Newsgroup sci.physics 244208

Directory

In article <33AF1CEB.4BC1@nnoo.ssppaamm.en.com> Garrett
 writes:
> right up there with Steven Weinberg and Stephen Hawking,
> another set of crackpots who believe that the more you 
> state the same obvious
> lies, the more it makes them true.
>
> *PLONK*
>
> -- 
>
> Garrett
   Tsk, tsk, grow-up li'l boy

jac@ibms48.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
|
| The question is, how can you argue that parent particle is "made up 
| of the decay particles" when the parent particle has two _mutually_ 
| _exclusive_ decay modes?  Your statement is self-contradictory. 
lockyer@best.com (Thomas N. Lockyer) writes:
>
>THe premise is that the parent is simply a fireball that has energy that can 
>have several possiblities to form different particles.  
 Why do you argue that the pion, which happily flies 10s of meters 
 down a beam pipe and scatters off of a target, is a "fireball" but 
 a neutron, which does the same thing, is not?  
 Why do you go to all that work to build a model where the neutron is 
 made up of the things it decays into, then start talking about a 
 "fireball"?  Is is a coincidence that you do this when your basic 
 assumptions fail? 
| When I repeated the question: 
|
|| If the pion is made up of a muon and muon neutrino, why does an 
|| electron come out with an electron neutrino?  According to the 
|| standard Lockyer model, this should not be seen. 
>I have covered this before.  The model clearly indicates that the muon is 
>composed of an electron and two muon type neutrinos.  
 Fine.  Data clearly indicate that this is nonsense. 
-- 
 James A. Carr        | Commercial e-mail is _NOT_ 
    http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/       | desired to this or any address 
 Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst.  | that resolves to my account 
 Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306    | for any reason at any time. 

In article , "Dr. David Rosen" On 26 Jun 1997, Matthew P Wiener wrote:
>> >the earth's clock.  Remember special relativity only deals with FORs
>> >that do not accelerate.
>> SR deals with accelerating frames easily enough.  It's called "calculus".
>	I think the correct statement is "SR deals with all reference
>frames that are not in a nonzero gravitational field.
My statement is correct as it stands.
>						        However, the
>formula for Lorentz dilation does not apply to accelerated reference
>frames.  [...]
It does if you integrate.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)

Nathan Urban  wrote:
> Not if it's an idealized tube, whose surface is infinitely thin.  That
> would be 2-d.  (And since we're considering an idealized line, I see no
> reason why we shouldn't consider an idealized tube.)
I think people are confusing *the dimensionality of the tube's surface*,
which is 2 for an idealized tube, with the dimension of the minimal
Euclidean space in which the tube may be embedded, which is 3.
Physicists talking about multi-dimensional curved spacetimes usually
don't worry about Euclidean embeddings; there's no reason that our world
has to be embedded in a flat space.
-- 
Font-o-Meter!      Proportional  Monospaced
                                      ^
http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/

¡VIVA CUBA!
                    CONTRA EL PUTO BLOKEO

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> 
> In article <33AA9E82.49C3@continet.com>, Rich Lemert  writes:
> >meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <5od2be$ei4$1@news.fsu.edu>, dmm5206@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (D. Maso-Furedi) writes:
> >> >
> >> >P.S. If people were able to put aside their racism and sexism in hirings,
> >> >why has there never been a Black/female President?
> >>
> >> Since women are the majority of the voters in the US, it is rather
> >> difficult to justify the idea that "no woman has been elected
> >> president due to sexism".
> >>
> >
> >  Actually, its rather easy. First, women did not even have the right
> >to vote for most of the republic's life. Then when they did, they were
> >never given female candidates to vote for. Remember, while in theory
> >the voters select the candidates through the primaries, in practice
> >they are selected by their parties with the consent of the voting
> >populace.
> >
> And who are the parties made of?  Martians?A moot point, Mati.

: Max Keon 
: I can't find a way past this analogy. 
That's a scenario not an analogy.
: From a one meter long rod, in a distant supernova, atomic particles are
: exploded into the cosmos, maintaining the exact rod length in cosmic
: ray particle form.  Each particle is then individually accelerated, by
: whatever means, in the direction of the particle rod length, to near
: light speed (or beyond).  Even if each particle suffers length
: contraction there is no reason why the distance between them should as
: well. 
That's exactly right.  You can decide to rip the rod apart.  In which
case, it won't stay a constant length in its own rest frame.  Or you can
leave the rod together when you move it.  In which case, it *will* stay
a constant length in its rest frame, and the distance between its
particles *will* decrease in the original frame.  That is, there's no
reason for the "space between the particles" to "contract".  But then,
the particles were ripped apart, and the rod didn't retain its identity. 
Consider this analogy to that scenario.  We have a rod that's pointed
along the x-axis.  We can rotate it by some angle, between 0 and 45
degrees.  The x-offset between any two particles of the rod decreases. 
But consider a rod in a distant supernova!  We move each particle directly
up the y axis!   That changes the angle of the rod, but the x displacement
didn't change!  Where's your decreasing x-distance now?
The point being, you didn't rotate the rod.  You ripped it part and
moved its particles in a different way than "rotatating" them as a
rigid rod.
Just so with the relativistic example.  You didn't accelerate the rod.
You ripped it apart and moved its  particles in a different way than
"moving" them as a rigid rod.  Nothing prevents you from doing that,
but it ain't a rod anymore.
The reason this analogy is useful, is because movement in 4d spacetime
is an operation that's mathematically related to rotation in 3d space. 
Velocity in 4d is analogous to orientation in 3d.  The point of the
analogy is that "space" and "time" in relativity are like x and y
coordinates.  You can pick them any which way you want, but different
people will pick them different ways, and what one considers a space
offset, another will consider a time offset.  So, just as a rotated rod
changes its x distances for y distances, a moving rod in relativity
changes its space distances for time durations. 
--
Wayne Throop   throopw@sheol.org   http://sheol.org/throopw

In article <5oejln$mtp@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
  Brian W Purdy  wrote:
>
> >Crist Clark wrote:
> >
> >Funny you should use the word 'culture' in this argument in that way. It
> >has been observed in 'primitive' cultures that numerical concepts like
> >infinity or cardnal numbers greater than 20 or so often do not exist.
> >For these people, these numbers do not exist. Sure, if we school them in
> >mathematics they would be quite capable of learning them, but in doing
> >so we teach them our /axioms/ of mathematics and 'contaminate' them; it
> >wouldn't prove anything.
> >
> >I think Wolfgang's argument that mathematics is 'arbitrary' has confused
> >people. They are not arbitrary but have been chosen and engineered by
> >humans to /model/ the universe. The fact they model the world so well
> >leads people to think backwards. Light from a point source, to be
> >precise, does not obey the inverse square law (the photons don't have
> >little HP's or Casio calculators); the light does whatever it does and
> >we humans use this wonderful tool we call math to model the situation.
> >
> >--
> >Crist "Arguing in purely Euclidian cirlces" Clark
Even if light doesn't perfectly obey 1/r2d2 robot something.
Sorry. I couldn't help myself for joking. Seriously. ;-)
Even if light doesn't perfectly obey 1/r^2, it is quite measurably
obvious that light comes overwhelmingly close to that particular real
valued function. Pretty amazing coincidence if you ask me.
> Brian Purdy observes:
>
> The EXPRESSION of a numerical object of thought is cultural.  The
> numerical object of thought itself is not.  In Spanish it’s “uno”.
> In Japanese it’s “ichi”.  In English it’s “one”.  The various cultural
> expressions represent the same numerical object of thought (i.e., a
> numerical idea).  In this way the numerical idea “one” is like my car.
> “My car” is still my car even though, in Japanese, it is “watashi no
> kuruma”.  I don’t get a new car by inventing a new expression that
> represents my car (and that’s a crying shame too).  That a typical
> adult in a primitive culture (or an typical infant in a civilized
> culture) might only be aware of three (or, in your example, twenty)
> discreet numerical objects of thought doesn’t prove that numerical
> ideas beyond three (or twenty) don’t exist.  It merely proves that
> the typical adult in the primitive culture (or the infant in the
> civilized culture) is not aware.  That an inhabitant of the Land of
> the Rising Sun might not be aware of my car, does not prove that my
> car does not exist (I hope), it only proves that said inhabitant is
> not aware.
>
> --
> Brian W. Purdy
>
Or,
> Brian Purdy observes:
>
> The EXPRESSION of a numerical object of thought is cultural.
 [...]
>                                   That an inhabitant of the Land of
> the Rising Sun might not be aware of my car, does not prove that my
> car does not exist (I hope), it only proves that said inhabitant is
> not aware.
>
> --
> Brian W. Purdy
>
Editing further, I might have written:
> Brian Purdy observes:
[...]
> --
> Brian W. Purdy
And this begins to look like Brian is practicing a cultural activity of
observing one's self. Other cultures might not ever appreciate, let alone
comprehend, that the cultural act of self-awareness-ism is taking place.
I wonder what else I might label as "cultural". Hmmm...
                     /\  "If the line between science fiction and
                      /   science fact doesn't drive you crazy,
 /\                   \   then you're just not tr(y)ing!"
 \       /\/\  /  \  \/                            Mahipal
 /   ==  \  /  \/\/                                The |meforce> Paradox
 \/                       http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3178/mew3.html
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

1 Lucky Texan   writes
: 	If a bunch (even majority or ALL) of female voters DID vote for a 
: female candidate JUST BECAUSE SHE WAS FEMALE,wouldn't that be sexism?
: 	BTW-bet you can't name the FIRST woman to receive an electoral 
: college vote.
I can!
(taking this out of sci.astro)
-- 
Anton Sherwood   **   +1 415 267 0685   **   DASher at netcom point com
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19

"Rebecca M. Chamberlin"  writes:
> altavoz wrote:
> > 
> 
> I wrote: (snipped anecdotes about Dorothy Hodgkin, Lise Meitner, Rosalyn
> Yalow)
> 
> > And one more thing ...
> > WHAT THE HELL DID YOU SAY THOSE WOMENS SCORES WERE ?!!!
> >   Did they go on to be great contributors to science ?
> 
> They did OK, considering they were female.
Not to be compared to the achievements of Altavoz in his area, I
guess.  After all, he as a super male has a large right brain half
compared to his left brain half.  From what I've learnt from him, the
left brain half is needed, for example, for language.  His left half,
judging by his posts, must then be pretty shriveled up, giving him a
gigantically greater right half, in relative proportion.
It is sad that he is lacking the expressive power to get his great
thoughts across, though.
-- 
David Kastrup                                     Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de       Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany

	According to the General Theory of Relativity and the fact that
light does not appear to travel in straight lines through space, how is it
possible for future generations to actually reach their intended
destinations?
	Is it not possible that, after observing the location of a star
from Earth, someone sets out to reach that star only to find that the star
itself does not exist at that location? How can anyone guarantee the
location of anything in space? 
	With the possibility of many, unknown, heavy-mass objects such as
black holes and the like, couldn't light be bent, curved, and turned
around many times before actually reaching us?
	If so, what implications does this have on our current
undersanding of things outside?

	I'm still a little confused by the General Theory of Relativity
statment that due to the mass of the Earth, time appears to run slower as
observed from a person higher up (such as the top of a tower). 
	Also, is the rate of time on Earth, as observed from some other
point, effected more by the rotation speed of the Earth on its axis, the
revolution speed of the Earth moving around the Sun, or do neither of
these effect the observed passage of time at all?
	Q: Would time on Mars, as observed from Earth, move faster, slower
or at the same speed as there?
Thanks!

In article <33b79cd1.30356393@news.alt.net>,
Ludvig Mortberg  wrote:
>Thanks for your replies! I think I need to sharpen my arguments
>against nanotech. Lets first define a nanomachine. First it should be
>able to pick up individual atoms or molecules. Second it should be
>able to assemble these into structures. That is atoms into molecules
>or crystals. And they should be able to do so even if the reactions is
>energetically unfavourable, in case it would need a source of free
>energy.
>
Okay, but within certain limits.  It's a good idea to design things
that can be put together using reactions that are reasonably likely
to occur anyway, with not too great an energy barrier (but not so likely
that the reactions occur all the time, haphazardly, faster than the
machine can correct).  I don't know of anyone who's claiming that
we can put together any arrangement whatsoever of atoms, bonded however
we like, since most arrangements are unstable and will immediately
turn into something else.
>An example: it should be possible to pick up two atoms, one of
>nitrogen and the other of oxygen and press them togheter so that NO
>forms (energy needed), or press one atom of hydrogen and one of
>clorine so that HCl is formed (energy released). It should also be
>possible to rip molecules apart. Or rip atoms from a solid and throw
>them into a gas.
>
Things very much along these lines are already done with STM.  We don't
usually try to bring single atoms together to react, however, since that's
difficult.  But this isn't a big problem since such things usually
wouldn't be required anyway.  You could "feed" your nanomachine with any
reasonably plentiful molecules.  No point using a nanomachine to do
what bulk chemistry can do much easier.
>Is this possible? No, it's not. The uncertainty relation forbids it.
>Because you need to exactly determine the position and speed of the
>atoms involved, which is forbidden. In fact you can't grip an atom.
>Gripping means that you must know speed and position exactly -
>forbidden.
>
Nonsense.  You don't have to have absolutely zero uncertainty in x and p
to do such a thing.  Typically atoms in a solid have positional
uncertainties (of the atomic center of mass) of much, much less than
the lattice spacing--which is typically a few angstroms.  If atoms were
as light as electrons you might have a point, but they're thousands of
times heavier.
>But how do chemical reactions occur. Havn't I just proven that it's
>impossible for molecules to form? No. What is really a chemical
>reaction? It's really a random statistical process, in which there is
>no need to know anything of the location or speed of the reactants.
>And the same goes when a catalyst is involved, wheteher it's an
>enzyme, a collection of enzymes in a ribosome etc.
>
Enzymes catalyze reactions by adsorbing reactants onto very specific,
well-defined locations on their surfaces.  Well-defined meaning that,
when something is bound there, its positional uncertainty relative
to the enzyme molecule is going to be much smaller than a covalent bond
length.  Then, using mechanisms we're just beginning to understand,
it brings the reactants together in exactly the required way.  After the
reaction occurs, the products are released.  Note that one of the reactants
might be a fuel molecule (ATP).  Enzymes are so specific and so effective
that, in my opinion, it feels more natural to call them machines than
catalysts.
>But what about the scanning tunneling microscope (STM). Can it pick up
>an atom? No, not in the macroscopic sense. You can statistically
>determine that the atom with for example 90 percents certainty is in a
>region 10x10x10 Angstrom, but you can never know for certain.
>
One:  The positional uncertainty is usually much, much smaller than that.
Two:  Your argument indicates that it's impossible to pick up ANYTHING
"in the macroscopic sense."  There will always be quantum uncertainty in
objects' positions.  Does that mean that if you grab a pencil and see it
in your hand that you haven't really picked it up?  There is, after all,
a nonzero probability that the thing's going to tunnel to a spot under
your desk with no warning.
>Yes, you know that you have the atom on the tip, but you can't do
>anything with it! Possibly you could move it to a different location,
>but when you put it down, you don't know where it is! And you
>certainly can't press it to another atom so that a chemical bond
>forms. The atom machine is impossible.
>
Sure you know where it is!  The next time you scan your STM, it's in
exactly the surface lattice site you left it in!  Folks are talking
about making computer memories based on this.  I personally know
people that are working on it, in fact.  At this point, the principle
is basically proven, and the problem is working out the details, doing
it reliably and quickly, and figuring out how to manufacture the things.
It's getting closer and closer to the "D" phase of "R and D."  Given
another decade, I expect it'll be fairly close to realization.
>QED
>
You use that word a lot.  I do not think it means what you think it means.
>PS. Would love input from some quantum people out there.
>
What other kind of people are there?  :)
>Cheers,
>
>Ludvig Mortberg
Have fun,
breed

Thomas N. Lockyer (lockyer@best.com) 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 
: without the other.  If spin occurs in isolation, what happened to the energy 
: stored in the spin angular momentum?  In all other basic particles, the energy 
: stored in the spin is exactly equal to the rest mass energy.
Now this is a funny line of reasoning.
So in nature we observe a finite set of particles, some of them
massive, some of them apparently massless, some of them with
spin, some without.
What Thomas does is: he restricts himself to the subset of
massive particles with spin, and observes that they allways have spin.
So he concludes that particles with spin have to
have mass.  Then he looks at the subset of massless
particles.  There he also should observe that some of them have
spin... actually ALL of them have spin.
So he concludes the experiments must have been wrong
because he established in the other subsample that spin requires mass...
Yeah, sounds logical ! :-)
cheers,
Patrick.
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de

Mitchell Johnson (Mitchone@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
: Can someone explain how a boomerang flies.  Is it precessional motion
: that makes it return to the thrower.  Any kind of explanation will be
: greatly appreciated.  I may have already figured out some of the
: details, but I need some fresh input to jog my memory.
: Thanks.
The returnable variety are mostly toys.  The real weapon variety is
designed to fly a long relatively straight path, parallel to the ground.
The toy variety has equal length arms at a right angle, and the weapon has
a long and short arm at about 45-60 degrees, something like this:
      |                  /
   ___|    _____________/
Either sort is an interesting problem in alternating incremental lift.
They do what they do because of flight dynamics/centrifical force.
Precession, I think, would be more of a resistance factor here, or
possibly evidence of resistance.

meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
: Unfortunately it ain't so.  Unless you define "the creme of the crop" 
: as "the ones who got a job":-)
Actually, wasn't getting a tenure track position
in physics one of the 12 works of Hercules ?
           :-)
cheers,
Patrick.
--
Patrick Van Esch
mail:   vanesch@dice2.desy.de
for PGP public key: finger vanesch@dice2.desy.de

On 24 Jun 1997, HntrRos wrote:
> Anthony Potts  writes:
> 
> :If you get a degree in physics, you will never be unemployed (well, if
> you
> :get a good degree, that is).
> 
> Might you elabourate (ie, what type of employment)?
> 
You will be able to work at most office jobs that require no more than a
reasonably functioning mind and a willingness to be prompt and to work
reasonably hard.
You can be the manager of a shop, learn to drive a lorry, clean pools, and
so on.
Basically, a physics degree is going to show your potential employer that
you are quite bright. People like this in staff (they don't however, tend
to like a smart arse, so you have to be a bit careful how you present
yourself). It means that they aren't taking a gamble on your ability to
think.

On 25 Jun 1997, Brian D. Ostasiewski wrote:
> 
> Well, I'm sure the creme of the crop doesn't have a problem getting a job.
> Besides, there's plenty more you can do with a physics degree than to go
> into research or teach.  Many people have already posted such suggestions.
Actually, being the best at what you do is nowhere near a guarantee of
getting a long term career.
If, for example, you are specialising in one field, and the grant runs
out, then you need another job in the same field to use your expertise.
Also, it's hard to prove that you are the best in physics. There are no
batting averages published, and if your last research yielded a big
negative on your far reaching idea, you can still look just like the
lesser scientists.
This belief that the best will always do well sadly isn't true any more.
I don't know if it ever was in science.
Part of the reason I am going into the city is that you can be accurately
rated.
If I am the best, I want to know I am.

  An article trumpeting the commercialization of "cold fusion" appears in
the "Science Fact" section of the July/August 1997 issue of ANALOG
magazine.
  Not having read or heard much on the topic in several years, I'm not
familiar with Patterson Power Cells (tm), Jed Rothwell or the author of
the article, one Dr. Eugene F. Mallove.
  However, several very large red flags went up as I read the article; the
first of these was Dr. Mallove's characterizing "entry to the marketplace"
as "the acid test of any revolutionary discovery".  After all, I know
offhand of several (purported) "revolutionary discoveries" that were
successfully marketed despite being complete fakes.  The tone of the
article, that it was all a great big conspiracy by "conventional science"
to suppress the "truth", and the fact that a large proportion of the
references were from a magazine edited by Dr. Mallove himself, raised more
red flags. 
  Anyhow, I was wondering if anyone in sci.physics or sci.skeptic was
familiar with Dr. Mallove, Mr. Rothwell, the "Patterson Power Cell (tm)"
or the current status of scientific work investigating the claims of Pons
and Fleischmann. 

edward green writes:
-Debbie S.  wrote:
-
->I have a very small understanding of physics and have been reading
->"popular" books on the subject.  I would appreciate it if someone
->could explain this to me.
->
->I recall reading that there is a theory that there were other
->dimensions at the time of the Big Bang that "rolled up in a ball"
->smaller than the Planck constant (please forgive me if this is not
->quite right).
->
->I would like to know, if such dimensions supposedly exist, "where" do
->they exist.  Where in the universe would something so small "be".
-
-Attached to every point of space(time).
by the way, debbie, notice that one of the things ed is really telling
you here is that in a way your question didn't make sense, in that a
"dimension" is not really a thing that has a particular "location" in
space.
it's not really your fault for having made this mistake, though.
rather, it is rod serling's fault.  every time i hear that cretin say
"you're in another dimension..." i want to scream.  a "dimension" is
not a thing that a material object is ever "in" in any very obvious
sense.
try thinking of it this way: you're familiar with the idea that the
ordinary space we live in is 3-dimensional, right?  so what are those
3 dimensions?  probably most commonly we think of them as "latitude",
"longitude", and "altitude" (although an important aspect of the
concept of "dimension" is that it's to a significant extent a matter
of arbitrary convention what are taken as the basic dimensions).
well, have you ever been in any of those dimensions?  what was it like
in latitude?
if you think a bit about the way in which words like "latitude",
"longitude", and "altitude" are used, it might help you understand
what other hypothesized "dimensions" are like, and why it doesn't
usually make much sense to ask "where" a particular dimension is, or
to talk about something being "in" a dimension.
to imagine what it's like to suddenly "discover a new dimension", try
imagining that you were born with the muscles in your neck that allow
you to move your head up and down completely paralyzed, but that
suddenly after several decades of walking around thus constrained to
stare in a horizontal direction, the muscles became unparalyzed and
you can now look up in the sky or down at the ground as you choose.
thus previously you were constrained to live in a 2-dimensional world
of just longitude and latitude, but now altitude is added to the mix.
a new "dimension" is like a new "degree of freedom".  explaining a new
degree of freedom to someone who has never experienced it before can
be like explaining color to the color-blind.  (in fact severe forms of
color-blindness really do reduce the dimension of the spectrum of
perceivable colors.)  maybe there's a previously unnoticed dimension
called "lassitude" that if you can just crane your neck in a certain
way that no one's ever thought of before you can move around in and
perceive that we're all unnecessarily hunched up flat like egyptian
wall paintings.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet

In article <5ore30$sq4@f1n1.spenet.wfu.edu>, ostasbd4@wfu.edu (Brian D. Ostasiewski) wrote:
> Tue, 24 Jun 1997 20:35:32 GMT - meron@cars3.uchicago.edu was like:
> : In article <5op7fk$oqu@f1n1.spenet.wfu.edu>, ostasbd4@wfu.edu (Brian D. Ostasiewski) writes:
> : >Er, a *point* would be one-dimensional, a line would be two-d, and a tube
> : >would be _three-dimensional_.
> : Eh?  Think again.
> After I posted and sent it off, I read what I wrote and felt pretty
> stupid, so I tried to think of something to blame it on, and couldn't come
> up with anything humorous enough.  Oh well.  But a tube is still 3-d, even
> though a line is 1-d.
Not if it's an idealized tube, whose surface is infinitely thin.  That
would be 2-d.  (And since we're considering an idealized line, I see no
reason why we shouldn't consider an idealized tube.)

On Wed 6/25/97 08:02 -0400 Edward Green wrote:
> 
>  wrote:
> 
> >So, using a physicist jargon, you say that once sanity is assumed, the
> >external world is a "model consistent with all observations".  I
> >agree.  Yet, one may ask "is there any conceivable observation that
> >may not be consistent with the model".  It seems to me that the answer
> >is "no".
> 
> An interesting point,  but not exactly the one I was making.  My point
> was more that the model evolves without our having to think about it.
> Therefore,  I claimed,  whether we call the agent of this evolution
> 'the world' or 'our unconscious',  it amounts to something 'not-us'
> going on.
> 
> In sort of a quantum-rhapsody (you know how those things get),  I did
> consider another possibility:  We think the world has been evolving
> according to some laws in our absence,  but really the exact form of
> development is only filled in when we look and to the level of
> detail we look at.  The algorithm always leaves itself an out...
> whatever we see is consistent with some more detailed mechanism,
> but the details are only filled in on request;  like a trip planned
> on finer and finer scale maps.
> 
> Well you see where this is going.  When we got to the level of detail
> of quantum mechanics to universe had to wing it.  She is just one
> step ahead of us in a psychic chess game;  she hasn't been checkmated
> into logical contradiction yet,  but the game is getting interesting.
> 
> Nonetheless these details are still filled in for us without conscious
> volition or awareness,  so we are still left with something 'not-us'
> doing the calculating.  So this changes the rules of the game,  but
> still leaves us with another player.
> 
Well, yes and no.  In the Holographic Paradigm, there are other players
and all contribute to the synergism of the universe as a whole.  At the
same time, as an autonomous emergent self-aware transcendental entity,
you are a solipsistic agent within that synergism. 
There is much more to it, of course; however, a look at URL 
http://www.livingston.net/hermital/mantra.htm may help.
-- 
Alan 
Ontological consciousness is a continuum, or spectrum, of physical
energy, just as electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is a continuum, or
spectrum, of physical energy.
Physics, Metaphysics and the Holographic Paradigm:
http://www.livingston.net/hermital/intro.htm

Ludvig Mortberg wrote:
> 
> But what about the scanning tunneling microscope (STM). Can it pick up
> an atom? No, not in the macroscopic sense. You can statistically
> determine that the atom with for example 90 percents certainty is in a
> region 10x10x10 Angstrom, but you can never know for certain.
So how about a nanomachine that makes NO bindings (I admit that
is not too easy :) with a probability of 95 %, and lets go
an atom in 5% of the cases ?  We have  a non-perfect nanomachine.
What's wrong ?
> 
> Yes, you know that you have the atom on the tip, but you can't do
> anything with it! Possibly you could move it to a different location,
> but when you put it down, you don't know where it is! And you
> certainly can't press it to another atom so that a chemical bond
> forms. The atom machine is impossible.
Well, then you cannot pick up an apple either, because the
same uncertainty relationships apply to the apple...
cheers,
Patrick.

David Hoenig wrote:
> 
> Could anyone tell me what is the best (readily available) material for
> shielding against a relatively large magnetic field?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
> 
> David Hoenig
> Student, Computer Engineering, University of Michigan
> ------------------------------------------------------
A superconductor (Meisner Effect).
Next best is to look up mu-metal and Co-netic alloy, and Allied's Glas-Met alloys  
http://www.thomasregister.com/
Short of the supercon you are going to have big problems trying to contain or 
redirect a big field.
-- 
Alan "Uncle Al" Schwartz
UncleAl0@ix.netcom.com ("zero" before @)
uncleal@uvic.ca        (to 30 July, cAsE-sensitive!)
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal.htm
 (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children, Democrats, and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"  The Net!

?Ed Banks  wrote:
>I also have drifted from my faith, and I am not nearly as content now
>as I used to be. However, I have promised myself that I will not return
>to Christianity until certain questions of mine have been answered, one
>of them being what the origin of evil is. If you do not feel like
>fielding this question, perhaps, you could refer it to someone you know. 
>My question is this: "How is evil explained in a world with God?"
>Discussion of this question will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very
>much for your time. 
In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. Then he placed
a garden in the midst of the earth and in it placed a tree which he called
the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This tree was created by God.
It could magically pass on knowledge of evil. This knowledge of evil
came from God. God has evil in his heart.
The_Sage

>george@nishnabotna.com (Nishnabotna Bend) wrote:
>Spiritual evidence is only useless to those who cannot or refuse to
>experience it.  That is highly unfortunate.
How can you experience something that doesn't exist?
>Instead of asking others to prove God to you, if you are interested in
>finding Him, you will have to look for him yourself.
Look where?
>Logic and reason,
>although admirable qualities, only apply in this physical domain, and will
>do little to help you find God unless he decides to show himself to you
>through our normal 5 senses.  
There is no other domain other then the physical one. Well, that is not
counting the imaginary domain, there is no other domain.
>If you take logic and reason to the extremes, such as a singularity,
>quantum physics, or even trying to divide by zero, things start to fall
>apart.  Logic and reason are not universal tools that can explain
>everything.
Singularities are just speculation and not known to exist. Quantum
Physics is the science of amatuers, relatively speaking, since it is
a relatively new science. You can't expect amatuers to do an experts
work. Just give them time and they will though. Logic and reason are
universal tools that can explain everything. The only other thing
missing from this picture is knowledge and knowledge takes time and
effort to accumulate.
>If you read MIT's Technology Review for July, there is an interesting
>article about "The Great Unanswered Questions".  Will logic and reason
>answer these questions?  If so, they haven't yet, and I wonder if some
>ever will.  I'll list them, without further explanation.  Check out the
>magazine for further details.
Are you a prophet? Can you prove to us how you came to the definite
conclusion that these questions will never be able to be answered?
>1. What is dark matter?
>2. What will be the ultimate fate of the universe?
>3. Can we devise a theory of everything?
>4. How do atoms combine?
>5. Will we run out of energy?
>6. What's going on inside the earth?
>7. How many people can the earth sustain?
>8. How did life on earth originate?
>9. Can we unravel the genetic code?
>10. How did life on earth become so varied?
>11. How do we develop from a single cell?
>12. What are the physical origins of memory?
>13. Is behavoir dictated by genes?
>14. Are we alone in the universe?
15. Does God exist anywhere in the universe?
16. Did Jesus ever exist or was it a made up story?
I can think of many more "unanswerable" questions, but don't keep
making the invalid assumption that just because they are unanswerable
now, doesn't mean that they will always be unanswerable. You see,
science has always made progress, unlike religion, so if the past
history of science is any indication of what the future holds for answering
these questions (and more), the future for science looks very good indeed.
The_Sage

>george@nishnabotna.com (Nishnabotna Bend) wrote:
>> recognize that you are using the word 'look' metaphorically, borrowing it
>> from the natural world.
>Exactly. "search" may have been a better word so as not imply one of the 5
>senses.
How can one "search" and not use one of the 5 senses? What other ways
can you search? By ESP? By your imagination? What?
>True, thus the difficulty.  That may be the cause of religious
>factions...people find find others that can describe experiences in terms
>they can understand.
Experience that cannot be validated is imagination.
>> That suggests that
>> the spiritual world, if it exists, is not a subject of direct
>> communication between humans. We have not words for it.
>There could be words, but they haven't been defined.  Take snow for
>example.  Eskimos have lots of different names for types of snow.  We
>using English are pretty much limited to just snow, period.  We don't
>easily recognize the sublties they see and thus have not developed
>specific words for them.
But it doesn't stop us from knowing snow like words stop us from
knowing God. Obviously words aren't enough to keep us from knowing
reality, they are only enough to keep us from knowing something that
we can't relate to...ie -- made up things that no one can directly
experience.
>> I personally opt for option #2 but will be open to #3 if an when I
>> experience knowledge of a spiritual world. Of course, I also believe we
>> can believe things that we do not know.
>Perfectly rational.  Keeping an open mind is always important.
But not too open since that would put you under the definition
for gullible-minded.
The_Sage

>Daniel Brooks  wrote:
>Close, It was one species, but it had genitic info for both varities, just
>like people with brown hair are the same species as people with blonde
>people. This is natural selection in action, but it doesn't prove
>evolution, because the species didn't change, it was still the same type
>of moth.
Evolution is natural selection. Evolution is also speciation. While the
moth evolved by natural selection, it did not evovle to the point that
is speciated. For many years Christians denied that even natural
selection happened but with that moth, they can no longer do that.
Isn't it strange that Christians refuse to believe in speciation, despite
the numerous historical evidence found in fossils, because no one
has seen it while it was happening, yet they are appalled when
Atheists refuse to believe in God unless they see Him first? Aren't
Christians being kinda hypocritical?
>Ah YES! some one who understands! A mutation is a loss or corruption of
>genetic information, and you can't get more information by losing it.
Ah yes! Someone who misunderstands! There are two kinds of mutations:
random and directed. A random mutation is a loss or corruption of genetic
information, and you can't get more information by losing it. Directed
mutation, the only kind of mutation that happens in evolution, is always
additional or complimentary information. Once again ALL of the fossil
evidence shows us that mutations were never random and that is why
there are no random mutants recoreded in the fossil record.
By the way, natural selection is an example of mutation. So is blonde
or brown hair of a parent being genetically passed onto it's siblings
(also in the definition of mutation).
The_Sage

>george@nishnabotna.com (Nishnabotna Bend) wrote:
>>         Omnipresent means everywhere. Everywhere includes hell.
>Assuming Hell exists in our dimensions.  Omnipresent might only apply to
>our present dimenions.  Can't say if he's Omnipresent in other dimensions
>for sure.
If I sit down on the toilet and have a bad case of diarrhea, is God in the
toilet that I'm shitting...I mean sitting on?
>Not really a serious contradiction.  If you assume Heven and Hell exist in
>our 3 dimensions, you would have a point, but Omnipresent in human terms
>only applies to our 3 dimensions, and if Heaven and Hell are "elsewhere"
>then that term might not apply.
Omnipresent in human terms means ALL DIMENSIONS. That is because it
means EVERYWHERE present. If God doesn't exist in some dimensions,
then he isn't omnipresent.
>There are scientific theories that postulate the univerise is essentially
>10-dimensional, and that we are only experiencing 3 spacial dimenensions
>and one time dimension.  What happend to the other 6 is a matter of
>debate.  Some say they curled up into little "balls" when symmetry was
>broken. (scientific viewpoint)
>Others postulate that 3 of those dimensions could be "heaven" and the
>other 3 "hell".  (religious viewpoint)
Others postulate that there is no Hell and still others think there is no
Heaven. I wish they would make up their minds.
>>So how can you say anything about god then if you cannot comprehend it?
>Yes, but certaintly not in toto.  I'm sure you cannot comperhend the
>entirety of human knowledge, yet you can say something about your area of
>expertise.
So which part of God have you come to understand yet?
>>There are many gods. Zeus, Krishna, Allah, etc. Not just yours. Perhaps
>>you've forgotten that.
>And some postulate there may be commonality between them.
And still others know for a fact that it is all made up.
>In fact, I once
>read a fictional story where an ancient form, who longed for the "old
>gods", suddenly discovered that they never had left, but our perception of
>them mearly changed.  I think this ancient being recognized "Jesus" as
>being "Zeus", just in another form.
Since Zeus was evil and petty, does that mean that Jesus appeared in
his evil and petty form?
>Granted, it was fiction, but it's an interesting thought.
The Bible also is interesting fiction...your point was?
>Why must something be proved?  Is there some law out there that says
>everything must be proved?  Prove what you can, assume what you must.
God can't be proved and assume is another word for make-believe.
>Science says an electron has a particular charge.  Can you tell me why
>that charge is what it is?
Yes, it is an observed property of electrons.
>> Then how can you claim that your god is omnipresent? That implies some
>> sort of understanding.
>Some sort of understanding, but not necessarily full understanding.
How about no understanding whatsoever?
The_Sage

>Andreas Koslowski  wrote:
>> Hey, quit changing the rules!  The omnipotent part wasn't in the original
>> argument.  Foul!
>Oh, sorry ! But I thought you already understood the basic rule of the
>IPU game, which is :"We are making fun of 'god' concepts by inventing a
>silly god(des) and give it the same attributes and invent the same old dogmas
>for it to show you the sillyness of your god."
>PS: Please don't tell other IPU followers, that I told you the basic
>rule.If you do I will be accused of heresy and kicked out of the True Church
>of the IPU, which would be terrible to me.
Blasphemy! And here I thought it wasn't "changing the rules" but "new
revelations from the IPU"! Or maybe even "the light of the IPU getting
stronger and clearer with time"! Or maybe even...am I breaking any
rules by giving away this information?
The_Sage

In article , luke@rocketship.com wrote:
> God is not a "certain lifeform elsewhere in the universe" God is the author
> of all lifeforms. By definition God is the most high, most powerful, most
> intelligent - how shall I put it - King? Existance? Lord? The master of the
> universe. Nothing can ever be more powerful or intelligent than God. The
> reason for this is that God is infinite. Our minds, or any finite mind
> cannot grasp the concept of infinity, so many people try to think of a "big
> guy" who is more powerful than anything that they can imagine and end up
> with a finite god. (This may account for why many atheists on usenet forget
> to capitalize the G)
>
You may want to consult Occam's Razor.  The concept of god developed when
humankind was ignorant and had no knowlege of the natural laws that govern
the universe.  Those things which they did not understand, the seasons,
lightening, earthquakes, eclipse, etc. were thought to be controlled by
some supreme being.  The more we understand about the universe, the less
is left for a god to do.  Therefore, if a phenomenon can be explained in
two ways, for instance, the moons orbit will occasionally cast a shadow on
the earth, or the moons orbit will occasionally cast a shadow on the earth
because god makes it, Occaman's Razor would dictate the former posit
because there is no need for the superfluous god.
As for not grasping infinity, I have no problem doing so.  It is, after
all, a concept developed by human thought.  By the way, I think you have
contradicted yourself:
"Nothing can ever be more powerful or intelligent than God. The
 reason for this is that God is infinite."
"Our minds, or any finite mind cannot grasp the concept of infinity, so
many people try to think of a "big guy" who is more powerful than anything
that they can imagine...."
> 
> It is not whether an idea can be proven that counts, it whether an idea can
> be disproven that counts.
This statement is silly.  If you can't see that, no waste of bytes will
make a difference.
> Evolution is a good example of an idea that can
> be disproven. There are plenty of normal fossels but no transitional ones.
> There are a lot of bad mutations, but no good ones (besides sicle cell
> anemia).
>
Perhaps you should read the FAQs in talk.origins.  There are simply
thousands of transitional fossils.  Your ignorance does not negate their
exsistance.  I am also disturbed by your racist comment regarding sickle
cells.  Why are so many xtains hateful racists?
> God, however has not been disproven and cannot be disproven. To say so
> would be to say that there is no intelligence in the universe and there is
> no power in the universe, and that the universe is finite. All of these
> things are not so, so God must exist.
>
Nor can a claim that my dog Fido created the universe last Thursday be
disproven.  That's because, now listen carefully, you can't completely
prove a negative.  Intelligence itself does not make a case for a god. 
There is power in the universe.  I believe there are four forces, but a
physisist is better qualified to explain them.  But their exsitance does
not support the god conclusion either.  You have demonstrated what is know
as a non sequitor.
> Forgive me if my logic is not complete: when you are dealing with infinite
> things, you cannot completely understand them.
> 
> Luke Parrish
It is nice of you to admit your lack of logic.  That is regrettable yet
forgiveable.  Racism, on the other hand, is unforgiveable as is continuing
to put forth a position after being being exposed to evidence to the
contrary.  So I suggest you brush up on logic and read the FAQs for
alt.atheism and talk.origins.  Then you may have something more
substanitive to offer the debate.
Brad: atheist #666 (ooga booga)
To email omit "ily" from the name.
"you're older than you've ever been, and now you're older still" TMBG

In article <33b30682.4136044@news.execpc.com>,
Raistlin@Tower-of-High-Sorcery.Palanthas.com (Raistlin Majere,  wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:37:25 -0600, george@nishnabotna.com (Nishnabotna Bend)
>let it be known that:
>
>>In article <33B1816A.71E0@tronco.com>, Martin Deen  wrote:
>>
>>> There is no such thing as Spiritual evidence.  If it were possible to 
>>> experience it, then it would have empirical effects.  You refuse to 
>>> present such effects, untill such time as you do the conclusion can only
>>> be that no such phenomena as "spirit" exist.
>>
>>Then how do you explain faith and those of billions of others (not
>>necessarily of the same faith)?  Why do so many people have a religion of
>>some sort or another.
>
>	A million people believing in a silly thing does not make the thing any
>less silly.
>	You are attempting to argue ad numerum--a logical fallacy.
Quite so.  I would also point out that the very fact that there are so many
different religions seems to indicate that faith is _subjective_ not
objective.  Hence it has no real connexion with reality.  Each goup has its
own shared fantasy.
Michael Lacy
"My views are corrupted by my obsession with reality."

>ostasbd4@wfu.edu (Brian D. Ostasiewski) wrote:
>: If I don't exist, then you won't care if I call your mother a cock-sucking
>: hoar, right?
>No, but I bet if you caller her a whore, that might do it.
I meant to say boar...uh...no....I meant to say bore....uh....um...what I
really meant to say was I will have another Coors! Yea! That's it! No,
really! I mean it this time!
Hiccup!
The_Sage

Peh H. Ng wrote:
> Hey Mike,
> 
> Just because E = m (c^2) does NOT imply that "mass = energy" if
>  $c$ is a constant okay?
> If $c$ is a constant, then $E = m c^2$ explains that
>  "energy is directly proportional to mass".
> "Directly proportional does NOT mean equal (=)" okay?
> 
> Peh...
However, the most reasonable set of units would set c to 1. Under such a
circumstance, we would have E=m.
It's the exact same case with F=ma.  In reality, all we have is F and ma
are proportional.  We just HAPPEN to be using a set of units where the
proportionality constant is 1.
	-Josh G

>"pds1"  wrote:
>I am one who has returned to a relationship with Christ and I praise GOD
>that he guided me back.
>But in answer to your question, and I'm not as well versed as most on this
>list,  I would say evil starts with the drifting away from that
>relationship or lack of it in the first place. GOD won't make you do what
>is right. 
That doesn't explain WHERE evil came from orginally.
>There are the academics and quasi-intellectuals who want proof for
>everything before they will believe.  The sad thing is they really don't
>want proof.  If they opened up their heart, they would know.  They don't
>want to know. Most are covering up something, a hurt, a need to feel
>superior in something because they are living a sham, something - and most
>don't realise it or won't confront it.
This doesn't apply to me. My heart is wide open. I want to know. I am not
covering up anything, not a hurt, not a need to feel superior in something,
not living a sham, nothing! I think that you WISH everybody who doesn't
believe like you do is like that but you just don't realize it or won't
confront it.
>Look at those that show up on this list,  they don't realise the anger and
>hurt they are showing. 
Ouch!
>Why are they even on this group to start with.  If they really are not
>interested in learning - why be here.  
If not to learn then it must be to teach.
The_Sage

>"Dave Wallace"  wrote:
>The original post points to the fact that at the most base level ALL people
>operate on a presuppositional (faith) level.  Unless you have
>legititimately examined every fact that you ever imbibed from your
>parents/teachers/et al, you do operate on undemonstrable presupositions.
What is the difference between faith and trust? I think there is a big
difference these two words and that is why you hear terms used like
"religious faith" instead of "religious trust". I have trust in certain things
but that doesn't mean I have faith in those certain things.
Yes, I do operate on a trust level, but only out of laziness. I nor anybody
else HAS to operate on a trust level. We have a choice in that we can go
out and confirm all that is important to us or just simply believe. But
christians say when it comes to God we have no choice, we must either
believe or don't believe because God cannot be confirmed. I am not
gullible enough or stupid enough to accept something only by trust, if
I do not even have the option to question the belief (as christians must
not if they wish to remain christians) then that is evidence that it is a
scam.
>One of your non-proveable presupositions is that there is no God.
But it is provable that God is non-existant. You are making a false
assumption.
>Therefore any accounting for the
>data must necessarily preclude one particular explaination for the data. 
>That preclusion is based on faith that a given proposition is not so. All
>epistimological argument aknowledges a unsubstatiated base point upon which
>further knowledge is compounded.
No preclusion is being performed, it is an observation that God doesn't
exist. If you still hold fast to the claim that you HAVE observed God, then
I say show me your leftover evidence (ie -- footprints, smells, photographs,
and so on). If you have no verifiable evidence then that is proof that it
was your imagination.
>Basically, we (the group) are arguing from two different disciplines.  The
>creationists are, broadly speaking, not technical specialists but
>interested amatuers.  The non-creationists broadly speaking are more
>technically literate.  What most creationist posters are trying to
>communicate, if I have lurked correctly ;-), is the validity of a different
>explaination for the data without being characterised as murderous zealots.
> Until that basic philosophical allowance is gained, they cannot engage in
>'hand-to-hand' combat over the various phenomena and evidences.  (BTW, if
>you disagree I PROMISE not to kill you or your family. We might glare at
>you a bit .. but that's it ;-]  )
OUCH! Your hurting me! Stop it!
The_Sage

>Andreas Koslowski  wrote:
>> If I wanted to be nit-fucking-overly-picky [..]
>Science must be nit-fucking-overly-picky or it would produce crap like
>E=Ecc.
OK, let's see how far that gets us in this discussion then...
>> We do agree so why are you getting all bent out of shape?
>If you don't agree on proper mathematical rules for expressions,
>communication is senseless since you only produce misunderstandings and
>'look-like' errors.
They are only your misunderstandings. That is your fault, not mine.
>> >E=m Energy is equal to mass is false, energy is equal to mass multiplied
>> >with the square of lightspeed is true.
>> E=m wasn't meant to be a literal equation. It was meant to be a description
>> of what it is. Mass is energy and energy is mass. That is the whole point
>> behind E=mc^2.
>If E=m isn't meant to be literal, then what ? Esoterical ? Hyperlogical
>?
Definition. Mass is energy. Get it now?
>BTW, actually I'm a chemistry student, not a physician.
BTW, are you also not a physicist?
The_Sage

>Andreas Koslowski  wrote:
>> No, what I have been saying is that ENERGY IS MASS and the ratio
>You are lying, sucker. You said: "energy=mass"
And you are a stupid sucker. Energy is mass can also be stated as
energy=mass. So you are saying that energy is not mass? What is
energy then and why can it transform into mass and back again?
>> Nope, you need to get a clue first before your analogies will make
>> any sense.
>Analogies are never 100%, they are analogies not the real thing.
>If you didn't get that analogy it's hopeless.
1+1=2
For example, one apple plus one apple equals two apples. That
analogy is exact.
>> >Please please please please show me where I said something else.
>> When you said that matter is destroyed.
>What physical destruction is not a change of state? So what does
>destruction mean ? Ever had any latin ? But guess from English, isn't
>de-structurizing very similar ?
Ever had any english? Do you not know what the difference between
destruction and transformation is? Destruction implies that it cannot
be reconstructed whereas transformation can.
>> E does equal m. It isn't an exact equation but it does point out the obvious
>> point of E=mc^2 and that is mass and energy are never destroyed, nor are
>> they ever created, they just transform.
>"E does equal m. It isn't an exact equation but .."
>You are talking shit, but don't even notice. Stick to math please, if
>something is not exactly equal it's NOT equal.
Then does that mean that E=mc^2 is wrong since you didn't include all the
other implied terms for relativistic mass? You know, E=m/Sqrt|1-(v/c)^2|?
>> Whatever you say genius. Show me anywhere in the universe where anybody
>> has found mass being created or destroyed or energy being created or
>> destroyed. You can't do it because...suprize!...mass and energy cannot be
>> created or destroyed! Get a clue man!
>Matter-Antimatter fusion results in less mass and more energy,
>wonderboy.
The mass isn't destroyed idiot, it was transformed! Get a clue!
The_Sage

-- 
mevonw@goodnet.com
"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free"
Gal. 5:1
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out"
Unknown
Pat Shelton  wrote in article
...
> In article <01bc7b29$a5b66180$5034b9ce@juddesk> "Judson D. McClendon"
 writes:
> >Pat Shelton  wrote in article
> >...
> >> In article <01bc7aa0$e3b3d1e0$4b34b9ce@juddesk> "Judson D. McClendon"
> > writes:
> >> >-- 
> >> >Judson McClendon          This is a faithful saying and worthy of all
> >> >                          acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the
> >> >                          world to save sinners  (1 Timothy 1:15)
> >> 
> >>     Actually it isn't, Jesus never condemned anyone for sinning, ever.
> >He
> >>     condoned adultery, at the stoning of the woman taken in adultery. 
> >Jesus
> >>     said in John 3:16, that he wanted people to believe in what he
said,
> >not
> >>     Paul, they were very different men.
> >
> >You have already demonstrated in previous posts that you don't have the
> >foggiest idea what the Bible actually says, about Jesus or anything
else. 
> >This statement shows you also don't have the foggiest idea of Who Jesus
is
> >or why He came.  Since you obviously haven't bothered to actually read
the
> >Bible to see what it really says, I doubt that you would listen to
anything
> >I have to say, but I will address this for others who might want to know
> >the truth.
> >
>     I have studied the Bible and what Jesus actually said a great
>     deel more than you but these sort of ad hominem attacks are your
>     only recourse.
> 
> >You said in an earlier message:
> >
> >>    The "word" as discussed in the new testament is Jesus not a book.
> >
> >Jesus is the 'Living Word of God', of course.  He is also the Son of
God,
> >the Second Person of the Trinity, both God and Man.  Jesus did not begin
at
> >His birth in Bethlehem, He was from the beginning.
> >
> >  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word
> 
>     And more quotes that reinforce what I said, so please stop calling
>     the Bible the Word of God, it isn't, it doesn't claim to be.
> 
> >
> >As God, Jesus has the authority to forgive sins.  Jesus did not
'condone'
> >adultery, He condemned adultery, which you would know if you had
actually
> >read the Bible:
> >
> 
>      Where?
> 
> 
> >But, as my tagline says, Jesus came into the world the first time to
save
> >sinners.  He came to die and shed His blood to pay for our sins.  All
the
> 
>     Not according to him.
> 
> >
> >  When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said
to
> >  her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned
> >you?"
> >  She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn
> >you;
> >  go and sin no more." Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, "I am the
> >light
> >  ------------------
> >  of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have
the
> >  light of life." (John 8:10-12)
> >
> >Jesus didn't 'condone' the woman's adultery, He *forgave* her.  Jesus
would
> >not have told her 'go and sin no more' if He didn't view what she did as
a
> >sin, now would He?  Nor would He have spoken of it as 'walking in
darkness'
> >if He approved of it.
> 
>         He didn't say he forgave her, as he did in other cases.  He told
>         many people to go and sin no more, he believed it was possible,
>         you don't.  You clearly don't understand the contemporary
setting.
> 
> >
> >When Jesus returns to the world again He will not come as a 'Suffering
> >Savior', He will return as conquering 'King of Kings' and 'Lord of
Lords'. 
> >You can read a little bit about it in Psalm 2:
> >
> 
>     The psalms are a Jewish book of songs.....
> 
> >
> >We have a choice.  We can follow Jesus willingly now and receive His
grace
> >and forgiveness and have eternal life.  Or we can reject Jesus now and
be
> >crushed by Him at His coming.  God is Love.  He is also Sovereign God. 
His
> >love and mercy cause Him to offer us an escape on marvelous terms.  His
> >justice and holiness require our judgement if we refuse His grace.
> >
> 
>     But what does that mean?  It is idle talk.  It is the type of
>     goobledegook that Jesus tried to save people from.  He never said
>     that people would go to hell for their sins, you do, Paul did, but
>     Jesus never did. 
Try these scriptures:
Math.10:28
"......Rather be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in
hell"
Math.13:40-43 & 50-51
".....They will throw them into the firey furnace where there will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth"
Math 18:8
".....and be thrown into eternal fire"
Math 25:41
"......into the eternal fire"
Luke 16:23
"In hell, where he was in torment...."
Just a few off the top of my head.  These were all the words of Jesus. He
made it clear that hell was the ultimate destination, the price of sin,
unless we repent and turn to him.
He is also the source of hope.  He paid our price, he stood in our place
and took our punishment, that we would not have to endure such a horror as
hell.  All we have to do is accept his payment.  
Evon W.
 came to tell us what to do, not what not to
>     do, that was the plague of Jesus' age.  The "Thou shalt nots..."
>     are unimportant, and Jesus never said they were.  He told us what
>     to do if you will read the Gospels.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Agreed Michael,
One cannot judge the existence of God only against the Christian model or
conception.
Thanks for the references, I'll be sure to check them out.