Subject: Charter
From: willcarney@aol.com
Date: 16 Nov 1996 05:21:44 GMT
Can anyone tell me where the charter for this group may be found?
I am having trouble with the address.
Reply to this post only, no e-mail please. So others may know.
Thanks.
***************************************************
It's not what you got, it's what you do with it.
Try helping others, instead of hurting them.
Quote "I before U, she before me", don't take
things so seriously all of the time.
***************************************************
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Scott Millsap
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 00:13:40 -0500
Jerry wrote:
>
> El Lobo con Moto wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Dave Monroe wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > In article <32853A38.38E7@gte.net>, ashes@gte.net says...
> > > > >
> > > > >I read in a science book that there is a greater posibility of a
> > > > >printinng press exploding and forming webster's dictionary completly by
> > > > >accident; as opposed to the world being created from some dead matter.
> > >
> > > Another simile I've heard is that "Evolution is like a tornado
> > > tearing through a junkyard and assembling a 747". This doesn't
> > > come from any science text, it comes from promoters of creationism.
> > >
> > > The problem with creationists is that they assume that those of us
> > > that believe in evolution are atheists.
> > >
> > > People believe in evolution because there's a huge body of evidence
> > > that points in that direction. People believe in creationism because
> > > they were told to.
> > >
> > > Evolution is a much more interesting story than creation and is
> > > more what I would expect of God. God is smarter that whoever wrote
> > > the story of creation in Genesis.
> > >
> > > It's a shame creationists don't think better of God.
> > > --
> > > David S. Monroe David.Monroe@cdc.com
> > > Software Engineer
> > > Control Data Systems
> > > 2970 Presidential Drive, Suite 200
> > > Fairborn, Ohio 45324
> > > (937) 427-6385
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Bravo!!!
> > I am also an evolutionist...and I don't believe it really clashes with the
> > bible...unless you feel the need to take it totally literally, which is
> > not the best approach when you consider that the bible basically tries to
> > put the infinite in human terms...
> > I'm glad someone finally said they believed in evolutino *and* God...I was
> > beginning to think I was alone...
> > davComments from Jerry:
> Read my book. It is free. It will explain the whole evolution process from our start
> within the will to exist within an exploding star.
> Jerry (Jewish Prophet of an Ethical God) (paperback from India)
Imho,
Evolutions Fatal Flaw; chance has never created something intricate
except what is described in evolution itself. Evolution boils down to
many other theories that all boil down to a premise that can't be
proven.
Subject: Re: Expanding earth theory
From: singtech@teleport.com (Charles Cagle)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 07:41:42 -0800
In article ,
cjones@mantle.colorado.edu (Craig Jones) wrote:
>Which brings me back to the original suggestion that overshoot reflects
>Earth expansion. I think this is quite wrong--let me outline my logic and
>see if I have a mental blunder. Imagine a continent at the equator through
>a long period. Paleomag from sites on the equator will show the pole being
>90 degrees away all along, whether the Earth expands or not.
Whoa there! There is not any evidence to tie the magnetic pole to any
position related to the spin axis equator. Uranus and Neptune, for
example, testify that their magnetospheres are not related to the spin of
the planet, having 60 and 50 degrees (I believe) planet axis tilt with
respect to magnetic axis. And they are not in the center of the planet.
Consider Mercury which doesn't spin fast enough to generate a field but
has a healthy one anyway (which incidently is 1/3 displaced from the
physical center of the planet). The earth's magnetic pole is not
coincident with its spin axis.
And also it looks like you are surmising a uniform almost balloon like
expansion where evidence clearly points to places like the mid atlantic
ridge where expansion was great and other places like in the middle of
continents where no new surface made its appearance.
> Thus nothing
>there to measure the Earth's diameter. Sites on the same continent at, say,
>30 degrees north today would have been at higher latitudes in the past on an
>expanding Earth, no? So their paleoinclinations would have been *greater*
>than today--not shallower, and the paleopoles would be on the near side,
>*not* the far side of the modern pole. This is the *opposite* of the
>problem that was discussed above; thus if anything the bias in the paleomag
>would argue for a contracting Earth!
(1) The whole point of expansion is that more surface area is being
added. That surface can emerge in a spreading zone which can drive land
components not just east and west but north and south. The mid Atlantic
spreading responsible for the Africa Americas divergence show either a
sinistral rotation of Africa or a dextral rotation of the South America
(or a combination of both) which then moved sample points with respect to
the spin axis north south east or west (and all points in between)
depending where the point was on the rotating body.
>The problem, I believe, was some misunderstanding somewhere that paleomag
>was measuring a linear distance, when in fact it is an angular distance.
>Perhaps overshoot was misunderstood somewhere. If I've made a blunder, let
>me know, but I'm pretty sure this is right.
(2) Well, suppose you had an inclination which was x on a smaller earth.
If the earth expanded then the inclination which was measured as a
deviation from the horizontal has to change because the curvature of the
earth itself changed so now the inclination would be measured as x-y where
y was related to the change in curvature. Still think you are right?
Both (1) and (2) show in an offhand manner that the magnetic pole sites
should jump around and there should be overshoots in the expansion model
and since it fits the findings it seems to support this hypothesis.
Best Regards,
--
C. Cagle
SingTech
Subject: Re: What is the gravitational force in the center of the Earth?
From: Terry Pundiak
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 10:31:02 -0400
Terry Pundiak wrote:
>
> Sorry, if this posting is totally ridiculous... I am a science advocate
> but geology is not my forte.
>
> Somewhere recently I saw someone write that there was less gravity as
> one got closer to the center of the earth than on the surface, because
> there was less matter ahead as much was already behind, and at the
> center matter is all around you. I always think in terms of center of
> mass, but in this case that may be wrong.
>
...
Well, thanks to all who replied to my questions - even a bit more than I
could swallow - but I am savoring it all quite a bit.
I probably should have mentioned that this crazy new-for-me gravity
concept makes me confused as to how the inards of the earth work with
respect to whatever makes the magnetic field of the earth. Does this
change in gravity affect convection currects - why would something hot
rise if gravity wasn't acting very strongly... I mean it makes a
nebulous concept like the inards of the earth more cloudy.
Thanks,
Terry Pundiak
Easton, PA
Subject: Emeralds
From: "J B. Fields"
Date: 16 Nov 1996 16:47:31 GMT
I recently found myself in Colombia, the source of 90% of the world's
emeralds, and invested in a few loose stones of fairly good quality. They
are certified and probably worth more here in the states than I paid for
them there. I am curious as to how I might go about marketing these as I
would like to be able to justify making another trip and collecting some
more substantial stones.
These that I have are all in three-stone sets totaling around 2 carats.
They would be fine for a necklace and earring setting. I was told they
should sell for between $800 and $1200, but have no idea of where one finds
a market for raw stones. The establishment where I picked them up was well
recommended by friends who live there, and the person who helped me did
caution me that selling them here would not necessarily be easy.
I'm hoping someone here can point me in the right direction, as this would
seem to be a pretty nice way to do some traveling and defray the costs.
tia
--
jbfields@msn.com
"So, the whole world is a metaphor for something else?" El Postino
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Ghost of Christmas Past
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 11:26:02 -0600
Charles Cagle wrote:
>
> In article <19961112234900.SAA06834@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> jswitz322@aol.com wrote:
>
> >the notion of god is a man-made invention to explain earthquakes, volcano
> >eruptions, lightning, and other scary natural phenomena. also, religion
> >was created as a framework in which to justify morals, ie do not kill
> >because god says so, respect your parent because jesus will reward you,
> >etc. if your values and morals are solely derived from the bible or
> >organized religion, you are in trouble. let me pose this question: if
> >there were no bible and no ten commandments, would you go on a killing
> >spree or slap around your mother? i think not. the biblical story of
> >creation is a fable, and threats of hell are meant to keep little boys
> >from masturbating.
> >christianity goes hand-in-hand with captalism: jesus died for your sins so
> >you are now free to exploit the poor and powerless, pollute, and play
> >golf, then go to church on sunday and sing jesus' praise for his sacrfice,
> >and merely ask for absolution for your sins. voila! you're scot free.
>
> Here's an example of a fellow filled with his own wisdom.
>
> >i am not an atheist. i believe in an omnipresent force that is mother
> >nature.
>
> That's right. You are neither hot nor cold. Your knees knock together
> for lack of confidence in your position. If you were ardent either way
> you would at least have faith and be pleasing to God and would only lack
> education to enlighten you. But instead you are hedging your bets.
Either you didn't read the post or you are a fool.
> >those of you who cling to organized religion and feel the need to
> >convert others need to re-evaluate their security blanket and take the
> >open their minds to more worldly points of view.
>
> We should all open our hearts to the truth but not our minds to such
> sophistries as you endorse.
An open, enquiring mind is the devil's workshop, right? You ARE a fool.
*Plonk*
mc
>
> --
> C. Cagle
> SingTech
Subject: The tides, worldwide
From: Mike Chotkowski
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 12:15:45 -0600
To any kind knowing soul who can help,
I need to compile a worldwide synopsis of the tides, including both the
regime and the maximal excursion, for a biological review work. I don't
need highly detailed geographical information, but rather a medium- to
big-picture treatment for most major coasts and seas. Is there a single
source or suite of sources that I can consult to extract or develop this
information? Any assistance would be gratefully accepted.
With best regards,
Mike Chotkowski
chotkows@uiuc.edu
Subject: REQUEST FOR COLLABORATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.
From: scienza@pianeta.it
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 20:20:26 +0100
REQUEST FOR COLLABORATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.
We make research and actually we are completly financed by a committent.
For new researches we would like to have the collaboration of Industrial
Partners, interested in introducing advanced items in their market.
Every item is patented or can be patented.
In Europe there is the possibility for Partners to have E.C.C. founds to
whom we are not interested in any way. We are looking for financial
Partners and for laboratories too in order to realize practically and
industrially our discoveries.
These are some of the fields we are working in :
1 - INDUSTRIAL INSULATION
The subtitution of the actual insulating materials ( plastic foams,
rock wool ) generally known to have long term defects and ecological
problems with new insulating elements e.g. special foamed and not foamed
and dense glass or ceramic elements, ecologically perfect and lasting 20
- 50 year
and recycling possibility.
2 - METAL PRODUCTION
We have developed a new metal-organic ecological route to obtain
metals; e.g. magnesium, titanium, zirconium, silicon, aluminium, so
saving energy.
3 - High temperature service development of a stable SELF EXTINGUISHING
epoxy resin with electrical high insulation power
Epoxy resins and epoxy foams for long term usage at 200° C / 250° C for
continuos service.
4 - RAPID ULTRAVIOLET PRODUCTION OF SPECIAL URETHANE - ACRILATE
Abrasion resistant, excellent flexibility and stability for films,
flooring protection, car protection, paper protection, metal and mortar
protection. Unlimited applications for item protection.
5 - NEW RESINS
High temperature, oil, grease, water, solvent resistant till 300° C.
We are engaged in many types of researches, from plastic to ceramic, to
ceramic superconductors etc.
If You think to have the same interest in our researches, or if You have
specific items to subject us along with our type of research, or if You
are interested in financing, receiving an eventual license or if You are
interested in a local collaboration with us,
please send an E-MAIL and we would be glad to answer You
scienza@pianeta.it
Subject: the solution
From: scienza@pianeta.it
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 20:45:28 +0100
INTERNET
Some people prefear to go on thinking that the Einstein’s relativity
theory is right , thinking that matter cannot reach and substain light
velocity, because in this case matter would have an infinitive mass ,
and it would be necessary to transfer to it an infinitive quantity of
energy to reach light velocity.
At the same time the physics substain that at elemental material level
the time does not exist and that in normal conditions it is not possible
to travel in the time.
As opposite to what mentioned before, the writer, after 20 years of
research out of the pubblic ufficial circuit of the physical research,
can prove that things are different.
Some examples of his theories follows:
-The conception of time and space given by Einstein Relativity is
completly inconsistent applied to the case of light velocity of the
matter and the time is translated by some physical, heavy consistent
material particles but normally invisible.
In many cases the theories substained by the physics are uncomplete or
inadeguated to describe the reality, but because of their lack to give
an explanation to the real phenomenons; they continue to substain that
their concepts is the only truth, thing that is false in the reality.
- The Writer gives some information about: 1) travels of matter at light
velocity in present time, 2) the explanation of the natural composition
of the elemental particles that translate the time in the matter, 3) the
explanation of the forces unification, where it is explained the natural
formation in the sub-elemental particles of the electricity, of the
magnetism and the gravity, 4) explanation of matter at null temperature,
where the quarks can be visible and free, because they are stopped in
the space, expanded and enlarged 10(18 ) times or 1 billion of billions
of times and they are freely visible at naked eyes for about 10 minutes
and they reveal their true physical nature as physical particles.
The Writer brings explanations and ascertained cases which confutate
the Einstein’s relativity theory substaining that the matter can not
travel at light velocity.
The contrary is possible. It is given the right explanation of the whole
physical world (included that the real physical structure of the space
is " not "empty" , but it has a completly different structure
" normally " not ascertainable ").
End of December 1996 it will be ready a book , entitled "THE
QUADRIDIMENTIONAL UNIVERSE", where in about 420 pages with colour
photos and pictures , the writer explains these theories and many other
concepts not already reached by the officials science.
Shipment: per Airmail.
Possible markets: All countries except for Italy , Switzerland , Japan,
Cina , C.S.I. and related Countries
DEPOSITED AND PROTECTED CONTENTS SINCE 1994
PLEASE REPLY FOR MORE INFOS OR TO READ FURTHER PAGES:
scienza@pianeta.it
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Steve Geller
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 13:52:06 -0800
Wayne Shanks wrote:
> I have seen several creationist calculation for the probability of
> simple amino-acid formation, and they come up with a VERY high
> improbibility. These calculations were done assuming no or little
> particle interation. The situation they are calculation is akin to the
> thermodynamics problem of computing the probability of all the gass
> atoms in the room collecting in a pile on the floor.
> [...]
> It is true that we do not know how to properly calculate the
> propability of abiogenisis, but that is just a matter of studying
> physical chemistry (no small job). I am shure abiogenisis was not a
> "ramdom" event but a energetically favored event in a special
> environment.
Right. But you are actually thinking about it as a real problem.
The Creationists just use the "improbability" argument as a propaganda
tool.
It's intellectually dishonest, because a creation has zero probability,
doesn't it?
--
Steve Geller
(to be sure I respond to your reply, E-Mail it to me)
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 22:48:40 GMT
On Sun, 17 Nov 1996 00:13:40 -0500, Scott Millsap
wrote:
>Imho,
> Evolutions Fatal Flaw; chance has never created something intricate
>except what is described in evolution itself.
So you deny the existence of snowflakes, quartz crystals, tropical
storm systems, and many other examples of intricate systems arising
from the operation of physical laws?
Evolution boils down to
>many other theories that all boil down to a premise that can't be
>proven.
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
Subject: Re: Earth Expansion
From: ba137@lafn.org (Brian Hutchings)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 21:36:42 GMT
In a previous article, karish@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Chuck Karish) says:
the point is that there is little in the way of an "objective" clock
for ongoing acretion; see the Theory of Brownian Commotion!
>>That is, the earth is neither expanding uniformly, the Caryiam model, nor
>>the steady state model of plate tectonics. I suggest that historically that
>>the earth has experienced periods of expansion, followed by periods of
>>cooling, all events related to an earth that has, overall, expanded in
>>comprehensible history.
>Solipsistic, anyway. You're claiming that geology does not
>have an objective basis.
--
You *don't* have to be a rocket scientist. (College Career Counselor
to me, again )
There is no dimension without time. --RBF (Synergetics, 527.01)
Subject: Re: What is the gravitational force in the center of the Earth?
From: ba137@lafn.org (Brian Hutchings)
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 21:33:53 GMT
In a previous article, rwinsto@lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu (Richard B. Winston) says:
it doesn't matter -- if Newton could figure it out, then
so can you!... at the center, the "hollow shell" happens
to have an internal diameter of nothing (and, obviously,
everything is pulling *away* from you .-)
>>This is a fairly elementary calculus problem.
>>
>>The gravitational field inside the earth is linear with respect to
>>radius, with a zero field at the center and reaching g at the surface.
>>
>
>The latter statement would be true for a homogeneous earth or any
>sphere with a homogenous density. However, the earth's nickel/iron
>core has a higher density than the average density of the earth so
>gravity would not vary in a perfectly linear fashion in the real
--
You *don't* have to be a rocket scientist. (College Career Counselor
to me, again )
There is no dimension without time. --RBF (Synergetics, 527.01)
