieglitz wrote:
>
>> Yes, both bullets will hit at the same time. The two problems are
>> IDENTICAL in the vertical direction ... the bullet, in each case,
>> starting from rest (vertical) and falling the same distance to the
>> earth under the same (gravitational) force.
>>
>You need to be a bit careful here. The bullets will hit at the same time
>if the air resistance can be neglected. This is normally the case when
you
>use snooker balls as your examples.
>
>If air resistance is included (remember, force increses as the square of
>the velocity, so the upwards component is greater on a bullet which has
>horizontal velocity), then the dropped bullet will hit slightly sooner.
>
>Generally, though, we should not take much notice of air resistance, as
>the problem isn't normally about that.
Don't forget to neglect the curvature of the earth also. A bullet fired
horizontally out over a perfectly smooth body of water will have an extra
inch or so to fall.
--
+------------------------------+------------------------------------+
|David Knaack | "...scanning the sky for [signals] |
|Email replies are appreciated,| from intelligent life. One group |
|but not necessary. | has improved its ability to |
+------------------------------+ distinguish human signals from the |
|Return address mangled, use: | real things." Science 271, 1055. |
|User : dknaack +------------------------------------+
|Domain : rdtech.com | 'Thou art god' - The Man from Mars |
+------------------------------+------------------------------------+
Re: The Sokal trick
baez@math.mit.edu (John Baez)
27 Jun 1997 18:18:42 -0400
>In article <5oreie$gvn@panix2.panix.com>,
> erg@panix.com (Edward Green) wrote:
>> Herve Le Cornec wrote:
>> >did you speak about the Sokal trick in here ?
>> I seem to recall one or two posts. Try DejaNews if you have web
>> access, and a few thousand hours to spare.
Check out the thread "Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum
Gravity". DejaNews lists it as having 344 posts in it. In case
anyone missed that amusing brouhaha, here's the basic gist of it.
Copyright 1996 N.Y. Times News Service
NEW YORK (May 18, 1996 00:30 a.m. EDT) -- A New York University
physicist, fed up with what he sees as the excesses of the academic
left, hoodwinked a well-known journal into publishing a parody thick
with gibberish as though it were serious scholarly work.
The article, entitled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative
Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," appeared this month in Social Text, a
journal that helped invent the trendy, sometimes baffling field of
cultural studies.
Now the physicist, Alan Sokal, is gloating. And the editorial collective
that publishes the journal says it sorely regrets its mistake. But the
journal's co-founder says Sokal is confused.
"He says we're epistemic relativists," complained Stanley Aronowitz, the
co-founder and a professor at CUNY. "We're not. He got it wrong. One of the
reasons he got it wrong is he's ill-read and half-educated."
The dispute over the article -- which was read by several editors at the
journal before it was published -- goes to the heart of the public debate
over left-wing scholarship, and particularly over the belief that social,
cultural and political conditions influence and may even determine knowledge
and ideas about what is truth.
In this case, Sokal, 41, intended to attack some of the work of social
scientists and humanists in the field of cultural studies, the exploration
of culture -- and, in recent years, science -- for coded ideological
meaning.
In a way, this is one more skirmish in the culture wars, the battles over
multiculturalism and college curriculums and whether there is a single
objective truth or just many differing points of view.
Conservatives have argued that there is truth, or at least an approach to
truth, and that scholars have a responsibility to pursue it. They have
accused the academic left of debasing scholarship for political ends.
"While my method was satirical, my motivation is utterly serious," Sokal
wrote in a separate article in the current issue of the magazine Lingua
Franca, in which he revealed the hoax and detailed his "intellectual and
political" motivations.
"What concerns me is the proliferation, not just of nonsense and sloppy
thinking per se, but of a particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking:
one that denies the existence of objective realities," he wrote in Lingua
Franca.
In an interview, Sokal, who describes himself as "a leftist in the
old-fashioned sense," said he worried that the trendy disciplines and
obscure jargon could end up hurting the leftist cause. "By losing contact
with the real
world, you undermine the prospect for progressive social critique," he said.
Norman Levitt, a professor of mathematics at Rutgers University and an
author of a book on science and the academic left that first brought the new
critique of science to Sokal's attention, Friday called the hoax "a lot
of fun and a source of a certain amount of personal satisfaction."
"I don't want to claim that it proves that all social scientists or all
English professors are complete idiots, but it does betray a certain
arrogance and a certain out-of-touchness on the part of a certain clique
inside academic life," he said.
Sokal, who describes himself as "a leftist and a feminist" who once spent
his summers teaching mathematics in Nicaragua, said he became concerned
several years ago about what academics in cultural studies were
saying about science.
"I didn't know people were using deconstructive literary criticism not only
to study Jane Austen but to study quantum mechanics," he said Friday. Then,
he said, he read "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its
Quarrel With Science" by Levitt and Paul R. Gross.
Sokal said the book, which analyzes the critique of science, prompted him to
begin reading work by the critics themselves. "I realized it would be boring
to write a detailed refutation of these people," he said. So, he said,
he decided to parody them.
"I structured the article around the silliest quotes about mathematics and
physics from the most prominent academics, and I invented an argument
praising them and linking them together," he said. "All this was very easy
to carry off because my argument wasn't obliged to respect any standards of
evidence or logic."
To a lay person, the article appears to be an impenetrable hodgepodge of
jargon, buzzwords, footnotes and other references to the work of the
likes of Jacques Derrida and Aronowitz. Words like hegemony,
counterhegemonic and epistemological abound.
In it, Sokal wrote: "It has thus become increasingly apparent that
physical 'reality,' no less than social 'reality,' is at bottom a social
and linguistic construct; that scientific 'knowledge,' far from being
objective, reflects and encodes the dominant ideologies and power
relations of the culture that produced it."
Andrew Ross, a co-editor of Social Text who also happens to be a professor
at NYU, said Friday that about a half-dozen editors at the journal dealt
with Sokal's unsolicited manuscript. While it appeared "a little hokey,"
they decided to publish it in a special issue they called Science Wars, he=
said.
"We read it as the earnest attempt of a professional scientiSt to seek some
sort of philosophical justification for his work," said Ross, director of
the American studies program at NYU "In other words, it was about the
relationship between philosophy and physics."
Now Ross says he regrets having published the article. But he said Sokal
misunderstood the ideas of the people he was trying to expose. "These are
caricatures of complex scholarship," he said.
Aronowitz, a sociologist and director of the Center for Cultural Studies at
CUNY, said Sokal seems to believe that the people he is parodying deny the
existence of the real world. "They never deny the real world,"
Aronowitz said. "They are talking about whether meaning can be derived from
observation of the real world."
Ross said it would be a shame if the hoax obscured the broader issues his
journal sought to address, "that scientific knowledge is affected by social
and cultural conditions and is not a version of some universal truth that
is the same in all times and places."
Re: ENERGY GENERATION
mmcirvin@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin)
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:57:49 GMT
M Harkess wrote:
> Now when I first developed the system I felt that it had no chance of
> success however after corresponding with a variety of engineers and
> researchers who work in the field of electrostats, I have been unable
> to come up with a single reason why the system will not theoretically
> work.
The system you describe is supposed to work via known laws of
electromagnetism; in other words, Maxwell's equations. Energy is
conserved by Maxwell's equations; this has already been proven. (See
Jackson's _Classical Electrodynamics_, or any similar text, for
details.) Therefore, theory, applied correctly, predicts that it will
not work.
Arguments like this always sound unkind and closed-minded: I haven't
said anything about the detailed operation of the device. But such
arguments are extremely powerful, and once they are applied, worrying
about the details of every specific case is a waste of time. Remember,
I'm not refusing to believe some demonstrated experimental result on
theoretical grounds; I'm short-cutting a *theoretical* argument, in
a realm in which things can be proven.
--
Font-o-Meter! Proportional Monospaced
^
http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/
Re: physics question
mmcirvin@world.std.com (Matt McIrvin)
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:57:53 GMT
Robert Stieglitz wrote:
> Snorty Dog wrote:
[...]
> > I f a gun is level and fires a bullet and I drop the same type of bullet
> > at the exact time the gun is fired both bullets will strike the earth at
> > the same time.
> >
> > I say that the mass of the bullet is neglible whether shot or dropped and
> > its attraction to the center of the earth is equal. Will both bullets hit
> > the ground at the same
> > time ?
>
> Yes, both bullets will hit at the same time. The two problems are
> IDENTICAL in the vertical direction ... the bullet, in each case,
> starting from rest (vertical) and falling the same distance to the
> earth under the same (gravitational) force.
There are two effects being neglected here: effects having to do with
the air, and the curvature of the earth.
If you treat air as producing a *linear* drag force, then the bullets
will still hit at the same time. But I don't think it is actually linear
for a fast-moving bullet.
If you neglect air, there is still the fact that the earth is round. If
the bullet travels a long distance, it will take longer to hit than the
bullet that is dropped vertically, because the earth's surface curves
away from it. Of course, this is a very small effect for a real bullet.
On the other hand, for shells from enormous artillery pieces, things
like this become real considerations.
If the shell is fired at orbital velocity (not that this is terribly
feasible!), then, neglecting air, it will never hit the (level) ground.
Of course, both of these effects will probably be small. Physics is a
science of approximations, and the bullets will hit at the same time to
a quite good approximation. But people often demand dead-certain
exactitude when asking "what the laws of physics say," and at that point
subtle effects come into play.
--
Font-o-Meter! Proportional Monospaced
^
http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/
Re: * 3 polarizer problem
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 17:55:54 GMT
In article , zardoz@icanect.net writes:
>In article , meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
>(( I may not know about your whereabouts or alias but I have no knowledge
>(( about people disappearing while I'm not "watching" them.
>
>>But you also have no definite knowledge of them "not
>>disappearing".
>
>I have no knowledge of unicorns, ghosts, or goblins either. I doubt that
>you think people disappear when you don't look at them either. Or do you?
>
No, I don't. For the same reason when I have two discrete
interactions which are consistent with a single photon participating
in both, I don't have much reason to think that it didn't exist
between the interactions. But, I can't prove it.
>You seem to be applying quantum thinking onto the macroscopic, but the
>quantum world behaves in fundamentally different ways than classical
>objects.
Depends in what. The issue of the unprovability of existence of
anything in the absence of interactions is as valid in the classical
world as it is in QM.
>
>>You just apply Occam's Razor and adopt the assumption
>>that their existence has continuity. Just like with photons.
>
>Do you believe that photons have a continuity between events?
I use it as a sensible working hypothesis.
>
>I have evidence for people, buildings, cars, etc. and their continuity
>through space. I do not for discrete photons or unicorns, etc. I use
>Occam's Razor for discrete photons and fantasies.
Did you ever hear about tagged photon experiments? I think that Jim
mentioned it.
>
>>There cannot be any physical evidence for the existance of anything
>>between events, by definition.
>
>Perhaps we've arriving at a consensus! Then do you agree that we have no
>evidence of a photon between events?
Don't play layer with me :-) I said that we have no evidence for the
existance of anything between events. "Anything", get it. When you
pick just the photons out of this anything, you're distorting my
words.
>>So what? However, if you don't like matter being involved, consider
>>the deflection of photons in a gravitational field.
>
>But gravitation does involve matter: mass.
So what?
>Moreover, the Einstein shift shows nothing at all about the trajectory
>of light, in spite of the diagrams that proclaim it.
And why it is so?
>However, with a magnetic field, we can see the curved tracks left
>behind from electrons. Photons do not leave any signature between events.
The tracks you see (in a bubble chamber, for example) are events.
I've said it twice already.
>
>>More meaningful is in the eye of the beholder. We consider as more
>>meaningful the definition of a particle as a momentum/energy packet.
>
>Which says nothing about photons between events. I submit that momentum or
>energy gets measured at some instrument or sensor. If you agree that we
>cannot know about a momentum/wave packet *between* events, then what
>purpose does it serve to postulate their existence as a discrete object?
>Why not simply call the "packet" as the properties of the measurement
>itself?
We know nothing about anything between events. How many times would
you wish me to repeat it.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Re: * 3 polarizer problem
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:29:00 GMT
In article <33b387e8.2379384@news.nn.iconz.co.nz>, eric@flesch.org (Eric Flesch) writes:
>On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 03:58:47 GMT, meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>(Edward Green) writes:
>>>>As for the question "what do photons do between interactions?" we
>>>>don't and can't know for sure what anything does between interactions,
>>>>be it photons, electrons, usenet posts or people.
>>>
>>>Or you could say, to be really annoying, it's not a well posed
>>>question in terms of the model. :-)
>>
>>I could, but since I'm trying to be very annoying, I say that it is
>>not well posed in terms of any model.
>
>Great, in that case, how about admitting that we have no basis for
>speculating that photons gravitate. If they did, then it *would* be a
>"well posed question". Since "it is not well posed", therefore you
>cannot adhere to the view that photons gravitate, Mati. Ipso facto.
>
And gravitation isn't interactions, in your dictionary?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Kaufmann vs Einstein
Ralph Sansbury
27 Jun 1997 19:08:21 GMT
Walter Kaufmann carried out a series of experiments in the early
1900s, using various improvements of his devising in vacuum pumps, that
demonstrated this decrease in the rate of increase of an electron’s
deflection by a magnetic field for electrons of greater velocity where
the velocities were near the velocity of light.
A small piece of radium bromide was placed at the base of a vertical
evacuated bottle so that some of the radioactive emissions of beta
electrons would pass up between charged parallel plates 1.775cm apart
for 2.07cm and then through a small hole .5mm in diameter toward a
horizontal photographic plate 2cm from the hole on either side of the
bottle were placed permanent magnets sufficient to produce a field, B,
between them of 299Gauss with a 7.5 percent range during the 48 hours of
the experiment. The electrons passing between the charged plates with a
potential difference of 6.75 thousand kVolts were, for 2cm, subject also
to the magnetic field and then for an additional 2cm only to the magnetic
field.
The trajectory of the electrons that managed to pass between the
charged plates and through the hole beyond and then toward the
photographic plate were determined by the magnetic field, the velocity of
the electron and the electric field. The magnetic field caused a front
to back deflection of the electrons while the electric field caused a
left to right deflection; very fast electrons should have smaller
deflections in general but because the magnetic response of the electron
should increase with speed, the decrease in the magnetic deflection
should be less. And if there is a decreasing rate of increase of the
magnetic deflection as v approaches the speed of light, c , as described
by Lorentz et al, the magnetic deflection should reflect this effect
also; and Kaufmann showed that it does although not precisely as
predicted using the Lorentz transform.
The five observed (magnetic,electrostatic) deflections were in
centimeters (.271,.0621), (.348,.0839), (.461,.1175), (.576,.1565),
(.688,.198). The corresponding inferred velocities in multiples of
10^10cm/sec and charge/mass ratios in multiples of 10^-7 respectively
were (2.83,.63), (2.72,.77), (2.59,.975), (2.48,1.17), (2.36,1.31). Note
the ratio of the charge of the electron to the electron’s rest mass can
be represented as 1.6021(10^-20) emu divided by.9108(10^-27grams) =
(1.602(10^-19) Coulombs)/(9.108(10^-31kg)).
Note also that as the velocity increases the electrostatic
deflection, smaller in general, goes from being a little less than one
third(.36) of the magnetic deflection to being a little more than one
third(.28) which is highly improbable if the cause of the change in
deflection in each case is the same ie the mass of the electron.
In 1905 Kaufmann obtained with a better vacuum nine more points that
were slightly but systematically more distinct from Lorentz’ predictions
than the results of the 1903 experiment but were more accurately
represented by Abraham’s formula. Abraham assumed that mass was comprised
of a transverse and longitudinal component that only became detectable at
high velocities; He made no assumptions about the space time distortions
and distortions in the electron. Kaufmann’s results, because they were
not consistent with the Lorentz equations and Einstein’s theory, were
gradually regarded as false by most prominent physicists except
Poincare’.
Einstein’s formula in predicting mass energy transformation was
simpler if not more accurate than Abraham’s. Also Einstein’s theory gave
a rationale for the Lorentz terms that Abraham used and for the
longitudinal and transverse mass that Abraham’s theory did not.
But one of the great unsolved problems of modern physics is the
inability of Einstein’s theory in explaining Kaufmann’s results and all
of the other mass energy transformations implied. The better vacuum in
Kaufmann’s 1905 experiment should have improved the accuracy of his
results and no one could explain what was wrong with Kaufmann’s
apparatus.
We can predict Kaufmann’s results according to the charge
polarization expression krev/c for the electron and k*rnev*A/c for the
magnetic field applied to the electron represented as a short segment of
wire parallel to the electron’s trajectory at one point of its linear or
curvilinear trajectory. Note k and k* are measures of the relative
strength of the two dipoles. As the velocity of the electron approaches
c, the magnitude of charge polarization in the electron becomes
krev/((c)(1-v^2/c^2)), approximately.
This is because the force that produces the acceleration and average
velocity of the electron between collisions also produces a change in the
orbital velocity of a charged particle inside the electron as described
below. The result is that the response of the fast moving electron to the
magnetic field does not increase as much as the response of the electron
to the electrostatic field. The reason: The decreasing rate of increase
in polarization inside the beta electron and the inverse square force
between electrostatic dipoles in this context compared to the inverse
cubed force between an electrostatic dipole and an electrostatic field.
Re: Twin Paradox
Ralph Sansbury
27 Jun 1997 19:32:34 GMT
Walter Kaufmann carried out a series of experiments in the early
1900s, using various improvements of his devising in vacuum pumps, that
demonstrated this decrease in the rate of increase of an electron’s
deflection by a magnetic field for electrons of greater velocity where
the velocities were near the velocity of light.
A small piece of radium bromide was placed at the base of a vertical
evacuated bottle so that some of the radioactive emissions of beta
electrons would pass up between charged parallel plates 1.775cm apart
for 2.07cm and then through a small hole .5mm in diameter toward a
horizontal photographic plate 2cm from the hole on either side of the
bottle were placed permanent magnets sufficient to produce a field, B,
between them of 299Gauss with a 7.5 percent range during the 48 hours of
the experiment. The electrons passing between the charged plates with a
potential difference of 6.75 thousand kVolts were, for 2cm, subject also
to the magnetic field and then for an additional 2cm only to the magnetic
field.
The trajectory of the electrons that managed to pass between the
charged plates and through the hole beyond and then toward the
photographic plate were determined by the magnetic field, the velocity of
the electron and the electric field. The magnetic field caused a front
to back deflection of the electrons while the electric field caused a
left to right deflection; very fast electrons should have smaller
deflections in general but because the magnetic response of the electron
should increase with speed, the decrease in the magnetic deflection
should be less. And if there is a decreasing rate of increase of the
magnetic deflection as v approaches the speed of light, c , as described
by Lorentz et al, the magnetic deflection should reflect this effect
also; and Kaufmann showed that it does although not precisely as
predicted using the Lorentz transform.
The five observed (magnetic,electrostatic) deflections were in
centimeters (.271,.0621), (.348,.0839), (.461,.1175), (.576,.1565),
(.688,.198). The corresponding inferred velocities in multiples of
10^10cm/sec and charge/mass ratios in multiples of 10^-7 respectively
were (2.83,.63), (2.72,.77), (2.59,.975), (2.48,1.17), (2.36,1.31). Note
the ratio of the charge of the electron to the electron’s rest mass can
be represented as 1.6021(10^-20) emu divided by.9108(10^-27grams) =
(1.602(10^-19) Coulombs)/(9.108(10^-31kg)).
Note also that as the velocity increases the electrostatic
deflection, smaller in general, goes from being a little less than one
third(.36) of the magnetic deflection to being a little more than one
third(.28) which is highly improbable if the cause of the change in
deflection in each case is the same ie the mass of the electron.
In 1905 Kaufmann obtained with a better vacuum nine more points that
were slightly but systematically more distinct from Lorentz’ predictions
than the results of the 1903 experiment but were more accurately
represented by Abraham’s formula. Abraham assumed that mass was comprised
of a transverse and longitudinal component that only became detectable at
high velocities; He made no assumptions about the space time distortions
and distortions in the electron. Kaufmann’s results, because they were
not consistent with the Lorentz equations and Einstein’s theory, were
gradually regarded as false by most prominent physicists except
Poincare’.
Einstein’s formula in predicting mass energy transformation was
simpler if not more accurate than Abraham’s. Also Einstein’s theory gave
a rationale for the Lorentz terms that Abraham used and for the
longitudinal and transverse mass that Abraham’s theory did not.
But one of the great unsolved problems of modern physics is the
inability of Einstein’s theory in explaining Kaufmann’s results and all
of the other mass energy transformations implied. The better vacuum in
Kaufmann’s 1905 experiment should have improved the accuracy of his
results and no one could explain what was wrong with Kaufmann’s
apparatus.
We can predict Kaufmann’s results according to the charge
polarization expression krev/c for the electron and k*rnev*A/c for the
magnetic field applied to the electron represented as a short segment of
wire parallel to the electron’s trajectory at one point of its linear or
curvilinear trajectory. Note k and k* are measures of the relative
strength of the two dipoles. As the velocity of the electron approaches
c, the magnitude of charge polarization in the electron becomes
krev/((c)(1-v^2/c^2)), approximately.
This is because the force that produces the acceleration and average
velocity of the electron between collisions also produces a change in the
orbital velocity of a charged particle inside the electron as described
below. The result is that the response of the fast moving electron to the
magnetic field does not increase as much as the response of the electron
to the electrostatic field. The reason: The decreasing rate of increase
in polarization inside the beta electron and the inverse square force
between electrostatic dipoles in this context compared to the inverse
cubed force between an electrostatic dipole and an electrostatic field.
Re: Kaufmann vs Einstein
throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 22:54:00 GMT
: Ralph Sansbury
: So there are two very clear proofs that SR is wrong. One is the
: experiments of Kaufmann and the other is the obvious impossibility of
: time travel ie of extrapolating the several microseconds of delay in
: the cesium magnetic clock in the HK experiment to speeds of .99c etc
: even with Thorne's wormholes etc.
Sorry, I've seen no posting which shows Kaufmann's experiment to
conflict with SR in the least little bit. I've seen the point made
that direct measures weren't taken from the beta electron frame,
but that's not a conflict, let alone a "clear proof" of anything at all.
Somebody'll also have to be a bit clearer about what's "obviously impossible"
that the H&K; experiment matches the predictions of SR, and why one should
think that *that* is a "clear proof that SR is wrong". I always
thought that when the experiment matched the expectations that that
*confirmed* the theory, not proved it wrong.
Or, for that matter, what's "obviously impossible" about time dilation
at .99c. As for wormholes, they are mere speculation; a possible solution
to the GR equations without any particular evidence that they are physical.
To say that some property of wormholes "proves" SR is wrong is, even
being very generous indeed, ludicrous.
: The tragedy of this is that the real mechanisms of the mass energy
: transformations so called that help describe the fission process are
: oviously no help in showing how the fission process actually works and
: how it might be further controlled to reduce the terrible threat posed
: by nuclear power plants particularly in Europe.
IMHO the real tragedy is that Ralph Sansbury hasn't the faintest clue,
and vigorously rejects any offered to him.
Special relativity being right or wrong has very little to do with "how
the fission process actually works", and certainly doesn't obscure it in
the least, either way.
--
Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Re: Twin Paradox
Ralph Sansbury
27 Jun 1997 18:34:45 GMT
jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) wrote:
>| Ralph Sansbury writes:
>| >
>| > In Kaufmann's experiment one twin or a beta electron would start
>| >moving at .6 times the speed of light while the other twin would remain
>| >at rest in the laboratory of Earth.
>|
>| Why do you persist in treating a 3-body decay as if it were a
>| two body decay, over and over and over again, when it has been
>| pointed out to you over and over and over again that it is _not_
>| a two body decay???
>
>Ralph Sansbury writes:
>>
>> Why do you persist in repeating irrelevant jargon? Because you do not
>>understand what you are talking about perhaps?
>
> Then please elaborate on two points:
>
> 1. What _result_ of this experiment is inconsistent with SR? That is,
> what number does SR predict that conflicts (to experimental error)
> with a number reported by Kaufmann.
Walter Kaufmann carried out a series of experiments in the early
1900s, using various improvements, of his devising, in vacuum pumps,
that demonstrated this decrease in the rate of increase of an electron’s
deflection by a magnetic field for electrons of greater velocity where
the velocities were near the velocity of light. (see Lloyd Motz sources
in physics,, A.I.Miller on early interpretations of Relativity 1981
Addison Weslyey and Giora Hon in Scientific Pratice ed Buchwald 1995 Uof
Chicago Press.
A small piece of radium bromide was placed at the base of a vertical
evacuated bottle so that some of the radioactive emissions of beta
electrons would pass up between charged parallel plates 1.775cm apart
for 2.07cm and then through a small hole .5mm in diameter toward a
horizontal photographic plate 2cm from the hole on either side of the
bottle were placed permanent magnets sufficient to produce a field, B,
between them of 299Gauss with a 7.5 percent range during the 48 hours of
the experiment. The electrons passing between the charged plates with a
potential difference of 6.75 thousand kVolts were, for 2cm, subject also
to the magnetic field and then for an additional 2cm only to the magnetic
field.
The trajectory of the electrons that managed to pass between the
charged plates and through the hole beyond and then toward the
photographic plate were determined by the magnetic field, the velocity of
the electron and the electric field. The magnetic field caused a front
to back deflection of the electrons while the electric field caused a
left to right deflection; very fast electrons should have smaller
deflections in general but because the magnetic response of the electron
should increase with speed, the decrease in the magnetic deflection
should be less. And if there is a decreasing rate of increase of the
magnetic deflection as v approaches the speed of light, c , as described
by Lorentz et al, the magnetic deflection should reflect this effect
also; and Kaufmann showed that it does although not precisely as
predicted using the Lorentz transform.
The five observed (magnetic,electrostatic) deflections were in
centimeters (.271,.0621), (.348,.0839), (.461,.1175), (.576,.1565),
(.688,.198). The corresponding inferred velocities in multiples of
10^10cm/sec and charge/mass ratios in multiples of 10^-7 respectively
were (2.83,.63), (2.72,.77), (2.59,.975), (2.48,1.17), (2.36,1.31). Note
the ratio of the charge of the electron to the electron’s rest mass can
be represented as 1.6021(10^-20) emu divided by.9108(10^-27grams) =
(1.602(10^-19) Coulombs)/(9.108(10^-31kg)). Note also that as the
velocity increases the electrostatic deflection, smaller in general, goes
from being a little less than one third(.36) of the magnetic deflection
to being a little more than one third(.28) which is highly improbable if
the cause of the change in deflection in each case is the same ie the
mass of the electron.
In 1905 Kaufmann obtained with a better vacuum nine more points that
were even more andmore systematically distinct from Lorentz’ predictions
than the results of the 1903 experiment but were more accurately
represented by Abraham’s formula. Abraham simply assumed that mass was
comprised of a transverse and longitudinal component that only became
detectable at high velocities; He made no assumptions about the space
time distortions and distortions in the electron. Kaufmann’s results,
because they were not consistent with the Lorentz equations and
Einstein’s theory, were gradually regarded as false by most prominent
physicists except Poincare’. Einstein’s formula in predicting mass
energy transformation was simpler if not more accurate than Abraham’s.
Also Einstein’s theory gave a rationale for the Lorentz terms that
Abraham used and for the longitudinal and transverse mass that Abraham’s
theory did not.
But one of the great unsolved problems of modern physics is the
inability of Einstein’s theory in explaining Kaufmann’s results and all
of the other mass energy transformations implied. The better vacuum in
Kaufmann’s 1905 experiment should have improved the accuracy of his
results and no one could explain what was wrong with Kaufmann’s
apparatus.
We can accurately predict Kaufmann’s results according to the charge
polarization expression krev/c for the electron and k*rnev*A/c for the
magnetic field applied to the electron represented as a short segment of
wire parallel to the electron’s trajectory at one point of its linear or
curvilinear trajectory. Note k and k* are measures of the relative
strength of the two dipoles. As the velocity of the electron approaches
c, the magnitude of charge polarization in the electron becomes
krev/((c)(1-v^2/c^2)), approximately.
This is because the force that produces the acceleration and average
velocity of the electron between collisions also produces a change in the
orbital velocity of a charged particle inside the electron as described
below. The result is that the response of the fast moving electron to the
magnetic field does not increase as much as the response of the electron
to the electrostatic field. The reason: The decreasing rate of increase
in polarization inside the beta electron and the inverse square force
between electrostatic dipoles in this context compared to the inverse
cubed force between an electrostatic dipole and an electrostatic field.
>
> 2. If the beta electron is twin-1, what is twin-2? The nucleus or
> the neutrino? Where is twin-3 in your discussion?
>
Twin 2 is the observer in the lab who remains at rest on the Earth.
Re: CREATIONISM A THEORY??????????
"William N. Rapien"
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:41:32 -0700
Michael Lacy wrote:
>
> In article <33B2EEA2.76EB@ccmail.dsccc.com>,
> "William N. Rapien" wrote:
>
(Snip)
> >
> >Jesus said that although they (men) see, they do not perceive.
> >It is the same thing. There are those of us who through spiritual
> >rebirth have come to truly see that which others cannot. The
> >refusal of others to see does not negate the reality of what we
> >see.
>
> But how do you differentiate between delusion and reality? How do you know
> that what you perceive through 'spirital rebirth' is not simply a delusion?
Shall we discuss then philosophy? The ancient Greek philosophers said
the same thing concerning the reality you perceive with your physical
senses. They even went so far as to doubt their own existance. Pure
logic can be used to prove or disprove anything.
> Why do the findings of other not matter?
Did I say this? I am not refuting reality as you know it. I do not
pretend to know how God created everything or whether or not He used
what we perceive as evolution to accomplish His purposes. To me, the
fleshly aspect of man is not important (nor its method of construction /
derivation.) What is important to me is than part of me which is like
Him.... my spirit.
As an engineer, I have to depend on scientific principles and the
results of experiments just like any scientist does. But I also have
the added dimension of the spirit by which to explore this amazing
creation of His.
> In science, if your
> experience/experiment is not repeatable by others, it is generally held to
> be invalid. Why should 'spiritual experiences' not be subject to the same
> rigour as scientific experiences?
>
Ah, but my experience has been repeated by many others down through the
ages. In fact, if the number of people verifying these experiences were
totaled up, they would probably outnumber all the people currently
living today. The fact that the experience is not obtainable by logic
but by faith does not invalidate it. It simply makes it unprovable by
simple logic. (In other words, the flesh is unable to perceive the
spirit.)
Believe me, there is no one more rigourous than God when it come to the
truth. It is simply that you are restricted to your own framework. We
are also restricted to our own framework of which yours is but a subset.
Maybe if you consider it in this manner... A picture hanging on the
wall can be considered a three dimensional object in that it has height
and width and exists in time. We in turn are actually four dimensional
creatures. If (somehow for the sake of discussion) a three dimensional
creature existed in the picture, it would be restricted to moving and
feeling and perceiving within that framework. It could not perceive
that which existed in a parallel plane next to it. But we who are four
dimensional can perceive the three dimensional and what is in it.
Now, add a dimesion to each one. Man as a spiritual creature is
actually more than four dimensional just as God is more than four
dimensional. I am not going to pretend to know how many dimensions God
may exist in but the Bible is pretty clear in expressing that He framed
the worlds like we would frame a picture. It also says that He know the
beginning and the end as though He stands outside of time.
This creation of His is artificial in His terms but completely natural
in ours. Just a problem of a difference in point of view. (Shall I
discuss Relativity?)
I do know that God has caused me to experience things that seem, if not
impossible, at least highly unlikely in the natural. But I still have
experienced them and others have also experienced them with/through me.
To lay hands on someone and see them healed (with later verification by
a doctor) is not something that can be called a delusion. But then, you
only have my word for it. The logic of doubt is difficult to overcome.
Just something to think about.
SOC Bill
************************************************************************
Opinions expressed herein are my own and are not the opinions of my
employer.
************************************************************************
Re: CREATIONISM A THEORY??????????
"Craig L. Hodder"
27 Jun 97 13:57:55 GMT
Raistlin Majere, Archmage
wrote in article <33b607cf.1231530@news.execpc.com>...
> On 26 Jun 97 13:18:21 GMT, "Craig L. Hodder"
let it
> be known that:
>
{Snip Raist's and my own comments}
Why, thank you, Raist... It's SO refreshing to know that when people come
with honest questions to someone who thinks they know something that they
get treated with such tremendous respect!! I, for one, am thoroughly
impressed with your ability to make clear the finer points of your logic
when asked to... Thank you so very much.
Now, in case you don't recognise sarcasm, you arrogant twit... The
questions I asked were honest confusions, and you responded with insults.
Get off your high horse, and realize that there are things you don't
understand, and things that you don't understand fully. I should have
known not to try and engage in rational discussion with someone who took
their pen name from a work of Fiction... (enjoyable fiction, but still
Fiction)
Re: CREATIONISM A THEORY??????????
xyz@psn.net (The_Sage)
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 23:53:39 GMT
>george@nishnabotna.com (Nishnabotna Bend) wrote:
>> With due respect, Nishnabotna, don't make the error of claiming that the
>> use of invectives or expletives in any way indicates a lack of ability to
>> argue rationally. Unless said expletives are used *in place* of argument,
>> or as an attempt to discredit an opponent without addressing the argument
>> itself, expletives are merely indicative of tone, NOT lack of substance.
>Sorry, but such conduct isn't accepted in scholarly debate. Tone
>indicates emotion, which starts to cloud objective thought, so it is
>frowned upon.
But isn't frowning indicative of emotion too?
>> Those who conclusively claim, "you swear, therefore you are childish or you
>> have no argument or....yada yada yada..." are merely expressing a
>> subjective opinion, indicative of nothing other than their personal dislike
>> of swearing. They're also committing the very same fallacy of which they
>> accuse their opponent - just with nicer words.
>From experience, I can pretty well say that people who have to resort to
>such language are rarely of exceptional intelligence or at least have
>extreme difficulty communicating ideas to other people.
Vulgar language is still language and it is still communicating an idea.
Anything that conveys a persons thoughts, ideas, AND FEELINGS is
appropriate for communication because IT IS communication.
>Use of langauge is highly connected to the process of thought. If a
>person cannot express himself without inflammatory or objectionable
>language, it reflects quite a bit about how they think.
Vulgar language can be very funny at times.
The_Sage
Re: CREATIONISM A THEORY??????????
yorick@gist.net.au (J. Morales)
Sat, 28 Jun 1997 01:52:15 GMT
george@nishnabotna.com (Nishnabotna Bend) wrote:
>In article <33b3743c.1722502@news.ozemail.com.au>,
>stix@REMOVEozemail.com.au (Stix) wrote:
>
>> With due respect, Nishnabotna, don't make the error of claiming that the
>> use of invectives or expletives in any way indicates a lack of ability to
>> argue rationally. Unless said expletives are used *in place* of argument,
>> or as an attempt to discredit an opponent without addressing the argument
>> itself, expletives are merely indicative of tone, NOT lack of substance.
>
>Sorry, but such conduct isn't accepted in scholarly debate. Tone
>indicates emotion, which starts to cloud objective thought, so it is
>frowned upon.
>
>> Those who conclusively claim, "you swear, therefore you are childish or you
>> have no argument or....yada yada yada..." are merely expressing a
>> subjective opinion, indicative of nothing other than their personal dislike
>> of swearing. They're also committing the very same fallacy of which they
>> accuse their opponent - just with nicer words.
>
>From experience, I can pretty well say that people who have to resort to
>such language are rarely of exceptional intelligence or at least have
>extreme difficulty communicating ideas to other people.
>
>Use of langauge is highly connected to the process of thought. If a
>person cannot express himself without inflammatory or objectionable
>language, it reflects quite a bit about how they think.
>
But you do not know that he cannot, merely because he has chosen not
to do so in his replies to you.
[]
>| Nishnabotna Bend Technologies [snip]
JRM
Re: Global Worries? See: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/Data/GISTEMP/
spam@here.not (Wm James)
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 14:27:24 GMT
On 27 Jun 1997 08:40:54 -0400, lparker@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd
R. Parker) wrote:
>Wm James (spam@here.not) wrote:
>:
>: Satellite data shows no warming. Oceanographic data (nearly 150
>: years of it) shows no increase. Data compiled by MIT and the
>: British Meteorological office.
>
>Oceanographic data most definitely does show warming.
The data is available to the public. Feel free to call MIT or
Rebert Stevenson. There in no warming.
>: If you want a single location example, orange groves used to
>: exist in mid Mississippi. They will not grow there now due to
>: the cold.
>:
>
>Huh? When, in dinosaur times?
Until around 1930 AD. There are photos of them and there are
people still living who worked them.
>Glaciers used to exist lower in the Alps; they don't anymore. 2/3 of the
>glaciers in Glacier National Park are gone -- melted.
There are a number of factors than can and do change conditions
in a given area temporarily, but that has nothing to do with
global temperature. Polar stations from the US, Canada, and
Russia since 1937 show NO warming. Although shifts in the gulf
stream accasionally have very noticable effects, sometimes for
several years.
Also volcanic activity has very large effects, but this is only
temporary as well.
>: Yes, and declaring someones property a "wetland" is a common
>: abuse by the feds. This involves confiscation, and the
>: government is obligated to pay.
>
>Not necessarily.
It is a very common tactic. Very misused.
>: >Sometimes, when you live in a society, your private personal rights have
>: >to give way to the good of the society.
>:
>: Hey, it's Karl Marx! I thought you and the other Marx brothers
>: were all dead!
>
>Hey, if you want anarchy, leave the society. If you really can't
>comprehending members of a society giving up some individual rights for
>the good of the society, you don't belong in a society.
The price of a free society is the toleration of individual
rights. The USA proved it to be a superior system over the 200+
year success. Now some want to replace it with socialism that
has proven to fail everywhere it has ever been used.
>: >2. Also not true. If someone wants to build a cement factory in a
>: >residential area on property they own, they don't have to be paid if the
>: >city won't rezone the land for them.
>:
>: Again this is a zoning issue. Note however, that is the cement
>: factory exists when the city annexes the area of passes the
>: ordanence, the cement factory cannot be forced to stop unless the
>: city pays them.
>
>
>Weelll....
>
>In GA, the state passed a law giving local gov'ts more authority in
>licensing establishments that serve alcohol and have nude dancing. The
>state supreme court ruled a city could deny such a place its license
>renewal even though it was in business, legally, before the law was
>passed. "An alcohol license is a privilege and there is no expectation
>of it," the court ruled.
What does liquor licensing have to do with land use? They can
and change liquor regulations, taxes, roads,ect...
But they cannot rezone a commercial establishment to be
residential and make them close the buisness unless they want to
buy the land.
William R. James
Re: CREATIONISM A THEORY??????????
chrislee@netcom.com (Christopher A. Lee)
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 20:18:47 GMT
In article george@nishnabotna.com (Nishnabotna Bend) writes:
>In article <33b3743c.1722502@news.ozemail.com.au>,
>stix@REMOVEozemail.com.au (Stix) wrote:
>
>> With due respect, Nishnabotna, don't make the error of claiming that the
>> use of invectives or expletives in any way indicates a lack of ability to
>> argue rationally. Unless said expletives are used *in place* of argument,
>> or as an attempt to discredit an opponent without addressing the argument
>> itself, expletives are merely indicative of tone, NOT lack of substance.
>
>Sorry, but such conduct isn't accepted in scholarly debate. Tone
>indicates emotion, which starts to cloud objective thought, so it is
>frowned upon.
And making claims and when we ask you for for evidence to support your
claims, telling us that "if we are interested we have to look for it
ourselves" isn't accepted in any kind of debate.
Yet you did it. Your exact remark was: "Instead of asking others to
prove God to you, if you are interested in finding Him, you will have to
look for him yourself".
Which was a remarkably stupid thing to say. Because the only reason you
had been asked for proof/evidence/etc of "God" was because you had
invoked it as premises in your argument - to somebody you know is not a
believer.
In any kind of debate it simply demonstrates that you are unable to
produce this evidence/proof/etc because otherwise you would have done so.
>> Those who conclusively claim, "you swear, therefore you are childish or you
>> have no argument or....yada yada yada..." are merely expressing a
>> subjective opinion, indicative of nothing other than their personal dislike
>> of swearing. They're also committing the very same fallacy of which they
>> accuse their opponent - just with nicer words.
>
>From experience, I can pretty well say that people who have to resort to
>such language are rarely of exceptional intelligence or at least have
>extreme difficulty communicating ideas to other people.
From experience it shows our frustration with frustration of dealing with
the wilfully ignorant and deliberately dishonest who insist that their
deity is real and the use cop-outs like "Instead of asking others to
prove God to you, if you are interested in finding Him, you will have to
look for him yourself".
And like people who use the word "reality" to mean their own personal virtual
reality without telling us until later, when everybody else has been
using in in the original generally accepted meaning.
>Use of langauge is highly connected to the process of thought. If a
>person cannot express himself without inflammatory or objectionable
>language, it reflects quite a bit about how they think.
Hey, try to engage in "serious debate" and you will be treated
respectfully. Make outrageous claims and tell us to look for the
evidence ourselves to support them and you will be treated with as much
disrespect as your remark showed us.
It's just part of human nature.
And lying about his motives for using expletives when you have shown
yourself to be a fucking idiot just compounds your initial offensiveness.
Life isn't a competitive debate which you "win" if you annoy the other
guy. It's about coming to terms with objective reality - and part of that
objective reality is that if you're intellectually dishonest you get
treated with contempt by those who value integrity in debate, and that
sometimes this contempt included expletives which a lot of people use for
emphasis. Especially when the dishonesty is compounded by lying about the
reasons for the expletives.
You're just another trolling, lying fundy who cannot support his claims
and resorts to red-herrings.
Re: CREATIONISM A THEORY??????????
Raistlin@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com (Raistlin Majere, Archmage)
Fri, 27 Jun 1997 16:53:17 GMT
On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 01:42:51 -0600, george@nishnabotna.com (Nishnabotna Bend)
let it be known that:
>In article , chrislee@netcom.com
>(Christopher A. Lee) wrote:
>
>> We don't give a flying fuck what you believe - but you claimed your
>> beliefs reflected reality.
>
>They do. They reflect reality as I know it.
As *you* perceive it.
>Apparently you have a hard time accepting that anyone could have a
>different view of reality than your own.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
>> Yes you do: *Y*O*U* make outrageous claims for something *Y*O*U* have yet
>> to show any relevance to us and expect us to take them seriously.
>
>I made claims and the reasons for my belief. Sorry it doesn't work for
>you. Again, I'm not obliged to prove anything to you.
Yes, you are. You are the positive claimant. The burden of proof is
upon you.
>
>> So *Y*O*U* owe us evidence/justification/etc for it.
>
>Nope.
Yep.
>
>> Instead *Y*O*U* have told us that "if we want this evidence" we have to
>> look for it ourselves.
>
>If I said 7-11 was giving out free sodas, would you expect me to prove it
>to you before you looked into it any further?
That's not an extraordinary claim.
>
>> Can you say "cop-out"? Can you say "shifting the burden of proof"? Can
>> you say "intellectual dishonesty"?
>
>Can you say "I want everything provided to me on a silver platter"?
Can you say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?
>
>> Once again: *Y*O*U* have decided to tell us all about it. *Y*O*U*
>> raised the subject, not us. Part of this is providing objective support
>> for your claims.
>
>I provided a proof, but it assumes I take my self-awareness as an axiom.
>Are you saying I can't do this? It's the only thing I truely know as a
>starting point.
We're saying nothing of the sort. We're saying you cannot use
non-falsifiable claims as evidence.
>
>>
>> >> But instead you tell us that if we want it we have to find it ourselves -
>> >> when all we're doing is asking *you* to support *your* claims.
>> >
>> >I have supported my claims to myself to my satisfaction, thank you very much.
>> >
>> >Now, if you want proof for yourself, go do your own homework and
>> >soul-searching. I can't do it for you.
>>
>> WHY THE FUCK SHOULD WE? THEY'RE YOU'RE CLAIMS - *Y*O*U* HAVE TO SUPPORT
>> THEM. UNTIL THEN THEY'RE JUST ANOTHER UNSUPPORTED IRRELEVANCY. Why is
>> this so difficult for you to understand?
>>
>> >> Once again: PUT UP OR SHUT UP.
>> >
>> >Once again, I have no obligation to you.
>>
>> YES YOU DO. YOU HAVE TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS. OTHERWISE THEY ARE
>> WORTHLESS.
>
>I have backed up my claims, but you don't seem to accept them, apparently
>because you won't allow me to take my own self-awarness as a starting
>axiom.
You have backed up nothing.
>
>> If you can't back them up, don't make them - that way you won't make such
>> a fool of yourself.
>
>I'm don't think I'm the one looking like a fool here.
Think again.
>
>>
>> >> NO. YOU'RE THE ONE MAKING THE CLAIM *S*O* *Y*O*U* *H*A*V*E* *T*O*
>> >> *S*U*P*P*O*R*T *I*T*. Which word didn't you understand?
>> >
>> >I made the claim about how I reconcile myself, my spirtuality, and my
>> >God. I supported that.
>>
>> No, you didn't. You claimed that your deity
>
>Your sentence isn't complete, so I can't respond.
>
>>
>> >You're asking me to reconcile yourself, your spirtuality (if any), and
>> >someone's god. Sorry, but that you have to do for yourself.
>
>
>> Why? You haven't even shown why I should care about your beliefs.
>
>Why should you care about them? If you don't agree with them, feel free
>to ignore them. You certainly seem to be putting a lot of energy into
>something you don't care about.
>
>> Yet you
>> tell them to me and insist that they reflect reality.
>
>My reality as I see it. Also the reality of others as they see it with
>similar beliefs. Not necessarily your reality as you see it.
>
>> So you've been
>> called on that - you have to support your claims. But instead you telkl
>> me to look for evidence to support them WHY THE HECK SHOULD I? THEY'RE
>> YOUR BELIEFS, NOT MINE. *Y*O*U ARE THE ONE CVLAIMING THEM AS SOMETHING
>> MORE THAN JUST BELIEF, NOT ME.
>
>I've supported my claims. Take it or leave it. If you want to go ahead
>and explore further, feel free to do so. If not, that's OK with me, too.
You've supported your claims when? With what objective evidence?
[snip]
Raist
alt.atheism atheist #51
Nothing is the miracle it appears to be--Simon Stevin
