Here's one for Bob. (hope it makes your head spin)

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible and Why

When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first began to study the
texts of the Bible in their original languages he was startled to
discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations that
had been made by earlier translators. In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman
tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes
made to the New Testament and shows the great impact they had upon the
Bible we use today. He frames his account with personal reflections on
how his study of the Greek manuscripts made him abandon his once
ultraconservative views of the Bible. Since the advent of the printing
press and the accurate reproduction of texts, most people have assumed
that when they read the New Testament they are reading an exact copy
of Jesus's words or Saint Paul's writings. And yet, for almost fifteen
hundred years these manuscripts were hand copied by scribes who were
deeply influenced by the cultural, theological, and political disputes
of their day. Both mistakes and intentional changes abound in the
surviving manuscripts, making the original words difficult to
reconstruct. For the first time, Ehrman reveals where and why these
changes were made and how scholars go about reconstructing the
original words of the New Testament as closely as possible. Ehrman
makes the provocative case that many of our cherished biblical stories
and widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity,
and the divine origins of the Bible itself stem from both intentional
and accidental alterations by scribes -- alterations that dramatically
affected all subsequent versions of the Bible.

Listen to a 53 minute interview here:
http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/archives/2007/072207.html

One Oxford bible scholar (John Mill) in 1707 published an in depth
'textual analysis' of more than 100 biblical manuscripts documenting
more than 30,000 differences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mill
Since then, other bible researchers have documented more than 100,000
differences.

Example-1, the story of the adulterous woman brought before Jesus is
total fiction and doesn't appear in any of the earliest manuscripts.
It was added by scribes who knew exactly what they were doing.

Example-2, every last page (codex) of the Book of Revelation was
missing when St Jerome was working on the Latin Vulgate so he just
read a bunch of Greek manuscripts (which were mostly different) and
then translated the average meaning back into latin. (so much for all
the people who labor over every word in this strange book)

Example-3, everyone today loves the King James Version but it appears
that this book is based upon a 12th century manuscript that just might
have been the worst choice for a bible (but there were not many others
available in Western Europe at the time)

Food for thought: If the bible is the inspired word of God then why
did he allow all these people to mess around with it? Or, from what I
can see (I just finished reading the book) he seems to have gone out
of his way to make sure we can never get a glimpse of the original
text.

NSR

On 08/21/07 22:38, Neil Rieck wrote:
[snip]
> Example-3, everyone today loves the King James Version but it appears
> that this book is based upon a 12th century manuscript that just might
> have been the worst choice for a bible (but there were not many others
> available in Western Europe at the time)

Well, no, everybody does *not* love the KJV.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Here's one for Bob. (hope it makes your head spin)

you can trot out all the atheist head cases you want
trying to deny the bible and that Christ existed ...

everyone agrees that He did ... and all those dead
people in Rome and around the world did not just let
themselves die for no reason ... they all saw something
that changed them completely, enough to die for it ...

I posted this awhile ago ... this should make your
head spin ...

http://www.jimandpenny.com/en/
http://www.baseinstitute.org/features/mtsinai.htm
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/mt__sinai_found.htm
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/mount-sinai.htm

I am still waiting for you to explain this ...

On Aug 22, 8:13 am, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Here's one for Bob. (hope it makes your head spin)
>
> you can trot out all the atheist head cases you want
> trying to deny the bible and that Christ existed ...
>
> everyone agrees that He did ... and all those dead
> people in Rome and around the world did not just let
> themselves die for no reason ... they all saw something
> that changed them completely, enough to die for it ...
>

I never said that Jesus didn't exist. There are many (so called
"profane sources" that say he did)

I did say that the author of the book (the James A. Gray Professor and
Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at The University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill) claimed that our bible has been heavily
modified over the past 1900 years. Apparantly are large number of his
peers agree with him. (Oh and by the way, he first learned this stuff
while attending an AMerican Bible College)

Rather than throw a bunch of web sites at me, why not just read the
book then tell me what you think.

NSR

In article <1187784817.251805.122290@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
> 
> you can trot out all the atheist head cases you want
> trying to deny the bible 

which one of the many versions that claim to be true ?
Seems what you call bible has seen as many patches as has
M$ Windoze.

On Aug 21, 10:38 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Here's one for Bob. (hope it makes your head spin)
>
> Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible and Why
>
> When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first began to study the
> texts of the Bible in their original languages he was startled to
> discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations that
> had been made by earlier translators.
[...]

You might as well try to convince a leopard to change its spots.

Religious writings are self-protected by their insistence that "only
if you open your heart to (Deity-of-reference) will you know the
truth." In other words, their understanding requires faith and those
without faith can not understand them. Atheists and nay-sayers are
acting under the influence of Satan, whose goalis to tempt and beguile
the faithful.

See the links Bob provided. They have nothing to do with anything your
post addressed. If you attack any part of the Holy Book, you will be
rebutted with another contradicting scripture or historical "fact."

Face it. Those old scholars did a good job, and if they were around
today they'd probably be working in either in politics or marketing.
Most of today's Biblical scholars understand the points you've made
and  many life-times have been spent studying them.

These following links won't be of interest to Bob, but they might be
to someone interested in following the points you made (beyond Wiki.)
These sites are non-secular but attempt to tell the Bible's history
factually with minimum bias (from what I have seen --- I obviously
haven't followed every sub-link or I'd still be caught in the web.)

http://www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm

*******

In article <1187784817.251805.122290@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Here's one for Bob. (hope it makes your head spin)
>
>you can trot out all the atheist head cases you want
>trying to deny the bible and that Christ existed ...
>
I think most people would agree that there was probably a historical figure
but how much he and his teachings resembled what is portrayed in the Bible
is more open to debate. As recent discoveries of lost gospels and other early
christian writings have shown there existed many different versions of
Christianity in the first and second centuries.

>everyone agrees that He did ... and all those dead
>people in Rome and around the world did not just let
>themselves die for no reason 

Pretty much all religions have individuals within them who are prepared to die
for their faith - for a modern example just think of the Islamic suicide 
bombers. (I know you will critise me for that analogy since the early
Christians weren't blowing up the Romans but as far as they are concerned
they are dying for their faith. However if you don't like that analogy think of
all the Jews who suffered persecution during the Middle Ages rather than 
convert to Christianity.)

Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any validity to
that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.


David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
 

>... they all saw something
>that changed them completely, enough to die for it ...
>
>I posted this awhile ago ... this should make your
>head spin ...
>
>http://www.jimandpenny.com/en/
>http://www.baseinstitute.org/features/mtsinai.htm
>http://www.arkdiscovery.com/mt__sinai_found.htm
>http://www.wyattmuseum.com/mount-sinai.htm
>
>I am still waiting for you to explain this ...
>

In article <1187784817.251805.122290@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,  ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
> On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> Here's one for Bob. (hope it makes your head spin)
> 
> you can trot out all the atheist head cases you want
> trying to deny the bible and that Christ existed ...
> 
> everyone agrees that He did ... and all those dead

   I'm an atheist, but I won't be a a head case for you.  I'm quite sure 
   everyone I know, including all the atheists, agnostics, Muslims,
   Jews, Christians (well, duh), Bhudists, ... agree that Jesus of
   Nasareth did exist.

   Trying to make everyone beleive that Jesus is God on Earth is
   entirely another thing.  Records show that early Christians did not
   agree on whether Jesus was devine, that was made dogma by the
   Catholic Church some centuries later.

In article <1187784817.251805.122290@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,  ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
> 
> I posted this awhile ago ... this should make your
> head spin ...

   Anybody can post that stuff.  Running around the modern Mt. Sinai
   or the suspected biblical Mt. Sinai (not the same mountain), arguing
   which is which, making claims about what someone sees, ...

   Nothing new.

In article <fahqkk$6j1$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
{...snip...}
>Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any validity to
>that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.

Death for one's faith, or in this case, truth simply won't change much.

http://www.tmesis.com/slower_than_guns.html

However, I'd be willing to die for the truth over some unfounded faith
any day! 


-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.jpg

Neil Rieck wrote:
> Here's one for Bob. (hope it makes your head spin)
>
> Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible and Why
>
> When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first began to study the
> texts of the Bible in their original languages he was startled to
> discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations that
> had been made by earlier translators. In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman
> tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes
> made to the New Testament and shows the great impact they had upon the
> Bible we use today. He frames his account with personal reflections on
> how his study of the Greek manuscripts made him abandon his once
> ultraconservative views of the Bible. Since the advent of the printing
> press and the accurate reproduction of texts, most people have assumed
> that when they read the New Testament they are reading an exact copy
> of Jesus's words or Saint Paul's writings. And yet, for almost fifteen
> hundred years these manuscripts were hand copied by scribes who were
> deeply influenced by the cultural, theological, and political disputes
> of their day. Both mistakes and intentional changes abound in the
> surviving manuscripts, making the original words difficult to
> reconstruct. For the first time, Ehrman reveals where and why these
> changes were made and how scholars go about reconstructing the
> original words of the New Testament as closely as possible. Ehrman
> makes the provocative case that many of our cherished biblical stories
> and widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity,
> and the divine origins of the Bible itself stem from both intentional
> and accidental alterations by scribes -- alterations that dramatically
> affected all subsequent versions of the Bible.
>
> Listen to a 53 minute interview here:
> http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/archives/2007/072207.html
>
> One Oxford bible scholar (John Mill) in 1707 published an in depth
> 'textual analysis' of more than 100 biblical manuscripts documenting
> more than 30,000 differences.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_analysis
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mill
> Since then, other bible researchers have documented more than 100,000
> differences.
>
> Example-1, the story of the adulterous woman brought before Jesus is
> total fiction and doesn't appear in any of the earliest manuscripts.
> It was added by scribes who knew exactly what they were doing.
>
> Example-2, every last page (codex) of the Book of Revelation was
> missing when St Jerome was working on the Latin Vulgate so he just
> read a bunch of Greek manuscripts (which were mostly different) and
> then translated the average meaning back into latin. (so much for all
> the people who labor over every word in this strange book)
>
> Example-3, everyone today loves the King James Version but it appears
> that this book is based upon a 12th century manuscript that just might
> have been the worst choice for a bible (but there were not many others
> available in Western Europe at the time)
>
> Food for thought: If the bible is the inspired word of God then why
> did he allow all these people to mess around with it? Or, from what I
> can see (I just finished reading the book) he seems to have gone out
> of his way to make sure we can never get a glimpse of the original
> text.
>
> NSR


Sounds like the bible was written by a committee - and we all know how good
a job committee's do with anything ;-)

Not that I'm for religion in any way, but I'm prepared to tolerate it in
others so long as they keep it to themselves.

--
OpenVMS - The never-advertised operating system with the dwindling ISV
base.

On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Example-3, everyone today loves the King James Version but it appears
> that this book is based upon a 12th century manuscript that just might
> have been the worst choice for a bible (but there were not many others
> available in Western Europe at the time)
>
> Food for thought: If the bible is the inspired word of God then why
> did he allow all these people to mess around with it? Or, from what I
> can see (I just finished reading the book) he seems to have gone out
> of his way to make sure we can never get a glimpse of the original
> text.


well these links seem to shot holes in your misguided theory ...


http://odyssey.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html

http://theologos.net/NTpapyrus.html

http://www.prophecyinthenews.com/articledetail.asp?Article_ID=72

On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Example-3, everyone today loves the King James Version but it appears
> that this book is based upon a 12th century manuscript that just might
> have been the worst choice for a bible (but there were not many others
> available in Western Europe at the time)
>
> Food for thought: If the bible is the inspired word of God then why
> did he allow all these people to mess around with it? Or, from what I
> can see (I just finished reading the book) he seems to have gone out
> of his way to make sure we can never get a glimpse of the original
> text.
>
> NSR

and here are some more ... your false assertions are
revealed as just that ... FALSE!

http://www.consider.org/library/text.htm

http://www.entheology.org/library/winters/NEWTEST2.TXT

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=91

http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/new_testament_reliability.htm

http://home.houston.rr.com/apologia/sec5p4.htm

On Aug 22, 9:06 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>

Any idiot can set up a website which can be used by others as proof.
It is hardly what any rational person would accept as peer-reviewed
literature.

Why not try reading the book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who
Changed The Bible and Why" (which was peer-reviewed by the way) then
get back to me. The proof laid out in this book shows that a majority
of very early Biblical manuscripts are different. If you're going to
believe in something you had better be aware of the warts and all.

p.s. as an aside, reading the book has not changed "MY" belief in
Christianity. In fact, it has cleared what I saw as a few
inconsistancies. YMMV

NSR

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, <david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote:

> Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any  
> validity to
> that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.

It suggests a psychosis.

-- 
PL/I for OpenVMS
www.kednos.com

On Aug 22, 10:55 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 9:06 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Any idiot can set up a website which can be used by others as proof.
> It is hardly what any rational person would accept as peer-reviewed
> literature.
>
> Why not try reading the book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who
> Changed The Bible and Why" (which was peer-reviewed by the way) then
> get back to me. The proof laid out in this book shows that a majority
> of very early Biblical manuscripts are different. If you're going to
> believe in something you had better be aware of the warts and all.
>
> p.s. as an aside, reading the book has not changed "MY" belief in
> Christianity. In fact, it has cleared what I saw as a few
> inconsistancies. YMMV
>
> NSR

are you dense?  The sites show they found pieces
of New testament that date anywhere from just after
John to the first century ... and those writings translate
to what the bible is now ... so you wish to continue to
deny God and His words, that is not my problem, it's
yours ... the proof is there as always with everything
in the bible, whether you wish to accept it is another
thing ...

I wouldn't call Israeli archaeologists idiots ...

On 08/23/07 08:06, Tom Linden wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, <david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any
>> validity to
>> that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.
> 
> It suggests a psychosis.

It suggests stupidity.  Kill the other guy for his cause before he
kills you for your.  (Paraphrased from George Patton.)

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

<ultradwc@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1187829941.906578.232570@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Example-3, everyone today loves the King James Version but it appears
>> that this book is based upon a 12th century manuscript that just might
>> have been the worst choice for a bible (but there were not many others
>> available in Western Europe at the time)
>>
>> Food for thought: If the bible is the inspired word of God then why
>> did he allow all these people to mess around with it? Or, from what I
>> can see (I just finished reading the book) he seems to have gone out
>> of his way to make sure we can never get a glimpse of the original
>> text.
>
>
> well these links seem to shot holes in your misguided theory ...
>
>
> http://odyssey.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
>
> http://theologos.net/NTpapyrus.html
>
> http://www.prophecyinthenews.com/articledetail.asp?Article_ID=72
>
>


Arrgh.  First of all, the "Bible" consists of more than just the New 
Testament.  Second of all, the only site you quote that has any form of 
objectivity is the first one at Duke - and it dates the earliest papyrus 
examples of New Testament writing at between 150 and 200 years ACE.  In fact 
it agrees that the earlier English translations of those writings were 
flawed and were not improved until the late 19th century and again in the 
mid-20th.  Nor does it deal with nuance of meaning when translating the 
words in their context of (say) 1st or 2nd century Greek into 21st century 
English.  Have you ever read the original Sheakspear?  Chaucer?

Interestingly, all of these "sources" appear to start with the premise that 
the New Testament was originally written in Greek - and if that is the case 
then I am left to wonder why if Jesus and his disciples spoke Arameric - why 
they can draw any conclusion that the GREEK writing was written either first 
person, or by someone who was a contemporary of the writer.  It is far more 
likely to be the codification of oral history several generations removed 
from the time of Christ.  OTOH - some things may well BE transcriptions of 
actual letters written in Greek.  Which neither proves or disproves the 
"truth" of their content.

Nor does any of this address why the books in the New Testament qualify for 
inclusion in the Bible - and other books from the same periods were banned 
from the Bible.  So ignoring transliteration problems with Arameric, Greek, 
German and English - the entire editing process of what *is* and what *is 
not* the inspired or literal word of God is suspect as humans made political 
and theological decisions as to what should be orthodoxy in the Church... 
and different splinter groups of Christianity have over time removed and 
added things as they saw fit - for example the book of Mormon.

Lastly, it doesn't matter.  You believe what you want to.  Be it the Bible 
or the Qu'ran.  No amount of evidence to support or disprove it matters - it 
is a matter of faith.  If your faith leads to you believe things that to 
most people make you a fool - like the age of the earth being 5000 years - 
then so be it.

So.

Bob:  Give it up.  Proof of your beliefs can't be found in the writings of 
men.  The existance of God has yet to be proven - otherwise you would not 
need faith to believe.  Please try to refrain from using this forum to 
convert the heathen - there are many better ways to do that - and to follow 
the commands of Christ.

Neil:  Come on man - no need to poke Bob with a stick just for fun.  If 
things are slow, I can point out a lot of really wacky sites that you can 
waste huge amounts of time in.

In article <1187875962.879607.232430@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,  ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
> 
> are you dense?  The sites show they found pieces
> of New testament that date anywhere from just after
> John to the first century ... and those writings translate
> to what the bible is now ... so you wish to continue to
> deny God and His words, that is not my problem, it's
> yours ... the proof is there as always with everything
> in the bible, whether you wish to accept it is another
> thing ...
> 
> I wouldn't call Israeli archaeologists idiots ...

   So if I find an original manuscript of Tom Sawer, that makes it
   true?  More to the point, how about an old manuscript discussing
   Zeus, Odin, or Jupiter?

On Aug 23, 12:19 pm, "FredK" <fred.nos...@dec.com> wrote:
> <ultra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Neil:  Come on man - no need to poke Bob with a stick just for fun.  If
> things are slow, I can point out a lot of really wacky sites that you can
> waste huge amounts of time in.

Couldn't resist posting this one:

<http://www.stupidvideos.us/video.aspx/IDp%7E1572/George%20W.%20Bush
%20imitation/Funny%20videos/>

That'll probably wrap, but if you need a good laugh and want to take a
few minutes to do so, go to www.stupidvideos.com and click the "Funny
Videos" link on the left. Scroll down and find the "George W. Bush
imitation" video. It's relevant to more than one of the recent Bob-
related off-topics being discussed here.

On Aug 23, 12:32 pm, Doug Phillips <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 12:19 pm, "FredK" <fred.nos...@dec.com> wrote:
>
> > <ultra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Neil:  Come on man - no need to poke Bob with a stick just for fun.  If
> > things are slow, I can point out a lot of really wacky sites that you can
> > waste huge amounts of time in.
>
> Couldn't resist posting this one:
>
> <http://www.stupidvideos.us/video.aspx/IDp%7E1572/George%20W.%20Bush
> %20imitation/Funny%20videos/>
>
> That'll probably wrap, but if you need a good laugh and want to take a
> few minutes to do so, go towww.stupidvideos.comand click the "Funny
> Videos" link on the left. Scroll down and find the "George W. Bush
> imitation" video. It's relevant to more than one of the recent Bob-
> related off-topics being discussed here.

Sorry, it's <www.stupidvideos.us> and I wouldn't have wasted this
bandwidth except it's one of the funniest things I've seen in a long
time.

On Aug 23, 1:19 pm, "FredK" <fred.nos...@dec.com> wrote:
> <ultra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1187829941.906578.232570@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Example-3, everyone today loves the King James Version but it appears
> >> that this book is based upon a 12th century manuscript that just might
> >> have been the worst choice for a bible (but there were not many others
> >> available in Western Europe at the time)
>
> >> Food for thought: If the bible is the inspired word of God then why
> >> did he allow all these people to mess around with it? Or, from what I
> >> can see (I just finished reading the book) he seems to have gone out
> >> of his way to make sure we can never get a glimpse of the original
> >> text.
>
> > well these links seem to shot holes in your misguided theory ...
>
> >http://odyssey.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
>
> >http://theologos.net/NTpapyrus.html
>
> >http://www.prophecyinthenews.com/articledetail.asp?Article_ID=72
>
> Arrgh.  First of all, the "Bible" consists of more than just the New
> Testament.  Second of all, the only site you quote that has any form of
> objectivity is the first one at Duke - and it dates the earliest papyrus
> examples of New Testament writing at between 150 and 200 years ACE.  In fact
> it agrees that the earlier English translations of those writings were
> flawed and were not improved until the late 19th century and again in the
> mid-20th.  Nor does it deal with nuance of meaning when translating the
> words in their context of (say) 1st or 2nd century Greek into 21st century
> English.  Have you ever read the original Sheakspear?  Chaucer?
>
> Interestingly, all of these "sources" appear to start with the premise that
> the New Testament was originally written in Greek - and if that is the case
> then I am left to wonder why if Jesus and his disciples spoke Arameric - why
> they can draw any conclusion that the GREEK writing was written either first
> person, or by someone who was a contemporary of the writer.  It is far more
> likely to be the codification of oral history several generations removed
> from the time of Christ.  OTOH - some things may well BE transcriptions of
> actual letters written in Greek.  Which neither proves or disproves the
> "truth" of their content.
>
> Nor does any of this address why the books in the New Testament qualify for
> inclusion in the Bible - and other books from the same periods were banned
> from the Bible.  So ignoring transliteration problems with Arameric, Greek,
> German and English - the entire editing process of what *is* and what *is
> not* the inspired or literal word of God is suspect as humans made political
> and theological decisions as to what should be orthodoxy in the Church...
> and different splinter groups of Christianity have over time removed and
> added things as they saw fit - for example the book of Mormon.
>
> Lastly, it doesn't matter.  You believe what you want to.  Be it the Bible
> or the Qu'ran.  No amount of evidence to support or disprove it matters - it
> is a matter of faith.  If your faith leads to you believe things that to
> most people make you a fool - like the age of the earth being 5000 years -
> then so be it.
>
> So.
>
> Bob:  Give it up.  Proof of your beliefs can't be found in the writings of
> men.  The existance of God has yet to be proven - otherwise you would not
> need faith to believe.  Please try to refrain from using this forum to
> convert the heathen - there are many better ways to do that - and to follow
> the commands of Christ.
>
> Neil:  Come on man - no need to poke Bob with a stick just for fun.  If
> things are slow, I can point out a lot of really wacky sites that you can
> waste huge amounts of time in.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

the apostles such as Paul travelled to many countries
including Greece and spoke the language ...

No, the apostles did not write the Gospels, but others
did and somewhere along the line it got written in
Greek ... how do you or anyone else know the
exact sequence of events ... the writings are close
enough that God must approve or He would have
done something about it ...

the only ones who are changing the bible are the
ones who do not like what it says ...

On Aug 22, 10:55 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 9:06 pm, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Aug 21, 11:38 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Any idiot can set up a website which can be used by others as proof.
> It is hardly what any rational person would accept as peer-reviewed
> literature.
>
> Why not try reading the book "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who
> Changed The Bible and Why" (which was peer-reviewed by the way) then
> get back to me. The proof laid out in this book shows that a majority
> of very early Biblical manuscripts are different. If you're going to
> believe in something you had better be aware of the warts and all.
>
> p.s. as an aside, reading the book has not changed "MY" belief in
> Christianity. In fact, it has cleared what I saw as a few
> inconsistancies. YMMV
>
> NSR

the only ones who are changing the bible are the
ones who do not like what it says ...

<ultradwc@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1187892204.789756.284980@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 23, 1:19 pm, "FredK" <fred.nos...@dec.com> wrote:
>
> the apostles such as Paul travelled to many countries
> including Greece and spoke the language ...
>
> No, the apostles did not write the Gospels, but others
> did and somewhere along the line it got written in
> Greek ... how do you or anyone else know the
> exact sequence of events ... the writings are close
> enough that God must approve or He would have
> done something about it ...
>

Oh, gee.  I guess I stepped into this...  but what the heck. How come he 
hasn't "fixed" the Qu'ran?  Or the Book of Mormon?

But you ask a perceptive question: "how do you or anyone else know the exact 
sequence of events".  Think about that for a second.  Heck, we can speculate 
that the entire New Testament was the outcome of a freshman year Greek Lit 
class.

That is the point.  Right, wrong, brilliant, stupid, inspired, literal - we 
don't "know".  We don't know if God approves or dissaproves of it - since he 
has pretty much stopped making in-person appearances and delivering new 
stone tablets.  It is a matter of faith.

> the only ones who are changing the bible are the
> ones who do not like what it says ...
>

Now, now Bob.  Please.  We know that both the Old and New Testaments *have* 
changed over time.  First translation IN ITSELF can change the meaning. 
Second we know that there were several major revisions made to the New 
Testament in the 19th and 20th centuries - in fact you referenced an 
authority on that.  Common sense should tell you that words are not static 
and cannot be perfectly translated - the meanings and phasing is in a 
context of the writer of the text and his understanding of the world and 
culture around him - to interpret the meanings requires more than linguistic 
talent - and no two translators consistently achieve the same translation.

The writings in the Bible are the words of Men, not of God.  Those who wrote 
them, and some who read them may believe they are the inspired Word of God - 
yet they often betray all-to-human failings - like Paul the nutjob who lived 
two centuries after Christ and created much of the Christian mythology and 
orthodoxy and who had some real problems with woman and sex - among other 
things.

In article <1187892204.789756.284980@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,  ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
> 
> the only ones who are changing the bible are the
> ones who do not like what it says ...
> 

    Which the record shows dates back to the earliest copies.

On 08/23/07 14:00, FredK wrote:
[snip]
> 
> Now, now Bob.  Please.  We know that both the Old and New Testaments *have* 
> changed over time.  First translation IN ITSELF can change the meaning. 
> Second we know that there were several major revisions made to the New 

Which is why old Muslims are smart to make young Muslims (no matter
their ethnicity) learn Arabic, so that they can read the Koran in
the original language.

[snip]
> 
> The writings in the Bible are the words of Men, not of God.  Those who wrote 
> them, and some who read them may believe they are the inspired Word of God - 
> yet they often betray all-to-human failings - like Paul the nutjob who lived 
> two centuries after Christ and created much of the Christian mythology and 

A smart guy like you should *know* that Paul died in the mid-60s.
Either 64CE or 67CE.

> orthodoxy and who had some real problems with woman and sex - among other 
> things.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On Aug 23, 9:32 am, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 22, 10:55 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> are you dense?  The sites show they found pieces
> of New testament that date anywhere from just after
> John to the first century ... and those writings translate
> to what the bible is now ... so you wish to continue to
> deny God and His words, that is not my problem, it's
> yours ... the proof is there as always with everything
> in the bible, whether you wish to accept it is another
> thing ...
>

You had better check the peer-reviewed sources. There are no (none,
zero) original manuscripts of the new testament going back to the
original authors. The earliest gospel written was Mark which most
bible scholars think was written between 70-80 AD. If you agree that
Jesus died in 30 AD at the age of 33, then the gospels were being
handed on via an oral mechanism for at least 40 years before someone
decided to put it into writing.

Copies of the copies of originals exist but all have major to minor
variations. So-called gnostic gospels only serve to increase the
confusion. The book I read showed instances where scribes made
documented changes to "reduce the importance of women in the church"
while other changes seem to indicate the beginnings of anti-semitism
(made me think about some of Mel Gibson's points of view)

It is almost like God does NOT want us to have access to the original
texts.

NSR

"Ron Johnson" <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote in message 
news:LVmzi.282679$LE1.156547@newsfe13.lga...

>
> A smart guy like you should *know* that Paul died in the mid-60s.
> Either 64CE or 67CE.
>

Smart?  Not likely.  Yes, to correct what I wrote - Paul (Saul of Tarsus) is 
believed to have died in Rome in between 65 and 67CE (in his late 50's) by 
beheading - around the same time as Peter (Simon IIRC).   The earliest 
reference I can find to a reference to a reference to his writings dates to 
about 110CE.  Most sources place the earliest copies of the documents at 
around 200CE - or at least that is what I remembered as I was writing it and 
the date stuck in my head for some reason (old age and senility).  But there 
is little doubt that Paul existed and wrote a lot of "stuff" that may or may 
not be the inspired word of God.

Of course, he still was a nutjob and the architect of much of the Catholic 
tradition and beliefs - and did not have first hand knowledge of Christ.  He 
helped stone the first Christian Martyr.   He "converted" sometime between 
age 25 and 30 after having been a pretty nasty guy - his conversion was due 
to his being blinded, and then cured by a follower of Christ.

On 08/23/07 17:14, FredK wrote:
> "Ron Johnson" <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote in message 
> news:LVmzi.282679$LE1.156547@newsfe13.lga...
> 
>> A smart guy like you should *know* that Paul died in the mid-60s.
>> Either 64CE or 67CE.
>>
> 
> Smart?  Not likely.  Yes, to correct what I wrote - Paul (Saul of Tarsus) is 
> believed to have died in Rome in between 65 and 67CE (in his late 50's) by 
> beheading - around the same time as Peter (Simon IIRC).   The earliest 
> reference I can find to a reference to a reference to his writings dates to 
> about 110CE.  Most sources place the earliest copies of the documents at 
> around 200CE - or at least that is what I remembered as I was writing it and 
> the date stuck in my head for some reason (old age and senility).  But there 
> is little doubt that Paul existed and wrote a lot of "stuff" that may or may 
> not be the inspired word of God.

We agree on that...

> Of course, he still was a nutjob and the architect of much of the Catholic 
> tradition and beliefs

You're probably thinking of Augustine of Hippo.

>                        - and did not have first hand knowledge of Christ.  He 
> helped stone the first Christian Martyr.   He "converted" sometime between 
> age 25 and 30 after having been a pretty nasty guy - his conversion was due 
> to his being blinded, and then cured by a follower of Christ.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

Tom Linden wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, <david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any
> > validity to
> > that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.
> 
> It suggests a psychosis.

Eh, I don't know as I'd go quite that far until the subject turns to homicide
bombers and other terrorists. (They're usually called "suicide" bombers; but,
homicide is their actual intent. Their own death is merely incidental.)

At the risk of sounding like I'm defending anyone, I can't help thinking about
the early Christians facing the lions and other horrible fates. Surely, these
innocents did nothing to deserve to die that way. THEY were truly martyrs, dying
for their chosen convictions, and "convicted" of nothing worthy of death.

....not to mention other true cases of persecution, such as the persecution
inflicted upon the innocent by homicide bombers and other terrorists. 

-- 
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/

Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/

Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

On 08/23/07 16:52, Neil Rieck wrote:
[snip]
> 
> Copies of the copies of originals exist but all have major to minor
> variations. So-called gnostic gospels only serve to increase the
> confusion. The book I read showed instances where scribes made
> documented changes to "reduce the importance of women in the church"

Maybe that (amount of variation)is part of why they were not chosen
for the canon...

> while other changes seem to indicate the beginnings of anti-semitism
> (made me think about some of Mel Gibson's points of view)
> 
> It is almost like God does NOT want us to have access to the original
> texts.

Since there is no person deity who traipses around doing miracles,
that's pretty much a moot point.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <Rqhzi.118763$g86.15174@newsfe14.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>On 08/23/07 08:06, Tom Linden wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, <david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any
>>> validity to
>>> that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.
>> 
>> It suggests a psychosis.
>
>It suggests stupidity.  Kill the other guy for his cause before he
>kills you for your.  (Paraphrased from George Patton.)
>
This was in response to a comment about the early Christians being prepared to
die for their faith at the hands of the Romans.
I don't think the early Christians starting to fight a guerilla war against the
Roman Empire would have helped much.


David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>-- 
>Ron Johnson, Jr.
>Jefferson LA  USA
>
>Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
>Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <1187892204.789756.284980@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>
>the apostles such as Paul travelled to many countries
>including Greece and spoke the language ...
>
>No, the apostles did not write the Gospels, but others
>did and somewhere along the line it got written in
>Greek ... how do you or anyone else know the
>exact sequence of events ... 

That is rather the point. How do you know that what was written and then
what was selected out of all the Gospels and other early Christian literature
for inclusion in the New Testament represents the real teachings of the
historical Jesus ? 
There were many different Christian groups which held a wide variety of beliefs
in the first and second century. These groups vied with each other for support 
in similar ways to how different Protestant groups have vied with each other
and Catholicism since the reformation (though the differences were rather more 
pronounced). One group with the help of the Roman Emperor Constantine became 
dominant and produced the canon of the New Testament pretty much as we know it 
today - proscribing other texts as heretical.
These other "heretical" texts though had been considered sacred texts by various
groups of Christians. The fact that a text was included in the New testament
doesn't make it any more authentic than other texts which were excluded - it
just meant it fitted in better with the beliefs and desires of the group which 
put together the New testament and the political aims of Constantine.


>the writings are close
>enough that God must approve or He would have
>done something about it ...
>
>the only ones who are changing the bible are the
>ones who do not like what it says ...
>

Given the existence of an all powerful God those two statements sound 
contradictory.
However the usual answer to such things is that God gave us free will. Hence it
would seem likely that men throughout the ages have had the opportunity to
exercise that free will by shaping the Bible to their own ends.


David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

On 08/23/07 20:06, David J Dachtera wrote:
> Tom Linden wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, <david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any
>>> validity to
>>> that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.
>> It suggests a psychosis.
> 
> Eh, I don't know as I'd go quite that far until the subject turns to homicide
> bombers and other terrorists. (They're usually called "suicide" bombers; but,
> homicide is their actual intent. Their own death is merely incidental.)
> 
> At the risk of sounding like I'm defending anyone, I can't help thinking about
> the early Christians facing the lions and other horrible fates. Surely, these
> innocents did nothing to deserve to die that way. THEY were truly martyrs, dying
> for their chosen convictions, and "convicted" of nothing worthy of death.

Or Jews in Europe and blacks in America.

> ...not to mention other true cases of persecution, such as the persecution
> inflicted upon the innocent by homicide bombers and other terrorists. 

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 08/24/07 05:16, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <Rqhzi.118763$g86.15174@newsfe14.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>> On 08/23/07 08:06, Tom Linden wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, <david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any
>>>> validity to
>>>> that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.
>>> It suggests a psychosis.
>> It suggests stupidity.  Kill the other guy for his cause before he
>> kills you for your.  (Paraphrased from George Patton.)
>>
> This was in response to a comment about the early Christians being prepared to
> die for their faith at the hands of the Romans.
> I don't think the early Christians starting to fight a guerilla war against the
> Roman Empire would have helped much.

Too true.  Especially since Christianity was (and still is, to a
large degree) mostly a religion of women and slaves.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 08/23/07 14:00, FredK wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> Now, now Bob.  Please.  We know that both the Old and New Testaments
>> *have* changed over time.  First translation IN ITSELF can change
>> the meaning. Second we know that there were several major revisions
>> made to the New
>
> Which is why old Muslims are smart to make young Muslims (no matter
> their ethnicity) learn Arabic, so that they can read the Koran in
> the original language.
>

Errr - not quite. The Koran is noted for its "mistranslation" as a matter of 
dogma as much as any other reason.
Knock yourself out here, or any other place that documents this issue 
http://www.blessedcause.org/Quran.htm

The Koran is by Islamic definition "the word of God" and can thus never be 
questioned, which is heresy. In order to maintain this patently false 
position, the Koran is constantly mistranslated and changed to indicate that 
it is not a human narrator but from God Himself that the words emanate.

Religion = Dogma != Truth

Dweeb

> [snip]
>>
>> The writings in the Bible are the words of Men, not of God.  Those
>> who wrote them, and some who read them may believe they are the
>> inspired Word of God - yet they often betray all-to-human failings -
>> like Paul the nutjob who lived two centuries after Christ and
>> created much of the Christian mythology and
>
> A smart guy like you should *know* that Paul died in the mid-60s.
> Either 64CE or 67CE.
>
>> orthodoxy and who had some real problems with woman and sex - among
>> other things. 

Ron Johnson wrote:
> 
> On 08/23/07 20:06, David J Dachtera wrote:
> > Tom Linden wrote:
> >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, <david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any
> >>> validity to
> >>> that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.
> >> It suggests a psychosis.
> >
> > Eh, I don't know as I'd go quite that far until the subject turns to homicide
> > bombers and other terrorists. (They're usually called "suicide" bombers; but,
> > homicide is their actual intent. Their own death is merely incidental.)
> >
> > At the risk of sounding like I'm defending anyone, I can't help thinking about
> > the early Christians facing the lions and other horrible fates. Surely, these
> > innocents did nothing to deserve to die that way. THEY were truly martyrs, dying
> > for their chosen convictions, and "convicted" of nothing worthy of death.
> 
> Or Jews in Europe and blacks in America.

Well, be careful there.

The British Colonists (before they became "America") brought Africans to North
America against their will under deplorable conditions to live and work under
deplorable conditions, but that had nothing to do with the religious (or any
other) convictions of the Africans. A bit of stupidity on the part of our
forefathers was that they considered the Africans to be human-like, but not
entirely human.

During the first part of the 20th Century, Jews in Europe were persecuted
because they were Jewish. Remember: Jews were considered a race more than a
religious denomination. It could just as easily have been purple people
persecuting the green because they were green and not purple. The Nazis
targetted racial purity more than religious leanings (the "master race" thing).

-- 
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/

Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/

Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

"Dr. Dweeb" wrote:
> 
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On 08/23/07 14:00, FredK wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>
> >> Now, now Bob.  Please.  We know that both the Old and New Testaments
> >> *have* changed over time.  First translation IN ITSELF can change
> >> the meaning. Second we know that there were several major revisions
> >> made to the New
> >
> > Which is why old Muslims are smart to make young Muslims (no matter
> > their ethnicity) learn Arabic, so that they can read the Koran in
> > the original language.
> >
> 
> Errr - not quite. The Koran is noted for its "mistranslation" as a matter of
> dogma as much as any other reason.
> Knock yourself out here, or any other place that documents this issue
> http://www.blessedcause.org/Quran.htm

After reading some of this tuff - I tell ya: its frightening!

-- 
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/

Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
http://www.djesys.com/vms/market/

Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

On Aug 24, 11:29 pm, David J Dachtera <djesys...@spam.comcast.net>
wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
[...snip...]
>
> The British Colonists (before they became "America") brought Africans to North
> America against their will under deplorable conditions to live and work under
> deplorable conditions, but that had nothing to do with the religious (or any
> other) convictions of the Africans. A bit of stupidity on the part of our
> forefathers was that they considered the Africans to be human-like, but not
> entirely human.
>

I'd also like to point out that many people in America at that time
used the bible to justify slavery. Some people who opposed the bible
thumpers were branded as "free thinkers" etc. Today, anyone who would
use the bible to justify slavery would be considered backwards.

p.s. I'm not suggesting we get rid of the bible or religion; I'm only
suggesting that politically motivated religious groups need to calm
down a little because you are not as correct as you believe.

>
> During the first part of the 20th Century, Jews in Europe were persecuted
> because they were Jewish. Remember: Jews were considered a race more than a
> religious denomination. It could just as easily have been purple people
> persecuting the green because they were green and not purple. The Nazis
> targetted racial purity more than religious leanings (the "master race" thing).
>

Talk to anyone who was an adult during World War 2 and you'll find
that many common folk were anti-Semitic even though they called
themselves Christians. (The people telling you these facts will always
tell you it was the other guy). Today, anyone who holds anti-Semitic
biases is usually considered backwards.

NSR

On 08/25/07 07:14, Neil Rieck wrote:
> On Aug 24, 11:29 pm, David J Dachtera <djesys...@spam.comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
> [...snip...]
>> The British Colonists (before they became "America") brought Africans to North
>> America against their will under deplorable conditions to live and work under
>> deplorable conditions, but that had nothing to do with the religious (or any
>> other) convictions of the Africans. A bit of stupidity on the part of our
>> forefathers was that they considered the Africans to be human-like, but not
>> entirely human.
>>
> 
> I'd also like to point out that many people in America at that time
> used the bible to justify slavery. Some people who opposed the bible
> thumpers were branded as "free thinkers" etc. Today, anyone who would
> use the bible to justify slavery would be considered backwards.

But most Abolitionists were deeply committed Christians.  This was
"just" another case of using the Bible to justify whatever you want
to do.

Still, though, slavery has existed (yes, it still exists in parts of
Africa and Arabia) (and still exists to a degree in the West with
poorly paid and poorly treated "wage slaves") for at least 4000
years, and probably longer.  I'd say that it's an extension of our
hierarchical social nature.

> p.s. I'm not suggesting we get rid of the bible or religion; I'm only
> suggesting that politically motivated religious groups need to calm
> down a little because you are not as correct as you believe.
> 
>> During the first part of the 20th Century, Jews in Europe were persecuted
>> because they were Jewish. Remember: Jews were considered a race more than a
>> religious denomination. It could just as easily have been purple people
>> persecuting the green because they were green and not purple. The Nazis
>> targetted racial purity more than religious leanings (the "master race" thing).
>>
> 
> Talk to anyone who was an adult during World War 2 and you'll find
> that many common folk were anti-Semitic even though they called
> themselves Christians. (The people telling you these facts will always

"The Jews killed Jesus."

> tell you it was the other guy). Today, anyone who holds anti-Semitic
> biases is usually considered backwards.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

David J Dachtera wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 08/23/07 20:06, David J Dachtera wrote:
>>> Tom Linden wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:09:40 -0700, <david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Being prepared to suffer and die for your faith doesn't imply any
>>>>> validity to
>>>>> that faith just that you believe in it very strongly.
>>>> It suggests a psychosis.
>>> Eh, I don't know as I'd go quite that far until the subject turns to homicide
>>> bombers and other terrorists. (They're usually called "suicide" bombers; but,
>>> homicide is their actual intent. Their own death is merely incidental.)
>>>
>>> At the risk of sounding like I'm defending anyone, I can't help thinking about
>>> the early Christians facing the lions and other horrible fates. Surely, these
>>> innocents did nothing to deserve to die that way. THEY were truly martyrs, dying
>>> for their chosen convictions, and "convicted" of nothing worthy of death.
>> Or Jews in Europe and blacks in America.
> 
> Well, be careful there.
> 
> The British Colonists (before they became "America") brought Africans to North
> America against their will under deplorable conditions to live and work under
> deplorable conditions, but that had nothing to do with the religious (or any
> other) convictions of the Africans. A bit of stupidity on the part of our
> forefathers was that they considered the Africans to be human-like, but not
> entirely human.
> 
> During the first part of the 20th Century, Jews in Europe were persecuted
> because they were Jewish. 

To be more accurate, they were persecuted and murdered trough out the 
centuries. In fact things may have been better in the late 19th and 
early 20th century (before the 1930's) than they ever were. In earlier 
centuries Jews were not allowed to be member of a guild, which meant 
that they were not allowed to exercise many professions. That is why 
there are relatively many Jewish bankers, and why there are many Jews in 
the diamond trade. There were no guilds for these professions.

The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz, but 
they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It was to far away for 
the bombers" they explained after the war. That was a big lie, there are 
photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their way to the 
Hermann G�ring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline) out of 
coal. These factories belonged to the larger Auschwitz complex. The fact 
is the Western allieds didn't care very much for the Jews at that time, 
and certainly not enough to risk a few bombers. It was only after the 
war when it became very visible to the public what had happened that the 
general attitude to Jews changed.

In Eastern Europe (Poland for instance) there were pogroms long after 
WWII ended. And I never felt more ashamed for my country as when I heard 
how returning Jews were treated in The Netherlands.

> Remember: Jews were considered a race more than a
> religious denomination. It could just as easily have been purple people
> persecuting the green because they were green and not purple. The Nazis
> targetted racial purity more than religious leanings (the "master race" thing).
> 

On 08/25/07 15:48, Dirk Munk wrote:
[snip]
> 
> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz, but
> they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It was to far away for
> the bombers" they explained after the war. 

I've never heard that excuse/reason.

>                                            That was a big lie, there are
> photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their way to the

Given the (*abysmal* lack of) accuracy of high-altitude bombing, any
attacks on Auschwitz were just as likely to hit the town, pastures,
or kill the prisoners.

> Hermann G�ring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline) out of
> coal.

Which is more likely to shorten the war?  Bombing a prison or
bombing a synfuel complex.

You know my answer...

>       These factories belonged to the larger Auschwitz complex. The fact
> is the Western allieds didn't care very much for the Jews at that time,
> and certainly not enough to risk a few bombers. It was only after the
> war when it became very visible to the public what had happened that the
> general attitude to Jews changed.
>  
> In Eastern Europe (Poland for instance) there were pogroms long after
> WWII ended. And I never felt more ashamed for my country as when I heard
> how returning Jews were treated in The Netherlands.

I didn't know that...

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On Aug 23, 5:52 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 9:32 am, ultra...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Aug 22, 10:55 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > are you dense?  The sites show they found pieces
> > of New testament that date anywhere from just after
> > John to the first century ... and those writings translate
> > to what the bible is now ... so you wish to continue to
> > deny God and His words, that is not my problem, it's
> > yours ... the proof is there as always with everything
> > in the bible, whether you wish to accept it is another
> > thing ...
>
> You had better check the peer-reviewed sources. There are no (none,
> zero) original manuscripts of the new testament going back to the
> original authors. The earliest gospel written was Mark which most
> bible scholars think was written between 70-80 AD. If you agree that
> Jesus died in 30 AD at the age of 33, then the gospels were being
> handed on via an oral mechanism for at least 40 years before someone
> decided to put it into writing.

and just because these cannot be found now does
not mean they never existed ...

> It is almost like God does NOT want us to have access to the original
> texts.

no, its more like God has given you His text but
you do not want to believe Him ...

On 08/25/07 19:53, ultradwc@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 23, 5:52 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>> You had better check the peer-reviewed sources. There are no (none,
>> zero) original manuscripts of the new testament going back to the
>> original authors. The earliest gospel written was Mark which most
>> bible scholars think was written between 70-80 AD. If you agree that
>> Jesus died in 30 AD at the age of 33, then the gospels were being
>> handed on via an oral mechanism for at least 40 years before someone
>> decided to put it into writing.
> 
> and just because these cannot be found now does
> not mean they never existed ...

I hate it when I agree with Boob.

>> It is almost like God does NOT want us to have access to the original
>> texts.
> 
> no, its more like God has given you His text but
> you do not want to believe Him ...

Whew.  Back to thinking he's a boob.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 08/25/07 15:48, Dirk Munk wrote:
> [snip]
>> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz, but
>> they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It was to far away for
>> the bombers" they explained after the war. 
> 
> I've never heard that excuse/reason.
> 
>>                                            That was a big lie, there are
>> photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their way to the
> 
> Given the (*abysmal* lack of) accuracy of high-altitude bombing, any
> attacks on Auschwitz were just as likely to hit the town, pastures,
> or kill the prisoners.

Keep in mind the way Auschwitz worked. A train came in, and the majority 
of the people on the train were murdered the same day. Even if bombing 
the railroad and the gaschambers would have killed prisoners etc. , it 
would have stopped the mass murder. Bombing the fuel plants also killed 
al lot of prisoners. And I doubt if Auschwitz was defended by FLAK, so 
the bombers could have made a low altitude attack.

> 
>> Hermann G�ring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline) out of
>> coal.
> 
> Which is more likely to shorten the war?  Bombing a prison or
> bombing a synfuel complex.
> 
> You know my answer...

Yes, the same reasoning was done by the Western allieds. Now suppose it 
would have been US and UK prisoners of war instead of Jews? And the 
workers for the fuel plants also came from those trains.

The reasoning is wrong, its is not the gaschambers OR the fuel plant, 
but instead the gaschambers AND the fuel plant. What you are saying is 
that it wasn't worth the risk of losing a few bombers to save hundreds 
of thousands of Jews.

By the way, the British made several very dangerous low altitude attacks 
with Mosquito bombers on prisons to free captured resistance fighters.

> 
>> These factories belonged to the larger Auschwitz complex. The fact
>> is the Western allieds didn't care very much for the Jews at that time,
>> and certainly not enough to risk a few bombers. It was only after the
>> war when it became very visible to the public what had happened that the
>> general attitude to Jews changed.
>>  
>> In Eastern Europe (Poland for instance) there were pogroms long after
>> WWII ended. And I never felt more ashamed for my country as when I heard
>> how returning Jews were treated in The Netherlands.
> 
> I didn't know that...
> 

On Aug 25, 1:03 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 08/25/07 07:14, Neil Rieck wrote:
>
[...snip...]
>
> > Talk to anyone who was an adult during World War 2 and you'll find
> > that many common folk were anti-Semitic even though they called
> > themselves Christians. (The people telling you these facts will always
>
> "The Jews killed Jesus."
>
Christians are taught that God sent his only son to die for humanity's
sins. So if it is necessary to blame someone, blame God.

NSR

On 08/26/07 03:16, Dirk Munk wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 08/25/07 15:48, Dirk Munk wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz, but
>>> they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It was to far away for
>>> the bombers" they explained after the war. 
>>
>> I've never heard that excuse/reason.
>>
>>>                                            That was a big lie, there are
>>> photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their way to the
>>
>> Given the (*abysmal* lack of) accuracy of high-altitude bombing, any
>> attacks on Auschwitz were just as likely to hit the town, pastures,
>> or kill the prisoners.
> 
> Keep in mind the way Auschwitz worked. A train came in, and the majority
> of the people on the train were murdered the same day. Even if bombing
> the railroad and the gaschambers would have killed prisoners etc. , it
> would have stopped the mass murder. Bombing the fuel plants also killed
> al lot of prisoners. And I doubt if Auschwitz was defended by FLAK, so
> the bombers could have made a low altitude attack.

Massed bombers doing low-level attacks in southern Poland?

You've *got* to be kidding.

>>> Hermann G�ring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline) out of
>>> coal.
>>
>> Which is more likely to shorten the war?  Bombing a prison or
>> bombing a synfuel complex.
>>
>> You know my answer...
> 
> Yes, the same reasoning was done by the Western allieds. Now suppose it
> would have been US and UK prisoners of war instead of Jews? And the
> workers for the fuel plants also came from those trains.

The 8th Air Force might have, in revenge, switched from industrial
targets to (like the Brits) urban targets.

Or we (US & Canada, where the camps were) might have started killing
German POWs tit-for-tat.  And telling the Germans what we were doing.

Anyway, telling the Allied home front what the Gerries were doing
would only have fired us up to be even more vicious & brutal in
finishing the war quicker.

> The reasoning is wrong, its is not the gaschambers OR the fuel plant,
> but instead the gaschambers AND the fuel plant. What you are saying is
> that it wasn't worth the risk of losing a few bombers to save hundreds
> of thousands of Jews.
> 
> By the way, the British made several very dangerous low altitude attacks
> with Mosquito bombers on prisons to free captured resistance fighters.

Those are the key words: "several" and "very dangerous".  Probably
in France, and most probably to spring important resistance fighters
who know of important parts of the network.

>>> These factories belonged to the larger Auschwitz complex. The fact
>>> is the Western allieds didn't care very much for the Jews at that time,
>>> and certainly not enough to risk a few bombers. It was only after the
>>> war when it became very visible to the public what had happened that the
>>> general attitude to Jews changed.
>>>  
>>> In Eastern Europe (Poland for instance) there were pogroms long after
>>> WWII ended. And I never felt more ashamed for my country as when I heard
>>> how returning Jews were treated in The Netherlands.
>>
>> I didn't know that...
>>


-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On Aug 25, 4:48 pm, Dirk Munk <m...@home.nl> wrote:
> David J Dachtera wrote:
> > Ron Johnson wrote:

[...snip...]

>
> To be more accurate, they were persecuted and murdered trough out the
> centuries. In fact things may have been better in the late 19th and
> early 20th century (before the 1930's) than they ever were. In earlier
> centuries Jews were not allowed to be member of a guild, which meant
> that they were not allowed to exercise many professions. That is why
> there are relatively many Jewish bankers, and why there are many Jews in
> the diamond trade. There were no guilds for these professions.
>
> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz,
>

There is no way any modern civilized person would ever defend the
German point of view surrounding the Holocaust. Having said that, I'm
only bringing up the next fact to remind everyone how the western
world, on average, was much more anti-Semitic than it is today. (And
that we pompous Christians are mostly all-talk but no action)

Before World War 2 broke out, Germans were putting pressure on Jewish
people to leave Germany (this is one of the reasons that Einstein came
to America in the early 1930's). By the late 1930s Germany was forcing
Jewish people to become refugees then contacted western countries to
receive them. When no countries acted, FDR convened the Evian
conference to break the log jam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evian_Conference
This basically accomplished nothing. And as sick as it sounds, Hitler
placed "the lack of Western interest in receiving Jews" into NAZI
propaganda which later led to Holocaust.

This inaction to take Jewish refugees was one reason the Jewish people
decided they needed their own home land.

We should all be embarrassed by the lack of action by our various
countries.

NSR

On 08/26/07 06:11, Neil Rieck wrote:
> On Aug 25, 1:03 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 08/25/07 07:14, Neil Rieck wrote:
>>
> [...snip...]
>>> Talk to anyone who was an adult during World War 2 and you'll find
>>> that many common folk were anti-Semitic even though they called
>>> themselves Christians. (The people telling you these facts will always
>> "The Jews killed Jesus."
>>
> Christians are taught that God sent his only son to die for humanity's
> sins. So if it is necessary to blame someone, blame God.

The *Romans* killed Jesus.  Anyone who's read Matthew, and has two
neurons to rub together, knows that.

Anyway...  I could say more about Catholic tradition and theology,
but c.o.v is definitely not the place to start a huge OT flame war.

But then, there are many atheists/agnostics and Protestants on the
list who would probably agree with me.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

Neil Rieck wrote:
> On Aug 25, 4:48 pm, Dirk Munk <m...@home.nl> wrote:
>> David J Dachtera wrote:
>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
> 
> [...snip...]
> 
>> To be more accurate, they were persecuted and murdered trough out the
>> centuries. In fact things may have been better in the late 19th and
>> early 20th century (before the 1930's) than they ever were. In earlier
>> centuries Jews were not allowed to be member of a guild, which meant
>> that they were not allowed to exercise many professions. That is why
>> there are relatively many Jewish bankers, and why there are many Jews in
>> the diamond trade. There were no guilds for these professions.
>>
>> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz,
>>
> 
> There is no way any modern civilized person would ever defend the
> German point of view surrounding the Holocaust. Having said that, I'm
> only bringing up the next fact to remind everyone how the western
> world, on average, was much more anti-Semitic than it is today. (And
> that we pompous Christians are mostly all-talk but no action)
> 
> Before World War 2 broke out, Germans were putting pressure on Jewish
> people to leave Germany (this is one of the reasons that Einstein came
> to America in the early 1930's). By the late 1930s Germany was forcing
> Jewish people to become refugees then contacted western countries to
> receive them. When no countries acted, FDR convened the Evian
> conference to break the log jam.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evian_Conference
> This basically accomplished nothing. And as sick as it sounds, Hitler
> placed "the lack of Western interest in receiving Jews" into NAZI
> propaganda which later led to Holocaust.

Indeed, try to find the story of the passenger liner St. Louis on the 
web. The ship set sail from Germany to bring some 900 Jews to Cuba, but 
when they arrived the Cuban government did not want them anymore. The US 
did not want them either, the US Coast Guard fired warning shots to 
prevent the ship from entering US waters. Hitler was jubilant.

Did you know that Adolf Eichmann tried to find places where he could 
bring the Jews? No one wanted them.

> 
> This inaction to take Jewish refugees was one reason the Jewish people
> decided they needed their own home land.
> 
> We should all be embarrassed by the lack of action by our various
> countries.
> 
> NSR
> 

Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 08/26/07 03:16, Dirk Munk wrote:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> On 08/25/07 15:48, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in
>>>> Auschwitz, but they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It
>>>> was to far away for the bombers" they explained after the war.
>>>
>>> I've never heard that excuse/reason.
>>>
>>>>                                            That was a big lie,
>>>> there are photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their
>>>> way to the
>>>
>>> Given the (*abysmal* lack of) accuracy of high-altitude bombing, any
>>> attacks on Auschwitz were just as likely to hit the town, pastures,
>>> or kill the prisoners.
>>
>> Keep in mind the way Auschwitz worked. A train came in, and the
>> majority of the people on the train were murdered the same day. Even
>> if bombing the railroad and the gaschambers would have killed
>> prisoners etc. , it would have stopped the mass murder. Bombing the
>> fuel plants also killed al lot of prisoners. And I doubt if
>> Auschwitz was defended by FLAK, so the bombers could have made a low
>> altitude attack.
>
> Massed bombers doing low-level attacks in southern Poland?
>
> You've *got* to be kidding.
>
>>>> Hermann G�ring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline)
>>>> out of coal.
>>>
>>> Which is more likely to shorten the war?  Bombing a prison or
>>> bombing a synfuel complex.
>>>
>>> You know my answer...
>>
>> Yes, the same reasoning was done by the Western allieds. Now suppose
>> it would have been US and UK prisoners of war instead of Jews? And
>> the workers for the fuel plants also came from those trains.
>
> The 8th Air Force might have, in revenge, switched from industrial
> targets to (like the Brits) urban targets.
>
> Or we (US & Canada, where the camps were) might have started killing
> German POWs tit-for-tat.  And telling the Germans what we were doing.
>
> Anyway, telling the Allied home front what the Gerries were doing
> would only have fired us up to be even more vicious & brutal in
> finishing the war quicker.
>
>> The reasoning is wrong, its is not the gaschambers OR the fuel plant,
>> but instead the gaschambers AND the fuel plant. What you are saying
>> is that it wasn't worth the risk of losing a few bombers to save
>> hundreds of thousands of Jews.
>>
>> By the way, the British made several very dangerous low altitude
>> attacks with Mosquito bombers on prisons to free captured resistance
>> fighters.
>
> Those are the key words: "several" and "very dangerous".  Probably
> in France, and most probably to spring important resistance fighters
> who know of important parts of the network.
>
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/1944.html
OPERATION CARTHAGE  (March 21, 1945)

At the request of the Danish resistance movement, a force of RAF Mosquitos 
from 487, 464 and 21 Squadrons of 140 Wing, escorted by Mustangs of Fighter 
Command, attacked the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen. The Gestapo had 
taken over the five storey Shell House, the pre-war H/Q of the Shell 
Petroleum Company. On the day of the raid it housed a large number of Danish 
resistance fighters who had been arrested and were being interrogated as the 
first bombs fell. Some prisoners were killed but 30 escaped during the 
bombing. Some 151 Gestapo agents and their Danish collaborators were also 
killed.

Although the raid was a success, a horrific tragedy occurred nearby. One of 
the Mosquitos, on its bombing run, struck a light mast in the railway goods 
yard, veered to the left and crashed in a ball of fire near the Jeanne d'Arc 
Catholic School. The fire and smoke from the crash was mistakenly targeted 
by the next wave of Mosquitos which dropped their bombs on and around the 
crash site. The resulting fires soon spread to other buildings and 
eventually engulfed the school which burned to the ground in less than two 
hours. Eighty-six children and ten teachers lost their lives in this tragedy 
and sixty-seven were injured. When rescuers reached the school cellers they 
found the bodies of forty-two children huddled together. They had all 
drowned in water from the firemen's hoses.



Dweeb

>>>> These factories belonged to the larger Auschwitz complex. The fact
>>>> is the Western allieds didn't care very much for the Jews at that
>>>> time, and certainly not enough to risk a few bombers. It was only
>>>> after the war when it became very visible to the public what had
>>>> happened that the general attitude to Jews changed.
>>>>
>>>> In Eastern Europe (Poland for instance) there were pogroms long
>>>> after WWII ended. And I never felt more ashamed for my country as
>>>> when I heard how returning Jews were treated in The Netherlands.
>>>
>>> I didn't know that... 

Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 08/26/07 03:16, Dirk Munk wrote:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> On 08/25/07 15:48, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz, but
>>>> they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It was to far away for
>>>> the bombers" they explained after the war. 
>>> I've never heard that excuse/reason.
>>>
>>>>                                            That was a big lie, there are
>>>> photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their way to the
>>> Given the (*abysmal* lack of) accuracy of high-altitude bombing, any
>>> attacks on Auschwitz were just as likely to hit the town, pastures,
>>> or kill the prisoners.
>> Keep in mind the way Auschwitz worked. A train came in, and the majority
>> of the people on the train were murdered the same day. Even if bombing
>> the railroad and the gaschambers would have killed prisoners etc. , it
>> would have stopped the mass murder. Bombing the fuel plants also killed
>> al lot of prisoners. And I doubt if Auschwitz was defended by FLAK, so
>> the bombers could have made a low altitude attack.
> 
> Massed bombers doing low-level attacks in southern Poland?
> 
> You've *got* to be kidding.

Well, they did at the heavily defended oil refineries at Ploesti....

Furthermore, I did not talk about mass bombing, a few dozen bombers 
might have been enough.

> 
>>>> Hermann G�ring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline) out of
>>>> coal.
>>> Which is more likely to shorten the war?  Bombing a prison or
>>> bombing a synfuel complex.
>>>
>>> You know my answer...
>> Yes, the same reasoning was done by the Western allieds. Now suppose it
>> would have been US and UK prisoners of war instead of Jews? And the
>> workers for the fuel plants also came from those trains.
> 
> The 8th Air Force might have, in revenge, switched from industrial
> targets to (like the Brits) urban targets.
> 
> Or we (US & Canada, where the camps were) might have started killing
> German POWs tit-for-tat.  And telling the Germans what we were doing.
> 
> Anyway, telling the Allied home front what the Gerries were doing
> would only have fired us up to be even more vicious & brutal in
> finishing the war quicker.

Really? So why didn't the same people tell the home front that millions 
of Jews were being murdered in Poland? Again, they just did not care. It 
were just Jews being murdered.

> 
>> The reasoning is wrong, its is not the gaschambers OR the fuel plant,
>> but instead the gaschambers AND the fuel plant. What you are saying is
>> that it wasn't worth the risk of losing a few bombers to save hundreds
>> of thousands of Jews.
>>
>> By the way, the British made several very dangerous low altitude attacks
>> with Mosquito bombers on prisons to free captured resistance fighters.
> 
> Those are the key words: "several" and "very dangerous".  Probably
> in France, and most probably to spring important resistance fighters
> who know of important parts of the network.
> 

No, for instance they made similar precision bombings on The Hague and 
Copenhagen to destroy the central registries of population.

>>>> These factories belonged to the larger Auschwitz complex. The fact
>>>> is the Western allieds didn't care very much for the Jews at that time,
>>>> and certainly not enough to risk a few bombers. It was only after the
>>>> war when it became very visible to the public what had happened that the
>>>> general attitude to Jews changed.
>>>>  
>>>> In Eastern Europe (Poland for instance) there were pogroms long after
>>>> WWII ended. And I never felt more ashamed for my country as when I heard
>>>> how returning Jews were treated in The Netherlands.
>>> I didn't know that...
>>>
> 
> 

On Aug 26, 8:12 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:

[...snip...]

>
> The *Romans* killed Jesus.  Anyone who's read Matthew, and has two
> neurons to rub together, knows that.
>

Many misguided Christians believe that the Sanhedrin maneuvered Pilot
into the crucifixion and the Romans obliged in order to avoid a
political crisis (Pilot had already been warned twice by Tiberius to
keep things quiet in Judea)

But if this was supposed to be some sort of divine sacrifice then why
blame anyone?

NSR

On 08/26/07 10:03, Dr. Dweeb wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
>> Those are the key words: "several" and "very dangerous".  Probably
>> in France, and most probably to spring important resistance fighters
>> who know of important parts of the network.
>>
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/1944.html
> OPERATION CARTHAGE  (March 21, 1945)
> 
> At the request of the Danish resistance movement, a force of RAF Mosquitos 

Denmark is close enough to France to be "the same".

> from 487, 464 and 21 Squadrons of 140 Wing, escorted by Mustangs of Fighter 
> Command, attacked the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen. The Gestapo had 
> taken over the five storey Shell House, the pre-war H/Q of the Shell 
> Petroleum Company. On the day of the raid it housed a large number of Danish 
> resistance fighters who had been arrested and were being interrogated as the 
> first bombs fell. Some prisoners were killed but 30 escaped during the 
> bombing. Some 151 Gestapo agents and their Danish collaborators were also 
> killed.
> 
> Although the raid was a success, a horrific tragedy occurred nearby. One of 
> the Mosquitos, on its bombing run, struck a light mast in the railway goods 
> yard, veered to the left and crashed in a ball of fire near the Jeanne d'Arc 
> Catholic School. The fire and smoke from the crash was mistakenly targeted 
> by the next wave of Mosquitos which dropped their bombs on and around the 
> crash site. The resulting fires soon spread to other buildings and 
> eventually engulfed the school which burned to the ground in less than two 
> hours. Eighty-six children and ten teachers lost their lives in this tragedy 
> and sixty-seven were injured. When rescuers reached the school cellers they 
> found the bodies of forty-two children huddled together. They had all 
> drowned in water from the firemen's hoses.

And the Nazis probably had a propaganda field day with it.

Thank you for making my case.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 08/26/07 10:05, Dirk Munk wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 08/26/07 03:16, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>> On 08/25/07 15:48, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in
>>>>> Auschwitz, but
>>>>> they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It was to far away for
>>>>> the bombers" they explained after the war. 
>>>> I've never heard that excuse/reason.
>>>>
>>>>>                                            That was a big lie,
>>>>> there are
>>>>> photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their way to the
>>>> Given the (*abysmal* lack of) accuracy of high-altitude bombing, any
>>>> attacks on Auschwitz were just as likely to hit the town, pastures,
>>>> or kill the prisoners.
>>> Keep in mind the way Auschwitz worked. A train came in, and the majority
>>> of the people on the train were murdered the same day. Even if bombing
>>> the railroad and the gaschambers would have killed prisoners etc. , it
>>> would have stopped the mass murder. Bombing the fuel plants also killed
>>> al lot of prisoners. And I doubt if Auschwitz was defended by FLAK, so
>>> the bombers could have made a low altitude attack.
>>
>> Massed bombers doing low-level attacks in southern Poland?
>>
>> You've *got* to be kidding.
> 
> Well, they did at the heavily defended oil refineries at Ploesti....

Pick a better example.  Even after meticulous planning and practice
attacks in Libya, Operation Tidal Wave was an unmitigated diaster.

> Furthermore, I did not talk about mass bombing, a few dozen bombers
> might have been enough.

Sure, to kill some cows.

>>>>> Hermann G�ring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline) out of
>>>>> coal.
>>>> Which is more likely to shorten the war?  Bombing a prison or
>>>> bombing a synfuel complex.
>>>>
>>>> You know my answer...
>>> Yes, the same reasoning was done by the Western allieds. Now suppose it
>>> would have been US and UK prisoners of war instead of Jews? And the
>>> workers for the fuel plants also came from those trains.
>>
>> The 8th Air Force might have, in revenge, switched from industrial
>> targets to (like the Brits) urban targets.
>>
>> Or we (US & Canada, where the camps were) might have started killing
>> German POWs tit-for-tat.  And telling the Germans what we were doing.
>>
>> Anyway, telling the Allied home front what the Gerries were doing
>> would only have fired us up to be even more vicious & brutal in
>> finishing the war quicker.
> 
> Really? So why didn't the same people tell the home front that millions
> of Jews were being murdered in Poland? Again, they just did not care. It
> were just Jews being murdered.

Hmmm.  Maybe because they weren't Americans?

>>> The reasoning is wrong, its is not the gaschambers OR the fuel plant,
>>> but instead the gaschambers AND the fuel plant. What you are saying is
>>> that it wasn't worth the risk of losing a few bombers to save hundreds
>>> of thousands of Jews.
>>>
>>> By the way, the British made several very dangerous low altitude attacks
>>> with Mosquito bombers on prisons to free captured resistance fighters.
>>
>> Those are the key words: "several" and "very dangerous".  Probably
>> in France, and most probably to spring important resistance fighters
>> who know of important parts of the network.
>>
> 
> No, for instance they made similar precision bombings on The Hague and
> Copenhagen to destroy the central registries of population.

Copenhagen is pretty damned close to France, and a hell of a lot
closer to England than Poland is.

And, as Dr. Dweeb so helpfully pointed out, there was extensive
collateral damage.

Laser guided, terrain mapping and GPS-guided bombs go off course.
What makes you think that optically-sighted dumb bombs won't go off
course?

[snip]

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 08/26/07 07:07, Neil Rieck wrote:
[snip]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evian_Conference
> This basically accomplished nothing. And as sick as it sounds, Hitler
> placed "the lack of Western interest in receiving Jews" into NAZI
> propaganda which later led to Holocaust.
> 
> This inaction to take Jewish refugees was one reason the Jewish people
> decided they needed their own home land.
> 
> We should all be embarrassed by the lack of action by our various
> countries.

Full ACK.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 08/26/07 13:20, Neil Rieck wrote:
> On Aug 26, 8:12 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> 
> [...snip...]
> 
>> The *Romans* killed Jesus.  Anyone who's read Matthew, and has two
>> neurons to rub together, knows that.
>>
> 
> Many misguided Christians believe that the Sanhedrin maneuvered Pilot

Why does that make them misguided?  It's very valid to "blame"
*some* Jews (those who would lose power!) instead of a blanket
condemnation of the whole "race".

> into the crucifixion and the Romans obliged in order to avoid a
> political crisis (Pilot had already been warned twice by Tiberius to
> keep things quiet in Judea)
> 
> But if this was supposed to be some sort of divine sacrifice then why
> blame anyone?

Because humans love to fund fault and blame.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 08/26/07 10:05, Dirk Munk wrote:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> On 08/26/07 03:16, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>>> On 08/25/07 15:48, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in
>>>>>> Auschwitz, but
>>>>>> they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It was to far away for
>>>>>> the bombers" they explained after the war. 
>>>>> I've never heard that excuse/reason.
>>>>>
>>>>>>                                            That was a big lie,
>>>>>> there are
>>>>>> photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their way to the
>>>>> Given the (*abysmal* lack of) accuracy of high-altitude bombing, any
>>>>> attacks on Auschwitz were just as likely to hit the town, pastures,
>>>>> or kill the prisoners.
>>>> Keep in mind the way Auschwitz worked. A train came in, and the majority
>>>> of the people on the train were murdered the same day. Even if bombing
>>>> the railroad and the gaschambers would have killed prisoners etc. , it
>>>> would have stopped the mass murder. Bombing the fuel plants also killed
>>>> al lot of prisoners. And I doubt if Auschwitz was defended by FLAK, so
>>>> the bombers could have made a low altitude attack.
>>> Massed bombers doing low-level attacks in southern Poland?
>>>
>>> You've *got* to be kidding.
>> Well, they did at the heavily defended oil refineries at Ploesti....
> 
> Pick a better example.  Even after meticulous planning and practice
> attacks in Libya, Operation Tidal Wave was an unmitigated diaster.
> 
>> Furthermore, I did not talk about mass bombing, a few dozen bombers
>> might have been enough.
> 
> Sure, to kill some cows.

Well, if the British were capable of destroying some heavily defended 
dams in the middle of the night with less then 20 Lancasters, I'm sure 
the Americans would have been able to destroy one undefended camp in 
bright daylight with a few dozen Liberators. The only thing they had to 
do was to follow the railroad, and drop the bombs at the end of it. How 
difficult could it have been?

> 
>>>>>> Hermann G�ring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline) out of
>>>>>> coal.
>>>>> Which is more likely to shorten the war?  Bombing a prison or
>>>>> bombing a synfuel complex.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know my answer...
>>>> Yes, the same reasoning was done by the Western allieds. Now suppose it
>>>> would have been US and UK prisoners of war instead of Jews? And the
>>>> workers for the fuel plants also came from those trains.
>>> The 8th Air Force might have, in revenge, switched from industrial
>>> targets to (like the Brits) urban targets.
>>>
>>> Or we (US & Canada, where the camps were) might have started killing
>>> German POWs tit-for-tat.  And telling the Germans what we were doing.
>>>
>>> Anyway, telling the Allied home front what the Gerries were doing
>>> would only have fired us up to be even more vicious & brutal in
>>> finishing the war quicker.
>> Really? So why didn't the same people tell the home front that millions
>> of Jews were being murdered in Poland? Again, they just did not care. It
>> were just Jews being murdered.
> 
> Hmmm.  Maybe because they weren't Americans?
> 

Yes of course. Sorry I forgot that risking a few hundred American lifes 
to save a million Jews was out of the question.

>>>> The reasoning is wrong, its is not the gaschambers OR the fuel plant,
>>>> but instead the gaschambers AND the fuel plant. What you are saying is
>>>> that it wasn't worth the risk of losing a few bombers to save hundreds
>>>> of thousands of Jews.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, the British made several very dangerous low altitude attacks
>>>> with Mosquito bombers on prisons to free captured resistance fighters.
>>> Those are the key words: "several" and "very dangerous".  Probably
>>> in France, and most probably to spring important resistance fighters
>>> who know of important parts of the network.
>>>
>> No, for instance they made similar precision bombings on The Hague and
>> Copenhagen to destroy the central registries of population.
> 
> Copenhagen is pretty damned close to France, and a hell of a lot
> closer to England than Poland is.

Not really. The distance London-Copenhagen is about 1000km, the distance 
London-Auschwitz about 1300km. London to the middle of France is less 
than 600km.

> 
> And, as Dr. Dweeb so helpfully pointed out, there was extensive
> collateral damage.

Yes, but you don't think the concentration camp was in the middle of a 
nice Polish town do you? Prisoners would have been killed (but they 
would have been killed anyway) and SS guards.

> 
> Laser guided, terrain mapping and GPS-guided bombs go off course.
> What makes you think that optically-sighted dumb bombs won't go off
> course?

Bombs went off course in all occupied countries and Germany, it did not 
stop the bombing.

> 
> [snip]
> 

On Aug 26, 8:12 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 08/26/07 06:11, Neil Rieck wrote:
>
> > On Aug 25, 1:03 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On 08/25/07 07:14, Neil Rieck wrote:
>
> > [...snip...]
> >>> Talk to anyone who was an adult during World War 2 and you'll find
> >>> that many common folk were anti-Semitic even though they called
> >>> themselves Christians. (The people telling you these facts will always
> >> "The Jews killed Jesus."
>
> > Christians are taught that God sent his only son to die for humanity's
> > sins. So if it is necessary to blame someone, blame God.
>
> The *Romans* killed Jesus.  Anyone who's read Matthew, and has two
> neurons to rub together, knows that.
>
> Anyway...  I could say more about Catholic tradition and theology,
> but c.o.v is definitely not the place to start a huge OT flame war.
>
> But then, there are many atheists/agnostics and Protestants on the
> list who would probably agree with me.
>
> --
> Ron Johnson, Jr.
> Jefferson LA  USA
>
> Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
> Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

No, Adam and Eve and you and I killed Him ...

if it was not for our sins, He would have not had
to come here and die for them ...

On 08/26/07 18:54, ultradwc@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
> 
> No, Adam and Eve and you and I killed Him ...
> 
> if it was not for our sins, He would have not had
> to come here and die for them ...

There is no evidence of a God that flits around breaking the laws of
nature that He/It supposedly created.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 08/26/07 16:30, Dirk Munk wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 08/26/07 10:05, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>> On 08/26/07 03:16, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/25/07 15:48, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in
>>>>>>> Auschwitz, but
>>>>>>> they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc. "It was to far
>>>>>>> away for
>>>>>>> the bombers" they explained after the war. 
>>>>>> I've never heard that excuse/reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                                            That was a big lie,
>>>>>>> there are
>>>>>>> photographs of Liberator bombers over Auschwitz on their way to the
>>>>>> Given the (*abysmal* lack of) accuracy of high-altitude bombing, any
>>>>>> attacks on Auschwitz were just as likely to hit the town, pastures,
>>>>>> or kill the prisoners.
>>>>> Keep in mind the way Auschwitz worked. A train came in, and the
>>>>> majority
>>>>> of the people on the train were murdered the same day. Even if bombing
>>>>> the railroad and the gaschambers would have killed prisoners etc. , it
>>>>> would have stopped the mass murder. Bombing the fuel plants also
>>>>> killed
>>>>> al lot of prisoners. And I doubt if Auschwitz was defended by FLAK, so
>>>>> the bombers could have made a low altitude attack.
>>>> Massed bombers doing low-level attacks in southern Poland?
>>>>
>>>> You've *got* to be kidding.
>>> Well, they did at the heavily defended oil refineries at Ploesti....
>>
>> Pick a better example.  Even after meticulous planning and practice
>> attacks in Libya, Operation Tidal Wave was an unmitigated diaster.
>>
>>> Furthermore, I did not talk about mass bombing, a few dozen bombers
>>> might have been enough.
>>
>> Sure, to kill some cows.
> 
> Well, if the British were capable of destroying some heavily defended
> dams in the middle of the night with less then 20 Lancasters, I'm sure
> the Americans would have been able to destroy one undefended camp in
> bright daylight with a few dozen Liberators. The only thing they had to
> do was to follow the railroad, and drop the bombs at the end of it. How
> difficult could it have been?
> 
>>
>>>>>>> Hermann G�ring Werke where the Germans produced fuel (gasoline)
>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>> coal.
>>>>>> Which is more likely to shorten the war?  Bombing a prison or
>>>>>> bombing a synfuel complex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know my answer...
>>>>> Yes, the same reasoning was done by the Western allieds. Now
>>>>> suppose it
>>>>> would have been US and UK prisoners of war instead of Jews? And the
>>>>> workers for the fuel plants also came from those trains.
>>>> The 8th Air Force might have, in revenge, switched from industrial
>>>> targets to (like the Brits) urban targets.
>>>>
>>>> Or we (US & Canada, where the camps were) might have started killing
>>>> German POWs tit-for-tat.  And telling the Germans what we were doing.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, telling the Allied home front what the Gerries were doing
>>>> would only have fired us up to be even more vicious & brutal in
>>>> finishing the war quicker.
>>> Really? So why didn't the same people tell the home front that millions
>>> of Jews were being murdered in Poland? Again, they just did not care. It
>>> were just Jews being murdered.
>>
>> Hmmm.  Maybe because they weren't Americans?
>>
> 
> Yes of course. Sorry I forgot that risking a few hundred American lifes
> to save a million Jews was out of the question.
> 
>>>>> The reasoning is wrong, its is not the gaschambers OR the fuel plant,
>>>>> but instead the gaschambers AND the fuel plant. What you are saying is
>>>>> that it wasn't worth the risk of losing a few bombers to save hundreds
>>>>> of thousands of Jews.
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, the British made several very dangerous low altitude
>>>>> attacks
>>>>> with Mosquito bombers on prisons to free captured resistance fighters.
>>>> Those are the key words: "several" and "very dangerous".  Probably
>>>> in France, and most probably to spring important resistance fighters
>>>> who know of important parts of the network.
>>>>
>>> No, for instance they made similar precision bombings on The Hague and
>>> Copenhagen to destroy the central registries of population.
>>
>> Copenhagen is pretty damned close to France, and a hell of a lot
>> closer to England than Poland is.
> 
> Not really. The distance London-Copenhagen is about 1000km, the distance
> London-Auschwitz about 1300km. London to the middle of France is less

1400, but I take your point.

> than 600km.
> 
>>
>> And, as Dr. Dweeb so helpfully pointed out, there was extensive
>> collateral damage.
> 
> Yes, but you don't think the concentration camp was in the middle of a
> nice Polish town do you? Prisoners would have been killed (but they
> would have been killed anyway) and SS guards.
> 
>>
>> Laser guided, terrain mapping and GPS-guided bombs go off course.
>> What makes you think that optically-sighted dumb bombs won't go off
>> course?
> 
> Bombs went off course in all occupied countries and Germany, it did not
> stop the bombing.

Because Germans were the enemy.  (And the French accepted/understood
that we needed to destroy St. Nazziere(sp?) and cities in Normandy.)

Call me cynical, but I can hear, had the Allies attacked Auschwitz,
clear as a bell, leftists and guilt-mongers wailing and complaining
that we were anti-Semites because we killed them all.

"Maybe they would have survived had we not killed them!!!  You Evil
Americans!!!"

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 08/26/07 16:30, Dirk Munk wrote:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> On 08/26/07 10:05, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>>> On 08/26/07 03:16, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>>>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/25/07 15:48, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>>>>>> [snip]

>> Bombs went off course in all occupied countries and Germany, it did not
>> stop the bombing.
> 
> Because Germans were the enemy.  (And the French accepted/understood
> that we needed to destroy St. Nazziere(sp?) and cities in Normandy.)
> 
> Call me cynical, but I can hear, had the Allies attacked Auschwitz,
> clear as a bell, leftists and guilt-mongers wailing and complaining
> that we were anti-Semites because we killed them all.
> 
> "Maybe they would have survived had we not killed them!!!  You Evil
> Americans!!!"
> 

Very unlikely. An example: on the 22th February 1944 the 446th 
bombergroup of the USAAF wasn't able to reach the German city of Gotha 
where they were suppose to go. Instead they looked for another city, and 
by mistake they bombed the Dutch city of Nijmegen. Over 800 people were 
killed, and the centre of the city was completely destroyed. It was 
certainly not the only mistake of this kind that happened during WWII.

Another example: At the end of WWII the remaining prisoners of the 
concentration camp Neuengamme (near Hamburg) were placed on ships in the 
bay of L�beck. Allied planes took these ships for troopcarriers and 
destroyed them, killing some 8000 prisoners. One of my great-uncles may 
have been on these ships, he was in Neuengamme and it is unknown what 
happened to him.

In all these cases no one ever blamed the allieds.

In article <1188044051.913796.228860@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,  Neil Rieck <n.rieck@sympatico.ca> writes:
> 
> Talk to anyone who was an adult during World War 2 and you'll find
> that many common folk were anti-Semitic even though they called
> themselves Christians. (The people telling you these facts will always
> tell you it was the other guy). Today, anyone who holds anti-Semitic
> biases is usually considered backwards.

   Yes, and in North America today Christians are accepted fairly well
   even if they are of slightly different denominations and Jews are
   considered OK, let them get by.

   But there are still a great many people who don't really want
   religious freedom.  Note the protest staged when a Muslim was allowed
   to open a session of Congress and the lack of condemnation of the
   protesters.

   Once upon a time Jews and Catholics were both outcasts in the
   American colonies; these days had anyone protested a Preist or a 
   Rabbi opening a session of Congress there would have been much to 
   do about it.

In article <faq9df$nco$1@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> writes:
> 
> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz, but 
> they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc.

   You wanted to save the Jews in Auschwitz by dropping bombs on them?
   Bombing accuracy at that time was not sufficient to isolate the gas
   chambers from the surrounding camp, mostly filled with prisoners in 
   forced labor.

In article <farctb$re5$1@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> writes:
> 
> Keep in mind the way Auschwitz worked. A train came in, and the majority 
> of the people on the train were murdered the same day. Even if bombing 
> the railroad and the gaschambers would have killed prisoners etc. , it 
> would have stopped the mass murder. Bombing the fuel plants also killed 
> al lot of prisoners. And I doubt if Auschwitz was defended by FLAK, so 
> the bombers could have made a low altitude attack.

   I think the Nazi's would have reacted by opening fire on the
   remaining prisoners, and sending further victims to other deaths. 
   Taking out the gas chambers would not be sufficient to stop them.

In article <zK0p2LWvpVrR@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
> In article <faq9df$nco$1@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> writes:
>> 
>> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz, but 
>> they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc.
> 
>    You wanted to save the Jews in Auschwitz by dropping bombs on them?
>    Bombing accuracy at that time was not sufficient to isolate the gas
>    chambers from the surrounding camp, mostly filled with prisoners in 
>    forced labor.
 
Armed-chair Generals are amazing.  So many keep trying to second-guess 
Vietnam and Iraq and yet even 60 years after the fact and with all of
the necessary data published they can't even understand WWII.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

"Ron Johnson" <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote in message 
news:M6eAi.160308$g86.71552@newsfe14.lga...
> On 08/26/07 06:11, Neil Rieck wrote:
>> On Aug 25, 1:03 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On 08/25/07 07:14, Neil Rieck wrote:
>>>
>
> Anyway...  I could say more about Catholic tradition and theology,
> but c.o.v is definitely not the place to start a huge OT flame war.
>
> But then, there are many atheists/agnostics and Protestants on the
> list who would probably agree with me.
>

I'll take the easy (English) way out - and call myself a Deist.

Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <farctb$re5$1@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> writes:
>> Keep in mind the way Auschwitz worked. A train came in, and the majority 
>> of the people on the train were murdered the same day. Even if bombing 
>> the railroad and the gaschambers would have killed prisoners etc. , it 
>> would have stopped the mass murder. Bombing the fuel plants also killed 
>> al lot of prisoners. And I doubt if Auschwitz was defended by FLAK, so 
>> the bombers could have made a low altitude attack.
> 
>    I think the Nazi's would have reacted by opening fire on the
>    remaining prisoners, 

Certainly

>    and sending further victims to other deaths. 
>    Taking out the gas chambers would not be sufficient to stop them.
> 

True, but the killing itself was the smallest part of the procedure. 
Disposing of the bodies was the main problem, that is why the crematoria 
  and the gas chambers were in one building. This was a destruction 
camp, build to kill and burn people on a massive industrial scale.

There were more destruction camps, but not one with the capacity of 
Auschwitz. In earlier camps the SS tried to bury the bodies, but the 
gasses of decomposing bodies caused the ground to move up and down, like 
the surface of a lake. So they had no choice and to dig the bodies up 
again and burn them in huge holes in the ground.

This is all very unpleasant to read I'm sure, but I hope that it shows 
that murder on such a scale is not an easy undertaking, and destroying 
the industrial destruction complex of Auschwitz would have caused big 
problems for the SS.

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <zK0p2LWvpVrR@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
> 	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>> In article <faq9df$nco$1@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> writes:
>>> The Western allieds knew all to well what was going on in Auschwitz, but 
>>> they never tried to bomb the gas chambers etc.
>>    You wanted to save the Jews in Auschwitz by dropping bombs on them?
>>    Bombing accuracy at that time was not sufficient to isolate the gas
>>    chambers from the surrounding camp, mostly filled with prisoners in 
>>    forced labor.
>  
> Armed-chair Generals are amazing.  So many keep trying to second-guess 
> Vietnam and Iraq and yet even 60 years after the fact and with all of
> the necessary data published they can't even understand WWII.
> 
> bill
> 
Maybe. But it is documented that bombing Auschwitz was considered, but 
rejected because it served no military purpose. However I'm sure you 
will agree this was not just a military decision, but more a political 
one. The people in charge knowingly took the decision not to risk a few 
dozen bombers and their crew to stop the SS murdering thousands and 
thousands of Jews. I do think judging that decision today is justified.

In article <favikl$abl$1@news4.zwoll1.ov.home.nl>, Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl> writes:
> 
> True, but the killing itself was the smallest part of the procedure. 
> Disposing of the bodies was the main problem, that is why the crematoria 
>   and the gas chambers were in one building. This was a destruction 
> camp, build to kill and burn people on a massive industrial scale.

   Difficulties in disposing of the bodies does not sound like something
   that would inspire the Nazis to start providing food, water, and the
   like to their death camp prisoners.  Much more likely they would have
   killed them anyway and looked for other means to deal with the
   bodies, even if they rotted in the open for a while.

To me the 'Bible' is the DEC Orange/Grey wall,  just to bring things back
into the spirit of c.o.v.

What more does anyone need?




Neil Rieck wrote:
> Here's one for Bob. (hope it makes your head spin)
>
> Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible and Why
>
> When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first began to study the
> texts of the Bible in their original languages he was startled to
> discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations that
> had been made by earlier translators. In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman
> tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes
> made to the New Testament and shows the great impact they had upon the
> Bible we use today. He frames his account with personal reflections on
> how his study of the Greek manuscripts made him abandon his once
> ultraconservative views of the Bible. Since the advent of the printing
> press and the accurate reproduction of texts, most people have assumed
> that when they read the New Testament they are reading an exact copy
> of Jesus's words or Saint Paul's writings. And yet, for almost fifteen
> hundred years these manuscripts were hand copied by scribes who were
> deeply influenced by the cultural, theological, and political disputes
> of their day. Both mistakes and intentional changes abound in the
> surviving manuscripts, making the original words difficult to
> reconstruct. For the first time, Ehrman reveals where and why these
> changes were made and how scholars go about reconstructing the
> original words of the New Testament as closely as possible. Ehrman
> makes the provocative case that many of our cherished biblical stories
> and widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity,
> and the divine origins of the Bible itself stem from both intentional
> and accidental alterations by scribes -- alterations that dramatically
> affected all subsequent versions of the Bible.
>
> Listen to a 53 minute interview here:
> http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/archives/2007/072207.html
>
> One Oxford bible scholar (John Mill) in 1707 published an in depth
> 'textual analysis' of more than 100 biblical manuscripts documenting
> more than 30,000 differences.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_analysis
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mill
> Since then, other bible researchers have documented more than 100,000
> differences.
>
> Example-1, the story of the adulterous woman brought before Jesus is
> total fiction and doesn't appear in any of the earliest manuscripts.
> It was added by scribes who knew exactly what they were doing.
>
> Example-2, every last page (codex) of the Book of Revelation was
> missing when St Jerome was working on the Latin Vulgate so he just
> read a bunch of Greek manuscripts (which were mostly different) and
> then translated the average meaning back into latin. (so much for all
> the people who labor over every word in this strange book)
>
> Example-3, everyone today loves the King James Version but it appears
> that this book is based upon a 12th century manuscript that just might
> have been the worst choice for a bible (but there were not many others
> available in Western Europe at the time)
>
> Food for thought: If the bible is the inspired word of God then why
> did he allow all these people to mess around with it? Or, from what I
> can see (I just finished reading the book) he seems to have gone out
> of his way to make sure we can never get a glimpse of the original
> text.
>
> NSR

--
OpenVMS - The never-advertised operating system with the dwindling ISV
base.

In article <1188172498.272179.37250@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>On Aug 26, 8:12 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 08/26/07 06:11, Neil Rieck wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 25, 1:03 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On 08/25/07 07:14, Neil Rieck wrote:
>>
>> > [...snip...]
>> >>> Talk to anyone who was an adult during World War 2 and you'll find
>> >>> that many common folk were anti-Semitic even though they called
>> >>> themselves Christians. (The people telling you these facts will always
>> >> "The Jews killed Jesus."
>>
>> > Christians are taught that God sent his only son to die for humanity's
>> > sins. So if it is necessary to blame someone, blame God.
>>
>> The *Romans* killed Jesus.  Anyone who's read Matthew, and has two
>> neurons to rub together, knows that.
>>
>> Anyway...  I could say more about Catholic tradition and theology,
>> but c.o.v is definitely not the place to start a huge OT flame war.
>>
>> But then, there are many atheists/agnostics and Protestants on the
>> list who would probably agree with me.
>>
>> --
>> Ron Johnson, Jr.
>> Jefferson LA  USA
>>
>> Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
>> Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
>
>No, Adam and Eve and you and I killed Him ...
>
>if it was not for our sins, He would have not had
>to come here and die for them ...
>
Why would an all powerful God need to go through such a pantomime ? Why did
Jesus need to be treated as a scapegoat for our sins ? Why couldn't an all
powerful God just decree that everybody was forgiven ?

David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

On Aug 30, 7:12 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <1188172498.272179.37...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, ultra...@gmail.com writes:
> >On Aug 26, 8:12 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On 08/26/07 06:11, Neil Rieck wrote:
>
> >> > On Aug 25, 1:03 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On 08/25/07 07:14, Neil Rieck wrote:
>
> >> > [...snip...]
> >> >>> Talk to anyone who was an adult during World War 2 and you'll find
> >> >>> that many common folk were anti-Semitic even though they called
> >> >>> themselves Christians. (The people telling you these facts will always
> >> >> "The Jews killed Jesus."
>
> >> > Christians are taught that God sent his only son to die for humanity's
> >> > sins. So if it is necessary to blame someone, blame God.
>
> >> The *Romans* killed Jesus.  Anyone who's read Matthew, and has two
> >> neurons to rub together, knows that.
>
> >> Anyway...  I could say more about Catholic tradition and theology,
> >> but c.o.v is definitely not the place to start a huge OT flame war.
>
> >> But then, there are many atheists/agnostics and Protestants on the
> >> list who would probably agree with me.
>
> >> --
> >> Ron Johnson, Jr.
> >> Jefferson LA  USA
>
> >> Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
> >> Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
>
> >No, Adam and Eve and you and I killed Him ...
>
> >if it was not for our sins, He would have not had
> >to come here and die for them ...
>
> Why would an all powerful God need to go through such a pantomime ? Why did
> Jesus need to be treated as a scapegoat for our sins ? Why couldn't an all
> powerful God just decree that everybody was forgiven ?
>
> David Webb
> Security team leader
> CCSS
> Middlesex University- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

because God requires a sacrifice for sin ... and also
we need to change (repent) so the sin does not
continue and perfect ourselves because no sin is
allowed in the kingdom of God ... God does not
force Himself on you, or force you to convert ...
you have to choose ...

In article <fb68n0$70o$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:

> Why would an all powerful God need to go through such a pantomime ? Why did
> Jesus need to be treated as a scapegoat for our sins ? Why couldn't an all
> powerful God just decree that everybody was forgiven ?

   Ah, come on, now.  You're ruining a perfectly good story which ends
   with self martyring by looking for some logic behind it.

   That spoils all the fun.   8-)

In article <1188473905.146346.178540@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,  ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
> 
> because God requires a sacrifice for sin 

   Says who?  Surely an all powerfull god could change a little thing
   like that.  Wait a minute, that's what Jesus, is supposed to have
   done and in standard Christian beleif Jesus is God.  So you avoided
   answering the question.

On 08/30/07 06:12, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
[snip]
> Why would an all powerful God need to go through such a pantomime ? Why did
> Jesus need to be treated as a scapegoat for our sins ? Why couldn't an all
> powerful God just decree that everybody was forgiven ?

Because, presumably, He cares about more than just how we act.  Just
as I care not only whether my children *do* good, but whether they
*are* good.

This is radically different from "public" life, where it's only
important what you do (or do not do).  IOW, as long as you don't
(try to) kill anyone, it doesn't matter whether you want to or not.

Of course, the question of why an omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent
deity needs a blood sacrifice is a different kettle of fish.

The only semi-reasonable answer I've every gotten is that it's
humans who "need" the symbolism of the blood sacrifice.

Which, though, implies that religion is a human construct.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 08/29/07 14:19, John Smith wrote:
> To me the 'Bible' is the DEC Orange/Grey wall,  just to bring things back
> into the spirit of c.o.v.
> 
> What more does anyone need?

Updates for VMS 6?

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

John Smith wrote:
> To me the 'Bible' is the DEC Orange/Grey wall,  just to bring things back
> into the spirit of c.o.v.
> 
> What more does anyone need?
> 
<snip>  (And please don't "top post"!

If you're running VMS V5.5-2 you're all set.  For anything much more 
modern, the wall is no longer gray.  My doc set is paper bound with 
color coded spines,

In article <1188473905.146346.178540@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>On Aug 30, 7:12 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>> In article <1188172498.272179.37...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>> >On Aug 26, 8:12 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On 08/26/07 06:11, Neil Rieck wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Aug 25, 1:03 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> >> On 08/25/07 07:14, Neil Rieck wrote:
>>
>> >> > [...snip...]
>> >> >>> Talk to anyone who was an adult during World War 2 and you'll find
>> >> >>> that many common folk were anti-Semitic even though they called
>> >> >>> themselves Christians. (The people telling you these facts will always
>> >> >> "The Jews killed Jesus."
>>
>> >> > Christians are taught that God sent his only son to die for humanity's
>> >> > sins. So if it is necessary to blame someone, blame God.
>>
>> >> The *Romans* killed Jesus.  Anyone who's read Matthew, and has two
>> >> neurons to rub together, knows that.
>>
>> >> Anyway...  I could say more about Catholic tradition and theology,
>> >> but c.o.v is definitely not the place to start a huge OT flame war.
>>
>> >> But then, there are many atheists/agnostics and Protestants on the
>> >> list who would probably agree with me.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Ron Johnson, Jr.
>> >> Jefferson LA  USA
>>
>> >> Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
>> >> Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
>>
>> >No, Adam and Eve and you and I killed Him ...
>>
>> >if it was not for our sins, He would have not had
>> >to come here and die for them ...
>>
>> Why would an all powerful God need to go through such a pantomime ? Why did
>> Jesus need to be treated as a scapegoat for our sins ? Why couldn't an all
>> powerful God just decree that everybody was forgiven ?
>>
>> David Webb
>> Security team leader
>> CCSS
>> Middlesex University- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>because God requires a sacrifice for sin 

Why ?  Making your "son" mortal and getting him sacrificed by the people whose
sin he is meant to remove seems a very strange procedure. 

>... and also
>we need to change (repent) 

So were the Romans who nailed Jesus to the cross doing that as an act of
repentence ? 
As far as I can see they didn't even consider themselves to be carrying out a
sacrifice - they were just executing another criminal.

>so the sin does not
>continue and perfect ourselves because no sin is
>allowed in the kingdom of God ... God does not
>force Himself on you, or force you to convert ...
>you have to choose ...
>
How does that relate to Jesus being nailed to a cross ?

David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

>
>

In article <ZyzBi.222984$BX3.122037@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>On 08/30/07 06:12, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>[snip]
>> Why would an all powerful God need to go through such a pantomime ? Why did
>> Jesus need to be treated as a scapegoat for our sins ? Why couldn't an all
>> powerful God just decree that everybody was forgiven ?
>
>Because, presumably, He cares about more than just how we act.  Just
>as I care not only whether my children *do* good, but whether they
>*are* good.
>
But how does having a bunch of Romans crucify his "son" make sure people *are*
good ?

David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University


>This is radically different from "public" life, where it's only
>important what you do (or do not do).  IOW, as long as you don't
>(try to) kill anyone, it doesn't matter whether you want to or not.
>
>Of course, the question of why an omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent
>deity needs a blood sacrifice is a different kettle of fish.
>
>The only semi-reasonable answer I've every gotten is that it's
>humans who "need" the symbolism of the blood sacrifice.
>
>Which, though, implies that religion is a human construct.
>
>-- 
>Ron Johnson, Jr.
>Jefferson LA  USA
>
>Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
>Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 08/31/07 10:25, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <ZyzBi.222984$BX3.122037@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>> On 08/30/07 06:12, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> Why would an all powerful God need to go through such a pantomime ? Why did
>>> Jesus need to be treated as a scapegoat for our sins ? Why couldn't an all
>>> powerful God just decree that everybody was forgiven ?
>> Because, presumably, He cares about more than just how we act.  Just
>> as I care not only whether my children *do* good, but whether they
>> *are* good.
>>
> But how does having a bunch of Romans crucify his "son" make sure people *are*
> good ?
> 

I answered that in the post that you replied to.  See below.

> 
> 
>> This is radically different from "public" life, where it's only
>> important what you do (or do not do).  IOW, as long as you don't
>> (try to) kill anyone, it doesn't matter whether you want to or not.
>>
>> Of course, the question of why an omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent
>> deity needs a blood sacrifice is a different kettle of fish.
>>
>> The only semi-reasonable answer I've every gotten is that it's
>> humans who "need" the symbolism of the blood sacrifice.
>>
>> Which, though, implies that religion is a human construct.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On Aug 30, 9:21 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <1188473905.146346.178...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>
> > because God requires a sacrifice for sin
>
>    Says who?  Surely an all powerfull god could change a little thing
>    like that.  Wait a minute, that's what Jesus, is supposed to have
>    done and in standard Christian beleif Jesus is God.  So you avoided
>    answering the question.

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read2/r00614.html

On Aug 31, 10:42 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <1188473905.146346.178...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, ultra...@gmail.com writes:
> >On Aug 30, 7:12 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> >> In article <1188172498.272179.37...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, ultra...@gmail.com writes:
> >> >On Aug 26, 8:12 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> On 08/26/07 06:11, Neil Rieck wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Aug 25, 1:03 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> On 08/25/07 07:14, Neil Rieck wrote:
>
> >> >> > [...snip...]
> >> >> >>> Talk to anyone who was an adult during World War 2 and you'll find
> >> >> >>> that many common folk were anti-Semitic even though they called
> >> >> >>> themselves Christians. (The people telling you these facts will always
> >> >> >> "The Jews killed Jesus."
>
> >> >> > Christians are taught that God sent his only son to die for humanity's
> >> >> > sins. So if it is necessary to blame someone, blame God.
>
> >> >> The *Romans* killed Jesus.  Anyone who's read Matthew, and has two
> >> >> neurons to rub together, knows that.
>
> >> >> Anyway...  I could say more about Catholic tradition and theology,
> >> >> but c.o.v is definitely not the place to start a huge OT flame war.
>
> >> >> But then, there are many atheists/agnostics and Protestants on the
> >> >> list who would probably agree with me.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Ron Johnson, Jr.
> >> >> Jefferson LA  USA
>
> >> >> Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
> >> >> Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
>
> >> >No, Adam and Eve and you and I killed Him ...
>
> >> >if it was not for our sins, He would have not had
> >> >to come here and die for them ...
>
> >> Why would an all powerful God need to go through such a pantomime ? Why did
> >> Jesus need to be treated as a scapegoat for our sins ? Why couldn't an all
> >> powerful God just decree that everybody was forgiven ?
>
> >> David Webb
> >> Security team leader
> >> CCSS
> >> Middlesex University- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >because God requires a sacrifice for sin
>
> Why ?  Making your "son" mortal and getting him sacrificed by the people whose
> sin he is meant to remove seems a very strange procedure.
>
> >... and also
> >we need to change (repent)
>
> So were the Romans who nailed Jesus to the cross doing that as an act of
> repentence ?
> As far as I can see they didn't even consider themselves to be carrying out a
> sacrifice - they were just executing another criminal.
>
> >so the sin does not
> >continue and perfect ourselves because no sin is
> >allowed in the kingdom of God ... God does not
> >force Himself on you, or force you to convert ...
> >you have to choose ...
>
> How does that relate to Jesus being nailed to a cross ?
>
> David Webb
> Security team leader
> CCSS
> Middlesex University
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read2/r00614.html

On Aug 31, 11:25 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <ZyzBi.222984$BX3.122...@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
> >On 08/30/07 06:12, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> Why would an all powerful God need to go through such a pantomime ? Why did
> >> Jesus need to be treated as a scapegoat for our sins ? Why couldn't an all
> >> powerful God just decree that everybody was forgiven ?
>
> >Because, presumably, He cares about more than just how we act.  Just
> >as I care not only whether my children *do* good, but whether they
> >*are* good.
>
> But how does having a bunch of Romans crucify his "son" make sure people *are*
> good ?
>
> David Webb
> Security team leader
> CCSS
> Middlesex University
>
>
>
> >This is radically different from "public" life, where it's only
> >important what you do (or do not do).  IOW, as long as you don't
> >(try to) kill anyone, it doesn't matter whether you want to or not.
>
> >Of course, the question of why an omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent
> >deity needs a blood sacrifice is a different kettle of fish.
>
> >The only semi-reasonable answer I've every gotten is that it's
> >humans who "need" the symbolism of the blood sacrifice.
>
> >Which, though, implies that religion is a human construct.
>
> >--
> >Ron Johnson, Jr.
> >Jefferson LA  USA
>
> >Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
> >Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read2/r00614.html

On Aug 30, 9:21 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <1188473905.146346.178...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>
> > because God requires a sacrifice for sin
>
>    Says who?  Surely an all powerfull god could change a little thing
>    like that.  Wait a minute, that's what Jesus, is supposed to have
>    done and in standard Christian beleif Jesus is God.  So you avoided
>    answering the question.

http://www.mygodshouse.com/The%20Blood.htm

http://www.whyjesusdied.com/q02_jsuffer.html

http://truegospel.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Basics.tour/ID/8/Why-Was-Jesus-Christ-Crucified-for-Our-Sins.htm

On Aug 31, 11:25 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <ZyzBi.222984$BX3.122...@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
> >On 08/30/07 06:12, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> Why would an all powerful God need to go through such a pantomime ? Why did
> >> Jesus need to be treated as a scapegoat for our sins ? Why couldn't an all
> >> powerful God just decree that everybody was forgiven ?
>
> >Because, presumably, He cares about more than just how we act.  Just
> >as I care not only whether my children *do* good, but whether they
> >*are* good.
>
> But how does having a bunch of Romans crucify his "son" make sure people *are*
> good ?
>
> David Webb
> Security team leader
> CCSS
> Middlesex University
>
>
>
> >This is radically different from "public" life, where it's only
> >important what you do (or do not do).  IOW, as long as you don't
> >(try to) kill anyone, it doesn't matter whether you want to or not.
>
> >Of course, the question of why an omniscient/omnipresent/omnipotent
> >deity needs a blood sacrifice is a different kettle of fish.
>
> >The only semi-reasonable answer I've every gotten is that it's
> >humans who "need" the symbolism of the blood sacrifice.
>
> >Which, though, implies that religion is a human construct.
>
> >--
> >Ron Johnson, Jr.
> >Jefferson LA  USA
>
> >Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
> >Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

http://www.mygodshouse.com/The%20Blood.htm

http://www.whyjesusdied.com/q02_jsuffer.html

http://truegospel.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Basics.tour/ID/8/Why-Was-Jesus-Christ-Crucified-for-Our-Sins.htm

In article <1188837466.761241.106970@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>On Aug 30, 9:21 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
>Koehler) wrote:
>> In article <1188473905.146346.178...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>>
>> > because God requires a sacrifice for sin
>>
>>    Says who?  Surely an all powerfull god could change a little thing
>>    like that.  Wait a minute, that's what Jesus, is supposed to have
>>    done and in standard Christian beleif Jesus is God.  So you avoided
>>    answering the question.
>
>http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read2/r00614.html
>

Why can there be no forgiveness without the shedding of blood ?

God is supposedly all powerful why then does he have to obey such a stupid 
(presumably self-imposed) rule.


David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

On 09/03/07 12:19, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <1188837466.761241.106970@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>> On Aug 30, 9:21 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
>> Koehler) wrote:
>>> In article <1188473905.146346.178...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>>>
>>>> because God requires a sacrifice for sin
>>>    Says who?  Surely an all powerfull god could change a little thing
>>>    like that.  Wait a minute, that's what Jesus, is supposed to have
>>>    done and in standard Christian beleif Jesus is God.  So you avoided
>>>    answering the question.
>> http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read2/r00614.html
>>
> 
> Why can there be no forgiveness without the shedding of blood ?
> 
> God is supposedly all powerful why then does he have to obey such a stupid 
> (presumably self-imposed) rule.

I'd say that He doesn't, but that humans, with their mortal
limitations, only understand "actions and consequences".  But then,
man was "made in the image of God", so maybe God has that limitation
too.

That's probably why I'm an atheist...

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <1188837466.761241.106970@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>On Aug 30, 9:21 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
>Koehler) wrote:
>> In article <1188473905.146346.178...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>>
>> > because God requires a sacrifice for sin
>>
>>    Says who?  Surely an all powerfull god could change a little thing
>>    like that.  Wait a minute, that's what Jesus, is supposed to have
>>    done and in standard Christian beleif Jesus is God.  So you avoided
>>    answering the question.
>
>http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read2/r00614.html
>

 	 . . . without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. 
 (NASB) Heb. 9:22


From 

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/hebrews/hebrews9.htm

"
7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient
Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament
mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving
(Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult,
which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive
value.

"




David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

On 09/03/07 11:38, ultradwc@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
> 
> http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read2/r00614.html

All your links do are state that YHWH *does* require a blood sacrifice.

What they do *not* explain is *WHY* an omniscient, omnipresent,
omnipotent deity *needs* blood sacrifice in order to forgive sin.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <qD0Di.27849$Pv4.27425@newsfe19.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>
>
>On 09/03/07 11:38, ultradwc@gmail.com wrote:
>[snip]
>> 
>> http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read2/r00614.html
>
>All your links do are state that YHWH *does* require a blood sacrifice.
>
>What they do *not* explain is *WHY* an omniscient, omnipresent,
>omnipotent deity *needs* blood sacrifice in order to forgive sin.

Sounds like Dracula dispensing clemency.  Bite me!

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> 7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient
> Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament
> mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving
> (Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult,
> which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive
> value.



That explains it then. HP knows it has sinned, and to repent, it is 
willing to use VMS as sacrificial lamb to prove its loyalty to God.

(Of course, in todays' context, GOD is Bill Gates).

On 09/03/07 20:37, JF Mezei wrote:
> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>> 7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact,
>> ancient
>> Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old
>> Testament
>> mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and
>> almsgiving
>> (Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial
>> cult,
>> which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and
>> unitive
>> value.
> 
> 
> 
> That explains it then. HP knows it has sinned, and to repent, it is
> willing to use VMS as sacrificial lamb to prove its loyalty to God.

<snicker>

> (Of course, in todays' context, GOD is Bill Gates).


-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <a1dfc$46dcb6ee$cef8887a$8647@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>
>
>david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>> 7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient
>> Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament
>> mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving
>> (Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult,
>> which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive
>> value.
>
>
>
>That explains it then. HP knows it has sinned, and to repent, it is 
>willing to use VMS as sacrificial lamb to prove its loyalty to God.
>
>(Of course, in todays' context, GOD is Bill Gates).

Billzebub is not a god.  He and Micro$hit are the embodiment of all that is
ungodly.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

In article <fbi4gb$lb0$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>In article <1188837466.761241.106970@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>>On Aug 30, 9:21 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
>>Koehler) wrote:
>>> In article <1188473905.146346.178...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>>>
>>> > because God requires a sacrifice for sin
>>>
>>>    Says who?  Surely an all powerfull god could change a little thing
>>>    like that.  Wait a minute, that's what Jesus, is supposed to have
>>>    done and in standard Christian beleif Jesus is God.  So you avoided
>>>    answering the question.
>>
>>http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read2/r00614.html
>>

Just to clarify my own posting which was rather terse.

http://www.neverthirsty.org/pp/corner/read2/r00614.html

appears to be based soley on the statement 

 	 . . . without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. 
 (NASB) Heb. 9:22

from the New testament Hebrews.

However the Old testament does not restrict forgiveness in this manner

From 

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/hebrews/hebrews9.htm

"
7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient
Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament
mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving
(Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult,
which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive
value.

"




David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

In article <fbi4gb$lb0$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
> 
> "
> 7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient
> Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament
> mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving
> (Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult,
> which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive
> value.
> 
> "

   I'm not really in favor of getting my religious teaching from a web
   site, but suppose for rhetorical purposes we took the above to be
   true.

   What prevents God from changing it?

On Sep 4, 9:00 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <fbi4gb$lb...@south.jnrs.ja.net>, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>
> > "
> > 7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient
> > Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament
> > mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving
> > (Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult,
> > which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive
> > value.
>
> > "
>
>    I'm not really in favor of getting my religious teaching from a web
>    site, but suppose for rhetorical purposes we took the above to be
>    true.
>
>    What prevents God from changing it?

He did change it ... he sent His son to take your and
my punishment for our sins ... once and for all ...

all you have to do is acknowledge what He did and
repent and accept Him in your life ...

In article <kgljrV4qeiDg@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>In article <fbi4gb$lb0$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>> 
>> "
>> 7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient
>> Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament
>> mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving
>> (Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult,
>> which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive
>> value.
>> 
>> "
>
>   I'm not really in favor of getting my religious teaching from a web
>   site, but suppose for rhetorical purposes we took the above to be
>   true.
>
>   What prevents God from changing it?
>

I've posted a clarification of the above since the site Boob quoted was using
the argument from Hebrews in the New Testament that 
"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness"

whereas the above shows that this is not true according to the Old Testament -
there are other routes to forgiveness.

But as you say an all powerful God should be able to do whatever he/she/it
wished.

David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <fbi4gb$lb0$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
> 
>>"
>>7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient
>>Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament
>>mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving
>>(Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult,
>>which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive
>>value.
>>
>>"
> 
> 
>    I'm not really in favor of getting my religious teaching from a web
>    site, but suppose for rhetorical purposes we took the above to be
>    true.
> 
>    What prevents God from changing it?
> 

STARE DECISIS - Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal 
that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

In article <46DD68EC.2010301@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
>Bob Koehler wrote:
>> In article <fbi4gb$lb0$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>> 
>>>"
>>>7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient
>>>Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament
>>>mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving
>>>(Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult,
>>>which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive
>>>value.
>>>
>>>"
>> 
>> 
>>    I'm not really in favor of getting my religious teaching from a web
>>    site, but suppose for rhetorical purposes we took the above to be
>>    true.
>> 
>>    What prevents God from changing it?
>> 
>
>STARE DECISIS - Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal 
>that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.
>
Unless overruled by a higher authority - eg Government passing new laws which
supersede the older law. In this case God is presumably the ultimate authority
and legislator.

Besides which as stated in the quotation above the old testament does not
agree that "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness".


David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> Billzebub is not a god.  He and Micro$hit are the embodiment of all that is
> ungodly.


To some, Satan is a god :-)

And it won't be that long before Microsoft unveils its new version of 
Windows:  "Windows 666"  :-)

Bob Koehler wrote:
>    I'm not really in favor of getting my religious teaching from a web
>    site, but suppose for rhetorical purposes we took the above to be
>    true.
> 
>    What prevents God from changing it?

Same thing that should have prevented Compaq from changing the plan of 
record and murdering Alpha. Same thing that should have prevented HP 
from changing the roadmap and no longer delivering on the last VAX 
version, as per the plan of record promised in exchange for the 
sacrificial slaughter of Alpha to please the Intel gods.

In article <1188911375.398215.27900@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,  ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
> 
> He did change it ... he sent His son to take your and
> my punishment for our sins ... once and for all ...

   Which is exactly the point I made last week.  You didn't answer the
   question then and you still haven't answered the question we were
   discussing.

In article <46DD68EC.2010301@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
> 
> STARE DECISIS - Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal 
> that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

   In what religion is God limited to the same capabilities as a human
   court of law?

In article <f5c8$46dd809d$cef8887a$11009@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> 
> Same thing that should have prevented Compaq from changing the plan of 
> record and murdering Alpha. Same thing that should have prevented HP 
> from changing the roadmap and no longer delivering on the last VAX 
> version, as per the plan of record promised in exchange for the 
> sacrificial slaughter of Alpha to please the Intel gods.

   What?  JF, are you trying to make this thread relavent?   8-)

On Sep 4, 10:07 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <kgljrV4qe...@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <fbi4gb$lb...@south.jnrs.ja.net>, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>
> >> "
> >> 7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient
> >> Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament
> >> mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving
> >> (Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult,
> >> which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive
> >> value.
>
> >> "
>
> >   I'm not really in favor of getting my religious teaching from a web
> >   site, but suppose for rhetorical purposes we took the above to be
> >   true.
>
> >   What prevents God from changing it?
>
> I've posted a clarification of the above since the site Boob quoted was using
> the argument from Hebrews in the New Testament that
> "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness"
>
> whereas the above shows that this is not true according to the Old Testament -
> there are other routes to forgiveness.
>
> But as you say an all powerful God should be able to do whatever he/she/it
> wished.
>
> David Webb
> Security team leader
> CCSS
> Middlesex University- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

1 Samuel chapter 15 vs 29

" He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
he is not a man, that he should change his mind."

On Sep 4, 10:07 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <kgljrV4qe...@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <fbi4gb$lb...@south.jnrs.ja.net>, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>
> >> "
> >> 7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient
> >> Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament
> >> mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving
> >> (Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult,
> >> which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive
> >> value.
>
> >> "
>
> >   I'm not really in favor of getting my religious teaching from a web
> >   site, but suppose for rhetorical purposes we took the above to be
> >   true.
>
> >   What prevents God from changing it?
>
> I've posted a clarification of the above since the site Boob quoted was using
> the argument from Hebrews in the New Testament that
> "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness"
>
> whereas the above shows that this is not true according to the Old Testament -
> there are other routes to forgiveness.
>
> But as you say an all powerful God should be able to do whatever he/she/it
> wished.
>
> David Webb
> Security team leader
> CCSS
> Middlesex University- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Malachi chapter 3 vs 6

"I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not
destroyed."

In article <1188926008.865710.82670@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>On Sep 4, 10:07 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>> In article <kgljrV4qe...@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >In article <fbi4gb$lb...@south.jnrs.ja.net>, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>>
>> >> "
>> >> 7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient
>> >> Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament
>> >> mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving
>> >> (Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult,
>> >> which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive
>> >> value.
>>
>> >> "
>>
>> >   I'm not really in favor of getting my religious teaching from a web
>> >   site, but suppose for rhetorical purposes we took the above to be
>> >   true.
>>
>> >   What prevents God from changing it?
>>
>> I've posted a clarification of the above since the site Boob quoted was using
>> the argument from Hebrews in the New Testament that
>> "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness"
>>
>> whereas the above shows that this is not true according to the Old Testament -
>> there are other routes to forgiveness.
>>
>> But as you say an all powerful God should be able to do whatever he/she/it
>> wished.
>>
>> David Webb
>> Security team leader
>> CCSS
>> Middlesex University- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>1 Samuel chapter 15 vs 29
>
>" He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
>he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
>
So we should be following everything in the old testament ? - the modifications
made in the New Testament can not be valid because God can never change his
mind ?
So for instance Christians should all be eating only Kosher food and all men 
should be circumcised.


David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

In article <mxgZr86PJqc9@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>
>
>In article <46DD68EC.2010301@comcast.net>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> writes:
>> 
>> STARE DECISIS - Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal 
>> that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.
>
>   In what religion is God limited to the same capabilities as a human
>   court of law?

Exactly, read below!


A man who died was supposed to go to Heaven, but ended up in Hell.  So, 
God called Satan, protesting to have that man returned to Heaven where
he belonged.  When Satan rejected the request, God said he would go to 
court to get the man back, to which Satan replied, "Where are you going
to get a lawyer? They are all down here!"

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

In article <fbk4mq$8q5$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>
>
>In article <1188926008.865710.82670@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>>On Sep 4, 10:07 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>>> In article <kgljrV4qe...@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >In article <fbi4gb$lb...@south.jnrs.ja.net>, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>>>
>>> >> "
>>> >> 7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient
>>> >> Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament
>>> >> mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving
>>> >> (Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult,
>>> >> which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive
>>> >> value.
>>>
>>> >> "
>>>
>>> >   I'm not really in favor of getting my religious teaching from a web
>>> >   site, but suppose for rhetorical purposes we took the above to be
>>> >   true.
>>>
>>> >   What prevents God from changing it?
>>>
>>> I've posted a clarification of the above since the site Boob quoted was using
>>> the argument from Hebrews in the New Testament that
>>> "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness"
>>>
>>> whereas the above shows that this is not true according to the Old Testament -
>>> there are other routes to forgiveness.
>>>
>>> But as you say an all powerful God should be able to do whatever he/she/it
>>> wished.
>>>
>>> David Webb
>>> Security team leader
>>> CCSS
>>> Middlesex University- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>1 Samuel chapter 15 vs 29
>>
>>" He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
>>he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
>>
>So we should be following everything in the old testament ? - the modifications
>made in the New Testament can not be valid because God can never change his
>mind ?
>So for instance Christians should all be eating only Kosher food and all men 
>should be circumcised.

I happen to prefer every inch of my member, as does Mrs. VAXman,  so if you
don't mind, I'll opt out of your barbaric heathen ritual of body mutilation.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

On 09/04/07 06:39, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <a1dfc$46dcb6ee$cef8887a$8647@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>>
>> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>>> 7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient
>>> Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament
>>> mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving
>>> (Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult,
>>> which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive
>>> value.
>>
>>
>> That explains it then. HP knows it has sinned, and to repent, it is 
>> willing to use VMS as sacrificial lamb to prove its loyalty to God.
>>
>> (Of course, in todays' context, GOD is Bill Gates).
> 
> Billzebub is not a god.  He and Micro$hit are the embodiment of all that is
> ungodly.

Gods are whatever you worship.  Jehovah, your ancestors, the Sun,
television, etc, etc.  *Many* people worship MSFT.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/04/07 08:09, ultradwc@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 4, 9:00 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
> Koehler) wrote:
>> In article <fbi4gb$lb...@south.jnrs.ja.net>, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>>
>>> "
>>> 7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient
>>> Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament
>>> mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving
>>> (Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult,
>>> which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive
>>> value.
>>> "
>>    I'm not really in favor of getting my religious teaching from a web
>>    site, but suppose for rhetorical purposes we took the above to be
>>    true.
>>
>>    What prevents God from changing it?
> 
> He did change it ... he sent His son to take your and
> my punishment for our sins ... once and for all ...
> 
> all you have to do is acknowledge what He did and
> repent and accept Him in your life ...

Sheesh!  You don't even know fundamental Christian doctrine!

This is one of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, up there
with the triune God: Jesus ("the Lamb of God who takes away the sins
of the world") shed his blood for the final expiation of our sins.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/04/07 12:30, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <1188926008.865710.82670@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
[snip]
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> 1 Samuel chapter 15 vs 29
>>
>> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
>> he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
>>
> So we should be following everything in the old testament ? - the modifications
> made in the New Testament can not be valid because God can never change his
> mind ?
> So for instance Christians should all be eating only Kosher food and all men 
> should be circumcised.

a) - Jesus is/was supposed to be the fulfillment of the Law.  Now
that Jesus was the final sacrifice under the Law and expiated our
sin (instead of the temporary propitiation via animal blood), we
live under Grace, not Law.

b) We (well, most of us) are not Jews.  We are not His chosen
people.  Thus, we don't need to be circumcised.  "Completed Jews"
presumably don't have to eat Kosher food (the Law has been
fulfilled), but probably still need to be marked as His people.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <1188926008.865710.82670@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,  ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
> 
> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
> he is not a man, that he should change his mind."

   But he did change his mind.  He sent his only son to implement the
   changes.

On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <1188926008.865710.82...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>
> > " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
> > he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
>
>    But he did change his mind.  He sent his only son to implement the
>    changes.

no He did not ... that was planned all along ...

God knows the future ... read revelation and Daniel
and other prophecies and they are happening right
now before your very eyes ...

In article <zDhDi.232573$g86.172877@newsfe14.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>On 09/04/07 12:30, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>> In article <1188926008.865710.82670@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>[snip]
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> 1 Samuel chapter 15 vs 29
>>>
>>> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
>>> he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
>>>
>> So we should be following everything in the old testament ? - the modifications
>> made in the New Testament can not be valid because God can never change his
>> mind ?
>> So for instance Christians should all be eating only Kosher food and all men 
>> should be circumcised.
>
>a) - Jesus is/was supposed to be the fulfillment of the Law.  Now
>that Jesus was the final sacrifice under the Law and expiated our
>sin (instead of the temporary propitiation via animal blood), we
>live under Grace, not Law.
>
Sorry Ron replacing Law with Grace sounds like God changing the rules of the
game ie he changed his mind in contradition to Samuel chapter 15 vs 29 which
Boob quoted.

>b) We (well, most of us) are not Jews.  We are not His chosen
>people.  Thus, we don't need to be circumcised.  "Completed Jews"
>presumably don't have to eat Kosher food (the Law has been
>fulfilled), but probably still need to be marked as His people.

Unlike modern Judaism, ancient Judaism was a missionary faith and attracted lots
of converts.
It's been estimated that upto 10% of the people of the Roman Empire in the
early second century were Jewish - with upto 40% being Jewish in some urban
centres such as Alexandria. Judaism as a missionary faith in the Roman empire
suffered a gigantic setback under Constantine and successive emperors from
which it never really recovered. 
see http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jews-romanlaw.html

Though, after the fall of the Empire, mass conversions to Judaism restarted to
some extent and were still going up into the 8th and 9th Centuries such as 
the conversion of the Khazars.

From another perspective given that there were so many Jews in the Roman
Empire who converted to Christianity and all those who converted to
Christianity in the Middle ages it is pretty close to 100% certain that if you
are of European descent you have at least one Jewish ancestor in the last two
thousand years. Note. The most recent common ancestor of all Western Europeans 
is estimated to have lived only 1000 years ago.


 

 
David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University


>
>-- 
>Ron Johnson, Jr.
>Jefferson LA  USA
>
>Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
>Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On Sep 4, 1:59 pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <fbk4mq$8q...@south.jnrs.ja.net>, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>
> >In article <1188926008.865710.82...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, ultra...@gmail.com writes:
> >>On Sep 4, 10:07 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> >>> In article <kgljrV4qe...@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>
> >>> >In article <fbi4gb$lb...@south.jnrs.ja.net>, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>
> >>> >> "
> >>> >> 7 [22] Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness: in fact, ancient
> >>> >> Israel did envisage other means of obtaining forgiveness; the Old Testament
> >>> >> mentions contrition of heart (Psalm 51:17), fasting (Joel 2:12), and almsgiving
> >>> >> (Sirach 3:29). The author is limiting his horizon to the sacrificial cult,
> >>> >> which did always involve the shedding of blood for its expiatory and unitive
> >>> >> value.
>
> >>> >> "
>
> >>> >   I'm not really in favor of getting my religious teaching from a web
> >>> >   site, but suppose for rhetorical purposes we took the above to be
> >>> >   true.
>
> >>> >   What prevents God from changing it?
>
> >>> I've posted a clarification of the above since the site Boob quoted was using
> >>> the argument from Hebrews in the New Testament that
> >>> "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness"
>
> >>> whereas the above shows that this is not true according to the Old Testament -
> >>> there are other routes to forgiveness.
>
> >>> But as you say an all powerful God should be able to do whatever he/she/it
> >>> wished.
>
> >>> David Webb
> >>> Security team leader
> >>> CCSS
> >>> Middlesex University- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>1 Samuel chapter 15 vs 29
>
> >>" He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
> >>he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
>
> >So we should be following everything in the old testament ? - the modifications
> >made in the New Testament can not be valid because God can never change his
> >mind ?
> >So for instance Christians should all be eating only Kosher food and all men
> >should be circumcised.
>
> I happen to prefer every inch of my member, as does Mrs. VAXman,  so if you
> don't mind, I'll opt out of your barbaric heathen ritual of body mutilation.

Why did you make this incredibly inaccurate, ignorant, insulting
remark? No one is asking anything of you.

Or are you just trying to push my buttons?

>
> --
> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
[...]

AEF

In article <1188953048.290434.30000@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
{...snip...}
>> I happen to prefer every inch of my member, as does Mrs. VAXman,  so if you
>> don't mind, I'll opt out of your barbaric heathen ritual of body mutilation.
>
>Why did you make this incredibly inaccurate, ignorant, insulting
>remark? No one is asking anything of you.

I don't see how it is inaccurate or ignorant or insulting?  I happen to 
feel that tattooing is just as barbaric and heathen as body mutilation.


>Or are you just trying to push my buttons?

How did I push your buttons?  I responded to David Webb's post.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

On 09/04/07 17:52, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <zDhDi.232573$g86.172877@newsfe14.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>> On 09/04/07 12:30, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>>> In article <1188926008.865710.82670@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>> [snip]
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> 1 Samuel chapter 15 vs 29
>>>>
>>>> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
>>>> he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
>>>>
>>> So we should be following everything in the old testament ? - the modifications
>>> made in the New Testament can not be valid because God can never change his
>>> mind ?
>>> So for instance Christians should all be eating only Kosher food and all men 
>>> should be circumcised.
>> a) - Jesus is/was supposed to be the fulfillment of the Law.  Now
>> that Jesus was the final sacrifice under the Law and expiated our
>> sin (instead of the temporary propitiation via animal blood), we
>> live under Grace, not Law.
>>
> Sorry Ron replacing Law with Grace sounds like God changing the rules of the
> game ie he changed his mind in contradition to Samuel chapter 15 vs 29 which
> Boob quoted.

Unless that was part of The Plan (to bring us closer to how He lived
with Adam) from the beginning.

But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
exercise for me.

>> b) We (well, most of us) are not Jews.  We are not His chosen
>> people.  Thus, we don't need to be circumcised.  "Completed Jews"
>> presumably don't have to eat Kosher food (the Law has been
>> fulfilled), but probably still need to be marked as His people.
> 
> Unlike modern Judaism, ancient Judaism was a missionary faith and attracted lots
> of converts.
> It's been estimated that upto 10% of the people of the Roman Empire in the
> early second century were Jewish - with upto 40% being Jewish in some urban
> centres such as Alexandria. Judaism as a missionary faith in the Roman empire
> suffered a gigantic setback under Constantine and successive emperors from
> which it never really recovered. 
> see http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/jews-romanlaw.html
> 
> Though, after the fall of the Empire, mass conversions to Judaism restarted to
> some extent and were still going up into the 8th and 9th Centuries such as 
> the conversion of the Khazars.
> 
> From another perspective given that there were so many Jews in the Roman
> Empire who converted to Christianity and all those who converted to
> Christianity in the Middle ages it is pretty close to 100% certain that if you
> are of European descent you have at least one Jewish ancestor in the last two
> thousand years. Note. The most recent common ancestor of all Western Europeans 
> is estimated to have lived only 1000 years ago.


-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

Re: Old Testament and all the various rituals and "rules" in it.

When you look at the old religions, they are essentially snapshots of 
culture in one area of the planet at one particular time.

Some religious leader(s) write down as a part of their new religion 
various practices which, at the time, are seen as good practices for 
health, hygiene etc and are readily accepted by the population (which 
likely already has been following those practices for some time).

The Old Testament rules are, in hindsight, quite illuminating because 
they deal with reducing incidence of disease due to lack of water and 
refrigeration. The snip to a man's organ, as well as prohibition of 
sodomy, cheating (multiple mates), bestiality etc all are designed to 
reduce spread of any venerial diseases.  Africa is being decimated by 
Aids exactly because of lack of those rules.

The old testament's rules on how to prepare food have nothing to do with 
"religion", but everything to do with hygiene/health and reducing the 
risk of disease from eating bad food.


When Christianity wanted to move out of middle east and acquire Roman 
converts, it learned that it needed to adapt to the Roman culture, and 
as a result, did away with a lot of the restrictions which were of value 
in the middle east (where water is sparse) but which were not necessary 
in Italy due to better water availability etc. How did they know that ? 
Because Romans knew what needed to be done to be healthy in their living 
conditions (which were different from those in middle east).

And because the roman empire turned out to be more or less the western 
world, the values of christianity were more or less compatible with the 
lifestyle of the people in western europe and later north america. 
Howeer, many just blindly followed the catholic rule of not eating meat 
on fridays. But this was a roman/italian thing to help struggling 
italian fisherman, but when translated to other ccountries, it had very 
little meaning.

Likewise, the Coran says that women should not dress provocatively. In 
the middle east, many were already wearing a veil to protect themselves 
from the sun (and this is still common with men as well). When 
translated to other countries though, some interpretations equated veil 
with "non provocative clothing" and decided it was to be the dress code 
for women even though a veil would be "out of place" in that new region. 
(instead of going back to the Coran and re-evaluating the meaning of the 
words and how to best implement it in this new region.

When Islam missionaries went to Fiji, they adapted Islam to the Fijian 
way of life and since the Fijians were already conservative with 
clothing, it was a no brainer to just keep them that way. Since they 
already practiced the "manly snip", it wasn't a problem to make that 
pre-existing cultural custom now part of the religion. (ironically, 
Christian missionaries did the same, pointing to old testament to tell 
the new christian converts that christinaity also supports that practice).


The big problem is that when you take a religion that had been custom 
made for say the middle east, and transpose it litterally without much 
adaptation to a different part of the planet. This is where you get 
clashes because of such different lifestyles happen. Islam in the south 
pacific adapted to the local culture. But Islam from middle east is 
being exported "litterally" without enough adaptation and this is 
causing a lot of irritation.

Remember that religions provide(d) cultural leadership which was 
extremely strong. Certain islamic sects are still very strong leaders 
over their population (the taliban was one, and Iran is also still very 
influencial on how its citizens live). Judaism has strong leadership in 
Israel, but outside of Israel, many Jews no longer take all the rituals 
so litterally.  But a "strong" muslim mosque in england still has a lot 
of pull over its members and can still tell them to embody a 
middle-eastern way of life/culture instead of adapting Islam to British 
culture which other mosques have no problem with.


Once you understand why pork was prohibited under Judaism, you realise 
that the original reason is no longer valid and eating pork today 
wouldn't really break the spirit of the old testament whose goal was to 
ensure health and avoid foods which, at that time, were unhygienic to eat.


Religions which refuse to adapt to the new environments are slated to 
become extinct. The catholic religion's refusal to condone condoms 
(always wanted to use those 2 words in the same sentence :-) as well as 
its refusal to let priests mary or have female priests has resulted in 
the catholic religion losing leadership over its members.  It has become 
out of touch with reality and current values.


Another very important aspect is that religions used to be the sole 
providers of education. So all of the cultural issues/rituals and food 
preparation were provided by the religious organisations, so it made 
sense to make those part of the religion.

But with a lot of the education now provided outside of religion, it 
doesn't really make sense for religions to continue to have such rules. 
For instance, there is good education available on preparation of foods 
to ensure it does not cause disease, and governments have secular 
authorities to provide this education, and also visit restaurants to 
ensure adherance to government hygiene rules. And because those rules 
have evolved significantly, the original biblical rules are no longer 
adequate (they lack many items, yet have many redundant items still in 
them).

A computer analogy would be if volume shadowing 1.0 was first documented 
  in the IO users manual, but a while later volume shadowing 3.0 got its 
own book, but the documentation folks left the 1.0 stuff in the IO Users 
Manual. The doc in the IO Users Manual is outdated but some people might 
still swear by it.


And to Mr VAXman... if you're going to admit you love every "inch" of 
your member, you should at the very least do it in the international 
measures since this forum is international :-) :-) :-) :-)

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> I don't see how it is inaccurate or ignorant or insulting?  I happen to 
> feel that tattooing is just as barbaric and heathen as body mutilation.

Do you have any piercings in visible or not so visible places by any 
chance ? :-) :-) :-) ;-)


Would you consider a female having cosmetic surgery to enhance her 
breasts (such as removing a bit of excess skin so they sag less) or a 
face lift to be a "mutilation" ?

On Sep 4, 10:08 pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> I don't see how it is inaccurate or ignorant or insulting?  I happen to
> feel that tattooing is just as barbaric and heathen as body mutilation.

I agree...

>
> Do you have any piercings in visible or not so visible places by any
> chance ? :-) :-) :-) ;-)
>

NO NO NO !

> Would you consider a female having cosmetic surgery to enhance her
> breasts (such as removing a bit of excess skin so they sag less) or a
> face lift to be a "mutilation" ?

No. And it is the opposite of barbaric + heathen :-)

NSR

On 09/04/07 21:08, JF Mezei wrote:
> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> I don't see how it is inaccurate or ignorant or insulting?  I happen
>> to feel that tattooing is just as barbaric and heathen as body
>> mutilation.
> 
> Do you have any piercings in visible or not so visible places by any
> chance ? :-) :-) :-) ;-)
> 
> 
> Would you consider a female having cosmetic surgery to enhance her
> breasts (such as removing a bit of excess skin so they sag less) or a
> face lift to be a "mutilation" ?

I'm not sure if "barbaric" is the word, but Pam Anderson and Dolly
Parton are pretty scary looking.  And aging Barbi Benton's eyes look
*really* scary.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <12d1d$46de0f9f$cef8887a$15507@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>
>
>VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> I don't see how it is inaccurate or ignorant or insulting?  I happen to 
>> feel that tattooing is just as barbaric and heathen as body mutilation.
>
>Do you have any piercings in visible or not so visible places by any 
>chance ? :-) :-) :-) ;-)

No I do not.  I don't wear jewelry either save of a very simple wedding band.
I wear a medical alert bracelet out of necessity.

The only "piercings" my body experienced were 24 12-gauge titanium steel rods
through my leg to hold bone fragments in place for 2 years. 



>Would you consider a female having cosmetic surgery to enhance her 
>breasts (such as removing a bit of excess skin so they sag less) or a 
>face lift to be a "mutilation" ?

Vanity!  THere's a Radiohead song "Fake Plastic Trees" with the lyric:

He used to do surgery, For girls in the eighties, But gravity always wins.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65805@newsfe21.lga>,
	Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
> 
> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
> exercise for me.
> 

Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more 
likely than their existence?

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article <12d1d$46de0f9f$cef8887a$15507@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> 
> Would you consider a female having cosmetic surgery to enhance her 
> breasts (such as removing a bit of excess skin so they sag less) or a 
> face lift to be a "mutilation" ?

   Correcting severe deformities or damage due to disease or accident is 
   the kind of cosmetic surgery I can agree with.  Stuffing silicon bags 
   under the skin to pursue mythical standards that might be valid in 
   Hollywood I find repulsive.

   There's nothing worse in cosmetic surgery than too see a lovely young
   woman stuff her chest to excess.

In article <1188944683.389501.295990@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
>Koehler) wrote:
>> In article <1188926008.865710.82...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>>
>> > " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
>> > he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
>>
>>    But he did change his mind.  He sent his only son to implement the
>>    changes.
>
>no He did not ... that was planned all along ...
>
>God knows the future ... read revelation and Daniel
>and other prophecies and they are happening right
>now before your very eyes ...
>
If he knows the future (which he obviously should being omniscient) then
everything is predetermined and hence our free-will is an illusion.

But then all God's actions must also be predetermined which means he has no
free-will and hence is not omnipotent. 
(One way out of this impasse might be to suppose that God could see all
possible futures and could then choose between them by choosing or not choosing
to act at certain points in History. But then surely there must be a "best"
future for God's plans hence why would he do anything except instigate that
future which being able to see all possible futures he would have seen from the
beginning. Hence once again God's actions would be predetermined by his desire
for the best possible outcome and hence he would again have no free-will.)


David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65805@newsfe21.lga>,
> 	Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
>> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
>> exercise for me.
>>
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more 
> likely than their existence?

Occam's Razor.

An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <yKyDi.25334$Zk5.11858@newsfe23.lga>,
	Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
> On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65805@newsfe21.lga>,
>> 	Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>>> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
>>> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
>>> exercise for me.
>>>
>> 
>> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more 
>> likely than their existence?
> 
> Occam's Razor.
> 
> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
> probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
 
But they are just today's notions.  There are a lot of people who
honestly believe that we will have Warp Drive and al the other stuff
that is science foction today just like today we have what was just
science fiction yesterday.  So you really don't know those are laws,
just today's theories.  And, if there is such a being, they're His
laws and he can do with them as He pleases.  Nope, no conflict.
Science and religion only ever conflict when science decides it wants
to be God itself.  Or when certain whackos decide to interpret religion
in a way that conflicts.  Reality (as usual) is quite different.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

On 09/05/07 08:08, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <1188944683.389501.295990@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>> On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
>> Koehler) wrote:
>>> In article <1188926008.865710.82...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>>>
>>>> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
>>>> he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
>>>    But he did change his mind.  He sent his only son to implement the
>>>    changes.
>> no He did not ... that was planned all along ...
>>
>> God knows the future ... read revelation and Daniel
>> and other prophecies and they are happening right
>> now before your very eyes ...
>>
> If he knows the future (which he obviously should being omniscient) then
> everything is predetermined and hence our free-will is an illusion.

Not true.

"Predetermined" implies a consciously-created pre-set plan of action.

Knowing what will happen in the future does not imply that "you"
*planned* for it to happen that way.

> But then all God's actions must also be predetermined which means he has no
> free-will and hence is not omnipotent. 
> (One way out of this impasse might be to suppose that God could see all
> possible futures and could then choose between them by choosing or not choosing
> to act at certain points in History. But then surely there must be a "best"
> future for God's plans hence why would he do anything except instigate that
> future which being able to see all possible futures he would have seen from the
> beginning. Hence once again God's actions would be predetermined by his desire
> for the best possible outcome and hence he would again have no free-will.)

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/05/07 09:15, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <yKyDi.25334$Zk5.11858@newsfe23.lga>,
> 	Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>> On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65805@newsfe21.lga>,
>>> 	Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>>>> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
>>>> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
>>>> exercise for me.
>>>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more 
>>> likely than their existence?
>> Occam's Razor.
>>
>> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
>> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
>> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
>> probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
>  
> But they are just today's notions.  There are a lot of people who
> honestly believe that we will have Warp Drive and al the other stuff
> that is science foction today just like today we have what was just
> science fiction yesterday.  So you really don't know those are laws,
> just today's theories.

But even today, scientists have theories about how "warp drives"
might work, which follow currently-understood laws of physics.

We just don't know how to *implement* those theories.

>                        And, if there is such a being, they're His
> laws and he can do with them as He pleases.  Nope, no conflict.
> Science and religion only ever conflict when science decides it wants
> to be God itself.

Science can *not* be God, since religion requires faith, but science
is all and only about evidence and trying to find patterns (which we
call Laws) that fit/describe the evidence.

>                   Or when certain whackos decide to interpret religion
> in a way that conflicts.  Reality (as usual) is quite different.
> 
> bill
> 


-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <37ADi.246903$dA7.128324@newsfe16.lga>,
	Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
> 
> Science can *not* be God, since religion requires faith, but science
> is all and only about evidence and trying to find patterns (which we
> call Laws) that fit/describe the evidence.
 
Thank you for that last part.  I needed a good laugh today and this
is definitely a knee-slapper.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

Bob Koehler wrote:
>    There's nothing worse in cosmetic surgery than too see a lovely young
>    woman stuff her chest to excess.

Not all cosmetic surgery involves inserting a bag of silicone (or salt 
water or whatever they use these days) in breasts. A lot of cosmetic 
surgery simply removes excess skin to improve a person's look. (OK, 
there are excesses there too (Joan Rivers as an example).

But just because there are excesses doesn't mean that all cosmetic 
surgery is wrong.

And if some cosmetic surgery is acceptable on women, then logically, one 
should also accept that some cosmetic surgery is acceptable on men too.

Ron Johnson wrote:
> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum). 


Has it ever occured to you that we are essentially in a large 
simulation, and the "omnipotent" god is actually the programmer who 
setup the simulation and created all the laws of physics, the design of 
atoms, magnetic forces etc ?

Once implemented, he simply needs to let the simulation run to see what 
comes out of it. He may have gotten bored and added some "life" on a 
planet and maybe even inserted a "Jesus" at one point in time. But it 
doesn't mean that he knows about everything that is happening in his 
simulation, just like you don't know about precice values in variables 
in a program that is running at any specific point in time. (unless you 
use debugger and take a close look at it).

 From our point of view, there would be a "god" (the one that created 
this virtual universe in which we live in), but it doesn't mean that he 
is omnipotent. For all we know, it is some bored but very bright teenage 
  geek playing around in a different dimension/universe and created us 
as a game.

In article <ef19b$46dee2b5$cef8887a$11816@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
>> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
>> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum). 
> 
> 
> Has it ever occured to you that we are essentially in a large 
> simulation, and the "omnipotent" god is actually the programmer who 
> setup the simulation and created all the laws of physics, the design of 
> atoms, magnetic forces etc ?

   Of course, how else would we have come to the conclusion that he's
   running it on VMS?

In article <ef19b$46dee2b5$cef8887a$11816@teksavvy.com>,
	JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
>> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
>> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum). 
> 
> 
> Has it ever occured to you that we are essentially in a large 
> simulation, and the "omnipotent" god is actually the programmer who 
> setup the simulation and created all the laws of physics, the design of 
> atoms, magnetic forces etc ?
> 
> Once implemented, he simply needs to let the simulation run to see what 
> comes out of it. He may have gotten bored and added some "life" on a 
> planet and maybe even inserted a "Jesus" at one point in time. But it 
> doesn't mean that he knows about everything that is happening in his 
> simulation, just like you don't know about precice values in variables 
> in a program that is running at any specific point in time. (unless you 
> use debugger and take a close look at it).
> 
>  From our point of view, there would be a "god" (the one that created 
> this virtual universe in which we live in), but it doesn't mean that he 
> is omnipotent. For all we know, it is some bored but very bright teenage 
>   geek playing around in a different dimension/universe and created us 
> as a game.

"It's June 15, and Guy Burkhart wakes up screaming......."


bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article <ef19b$46dee2b5$cef8887a$11816@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>
>
>Ron Johnson wrote:
>> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
>> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
>> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum). 
>
>
>Has it ever occured to you that we are essentially in a large 
>simulation, and the "omnipotent" god is actually the programmer who 
>setup the simulation and created all the laws of physics, the design of 
>atoms, magnetic forces etc ?


Artist:	Moody Blues 
Album:	On The Threshold Of A Dream
Song:	In The Beginning lyrics

     First Man: I think, I think I am, therefore I am, I think.
 Establishment: Of course you are my bright little star,
                 I've miles
                  And miles
                   Of files
               Pretty files of your forefather's fruit
                                      and now to suit our
                                        great computer,
              You're magnetic ink.
     First Man: I'm more than that, I know I am, at least, I think I must be.
     Inner Man: There you go man, keep as cool as you can.
                 Face piles
                  And piles
                  Of trials
                With smiles.
                     It riles them to believe
                            that you perceive
                           the web they weave
                    And keep on thinking free.


;)

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 
>>In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65805@newsfe21.lga>,
>>	Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>>
>>>But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
>>>omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
>>>exercise for me.
>>>
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more 
>>likely than their existence?
> 
> 
> Occam's Razor.
> 
> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
> probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
> 

I think there's a law of "Conservation of Reality"!

On 09/05/07 12:09, JF Mezei wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
>> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
>> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum). 
> 
> 
> Has it ever occured to you that we are essentially in a large
> simulation, and the "omnipotent" god is actually the programmer who
> setup the simulation and created all the laws of physics, the design of
> atoms, magnetic forces etc ?

Sure it has.

> Once implemented, he simply needs to let the simulation run to see what
> comes out of it. He may have gotten bored and added some "life" on a
> planet and maybe even inserted a "Jesus" at one point in time. But it
> doesn't mean that he knows about everything that is happening in his
> simulation, just like you don't know about precice values in variables
> in a program that is running at any specific point in time. (unless you
> use debugger and take a close look at it).
> 
> From our point of view, there would be a "god" (the one that created
> this virtual universe in which we live in), but it doesn't mean that he
> is omnipotent. For all we know, it is some bored but very bright teenage
>  geek playing around in a different dimension/universe and created us as
> a game.

But having Bender trying to be a good Deity would be more
interesting, if slightly more hazardous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfellas

God: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people
     get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose
     hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker
     or a pickpocket.

Bender: Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money.

God: Yes, if he makes it look like an electrical thing. If you
     do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything
     at all.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/05/07 12:00, JF Mezei wrote:
> Bob Koehler wrote:
>>    There's nothing worse in cosmetic surgery than too see a lovely young
>>    woman stuff her chest to excess.
> 
> Not all cosmetic surgery involves inserting a bag of silicone (or salt
> water or whatever they use these days) in breasts. A lot of cosmetic
> surgery simply removes excess skin to improve a person's look. (OK,
> there are excesses there too (Joan Rivers as an example).
> 
> But just because there are excesses doesn't mean that all cosmetic
> surgery is wrong.

*ALL* is a very big, final word.  I can, though, in good conscience,
assert that the vast majority of *cosmetic* surgery is wrong.

Remember: cosmetic surgery is a specific subset of *plastic*
surgery.  And non-cosmetic plastic surgery is a *good* thing.

> And if some cosmetic surgery is acceptable on women, then logically, one
> should also accept that some cosmetic surgery is acceptable on men too.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On Sep 4, 9:38 pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <1188953048.290434.30...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> {...snip...}
>
> >> I happen to prefer every inch of my member, as does Mrs. VAXman,  so if you
> >> don't mind, I'll opt out of your barbaric heathen ritual of body mutilation.
>
> >Why did you make this incredibly inaccurate, ignorant, insulting
> >remark? No one is asking anything of you.
>
> I don't see how it is inaccurate or ignorant or insulting?  I happen to
> feel that tattooing is just as barbaric and heathen as body mutilation.

The depth of your ignorance on this matter is beyond astonishing.

I suggest a lengthy Google session.

I recall you scolded me for not using Google to look up your sig.

Funny, the same people who tell me to use Google when I ask a question
are invariably the same people who ask *me* questions for which they
themselves could use Google. Funny.

[...]

AEF

On Sep 5, 7:52 am, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65...@newsfe21.lga>,
>         Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>
>
>
> > But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
> > omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
> > exercise for me.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more
> likely than their existence?
>
> bill
>
> --
> Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
> b...@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> University of Scranton   |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

Consider the possibility of a teapot in orbit around the Sun between
the orbits of Mars and Jupiter and ask the same question.

AEF

On Sep 5, 10:15 am, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <yKyDi.25334$Zk5.11...@newsfe23.lga>,
>         Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>
> > On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >> In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65...@newsfe21.lga>,
> >>        Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
> >>> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
> >>> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
> >>> exercise for me.
>
> >> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more
> >> likely than their existence?
>
> > Occam's Razor.
>
> > An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
> > against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
> > Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
> > probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
>
> But they are just today's notions.  There are a lot of people who

Hmmm. All of our technology is based on these notions, so there must
be something very right about them.

While there are occasional surprises (as in the fact that the
discovery that weak force violates conservation of parity), certain
conservation laws work extremely well. The best are probably the laws
of thermodynamics. If you could find a way around them, you could
become wealthier than BG. ... Good luck.

The reality of atoms. That's fairly well established, I believe.

> honestly believe that we will have Warp Drive and al the other stuff
> that is science foction today just like today we have what was just
> science fiction yesterday.  So you really don't know those are laws,

I wouldn't bet much on ever going faster than light.

Based on what we know today, many of these wild sci-fi things are
really sci-fantasy. "Well, what about what we don't know?", you say.
Well, I don't see any point in basing stuff on what we don't know!!!
"Let's see, based on what I don't know..." -- you get the idea.

> just today's theories.  And, if there is such a being, they're His

I'd not suggest fitting wings to your arms and jumping off a cliff --
there's the, uh, "law" of gravity in play here.

> laws and he can do with them as He pleases.  Nope, no conflict.

"He" doesn't seem to be doing much with them at all.

> Science and religion only ever conflict when science decides it wants
> to be God itself.  Or when certain whackos decide to interpret religion

Example, please?

> in a way that conflicts.  Reality (as usual) is quite different.

What? As in interpreting a 6000-year-old world as being 6000 years
old? Yeah, that's wacko all right!

AEF

>
> bill
>
> --
> Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
> b...@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> University of Scranton   |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

On Sep 5, 3:32 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
> >>In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65...@newsfe21.lga>,
> >>        Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>
> >>>But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
> >>>omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
> >>>exercise for me.
>
> >>Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more
> >>likely than their existence?
>
> > Occam's Razor.
>
> > An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
> > against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
> > Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
> > probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
>
> I think there's a law of "Conservation of Reality"!

In quantum mechanics there is what is called conservation of
probability. This basically says that the probabilities of all the
places a particle might be found must add up to 1, i.e., the particle
must be somewhere! There is even an differential equation for this
which relates the probability density with the (probability) flux.

AEF
AEF

In article <1189033960.111680.170140@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>On Sep 4, 9:38 pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> In article <1188953048.290434.30...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> {...snip...}
>>
>> >> I happen to prefer every inch of my member, as does Mrs. VAXman,  so if you
>> >> don't mind, I'll opt out of your barbaric heathen ritual of body mutilation.
>>
>> >Why did you make this incredibly inaccurate, ignorant, insulting
>> >remark? No one is asking anything of you.
>>
>> I don't see how it is inaccurate or ignorant or insulting?  I happen to
>> feel that tattooing is just as barbaric and heathen as body mutilation.
>
>The depth of your ignorance on this matter is beyond astonishing.

Precisely what would you have me google?  

I voiced my opinion of a barbaric and heathen ritual and for that you call 
me ignorant and insulting.  Please explain.
 
-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> I voiced my opinion of a barbaric and heathen ritual and for that you call 
> me ignorant and insulting.  Please explain.

You've expressed strong feelings against that cosmetic operation. And it 
is your right. And there is reason to debate whether any cosmetic 
unnecessary operation should be done by parents on a child before age of 
consent. But this does not mean that the operation itself is "barbaric" 
or "mutilation".

On 09/06/07 02:03, JF Mezei wrote:
> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> I voiced my opinion of a barbaric and heathen ritual and for that you
>> call me ignorant and insulting.  Please explain.
> 
> You've expressed strong feelings against that cosmetic operation. And it
> is your right. And there is reason to debate whether any cosmetic
> unnecessary operation should be done by parents on a child before age of
> consent. But this does not mean that the operation itself is "barbaric"
> or "mutilation".

Snipping off a flap of skin surely is "mutilation".

The main definition of "mutilation" is:
 1. To cut off or remove a limb or essential part of; to maim;
    to cripple; to disfigure; to hack; as, to mutilate the
    body, a statue, etc.

Getting a bad rhytidectomy,  blepharoplasty, or augmenting
mammaplasty (Google is your friend!) or any of a number of other
facial augmentations can definitely make you look really weird (thus
"disfigured") can also be considered "mutilation".

On the whole, though, cosmetic surgery can't be "legally" defined as
"mutilation".

Regarding barbarity:
 2. Of or pertaining to, or resembling, an uncivilized person
    or people; barbarous; barbarian; destitute of refinement.
    "Wild, barbaric music." --Sir W. Scott.
    [1913 Webster]

Yes, I would agree that *most* (but not all) women going in for
rhytidectomies,  blepharoplasties, or augmenting mammaplasties,
buttock, chin and lip augmentations, AND the men who enjoy such
women, definitely *are* destitute of refinement.

But that's just my thoughts.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <52a3a$46dfa659$cef8887a$2243@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>
>
>VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> I voiced my opinion of a barbaric and heathen ritual and for that you call 
>> me ignorant and insulting.  Please explain.
>
>You've expressed strong feelings against that cosmetic operation. And it 
>is your right. And there is reason to debate whether any cosmetic 
>unnecessary operation should be done by parents on a child before age of 
>consent. But this does not mean that the operation itself is "barbaric" 
>or "mutilation".

The World Health Organization and Amnesty Internation would disagree.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk7yc7vAIZY

However, there is no need to remove any non-diseased functioning part
of the human body for any reason -- especially before the person whose
part it is has a say in it.  Besides, what, if anything, is "cosmetic"
about it?

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

In article <bWPDi.294953$5y.246195@newsfe18.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>
>
>On 09/06/07 02:03, JF Mezei wrote:
>> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>> I voiced my opinion of a barbaric and heathen ritual and for that you
>>> call me ignorant and insulting.  Please explain.
>> 
>> You've expressed strong feelings against that cosmetic operation. And it
>> is your right. And there is reason to debate whether any cosmetic
>> unnecessary operation should be done by parents on a child before age of
>> consent. But this does not mean that the operation itself is "barbaric"
>> or "mutilation".
>
>Snipping off a flap of skin surely is "mutilation".
>
>The main definition of "mutilation" is:
> 1. To cut off or remove a limb or essential part of; to maim;
>    to cripple; to disfigure; to hack; as, to mutilate the
>    body, a statue, etc.

Case closed! ;)


>Getting a bad rhytidectomy,  blepharoplasty, or augmenting
>mammaplasty (Google is your friend!) or any of a number of other
>facial augmentations can definitely make you look really weird (thus
>"disfigured") can also be considered "mutilation".

In '78 I was struck by a car running a stop sign.  I was on motorcycle on 
the through street at the time.  In addition to broken bones (34) and a
crushed leg, I has some severe facial lacerations (a hole beneath my chin
into my mouth and my nose half severed).  The "plastic" surgeon was able
to restore the nose with nary a scar visible.  The hole below my chin was
sealed but left a nasty scar.  I just alow the the beard to cover it.  My
crushed leg is severely scarred and crocked but I wouldn't be so vain to
have it cosmetically altered.  It is my constant reminder of the dangers
of the highway and uninsured 'invisible pedetrians' behind the wheel of an
automobile.  Anyway, in such circumstances, plastic surgery is a godsend.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

In article <1189040986.731316.175580@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
	AEF <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Sep 5, 10:15 am, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>> In article <yKyDi.25334$Zk5.11...@newsfe23.lga>,
>>         Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>
>> > On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> >> In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65...@newsfe21.lga>,
>> >>        Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>> >>> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
>> >>> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
>> >>> exercise for me.
>>
>> >> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more
>> >> likely than their existence?
>>
>> > Occam's Razor.
>>
>> > An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
>> > against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
>> > Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
>> > probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
>>
>> But they are just today's notions.  There are a lot of people who
> 
> Hmmm. All of our technology is based on these notions, so there must
> be something very right about them.

Until someone discovers another notion that explains what we have
and also the anomalies that don't jive with what we have now.  Or
have we already forgotten that at one time there were only four
elements?

> 
> While there are occasional surprises (as in the fact that the
> discovery that weak force violates conservation of parity), certain
> conservation laws work extremely well. The best are probably the laws
> of thermodynamics. If you could find a way around them, you could
> become wealthier than BG. ... Good luck.
> 
> The reality of atoms. That's fairly well established, I believe.

By today's science.  The understanding of even atoms might be
different in 1000 years.

> 
>> honestly believe that we will have Warp Drive and al the other stuff
>> that is science foction today just like today we have what was just
>> science fiction yesterday.  So you really don't know those are laws,
> 
> I wouldn't bet much on ever going faster than light.
> 
> Based on what we know today, many of these wild sci-fi things are
> really sci-fantasy. "Well, what about what we don't know?", you say.
> Well, I don't see any point in basing stuff on what we don't know!!!
> "Let's see, based on what I don't know..." -- you get the idea.

So, you are supporting my argument.  Someone else has already
pointed out that many reputable scientists today think it will
be a possibility.  But our current understanding of science
says no.

> 
>> just today's theories.  And, if there is such a being, they're His
> 
> I'd not suggest fitting wings to your arms and jumping off a cliff --
> there's the, uh, "law" of gravity in play here.

Which is relevant how?  Man defeated gravity's hold a long, long time
ago.  Today, we tempt gravity just for fun and excitement.

> 
>> laws and he can do with them as He pleases.  Nope, no conflict.
> 
> "He" doesn't seem to be doing much with them at all.

What did you want Him to do?  Perform a personal miracle for
you?  The age of miracles is long past.

> 
>> Science and religion only ever conflict when science decides it wants
>> to be God itself.  Or when certain whackos decide to interpret religion
> 
> Example, please?

You gave one of the perfect one's below, what more do you want?

> 
>> in a way that conflicts.  Reality (as usual) is quite different.
> 
> What? As in interpreting a 6000-year-old world as being 6000 years
> old? Yeah, that's wacko all right!

There is nowhere in the bible where there is a timetable given for
the time period from creation to Adam and Eve being evicted from
their luxury condo.  And, pretty much every other conflict can be
as easily resolved unless one just wants the conflict to be there.
Trust me, there are just as many conflicts between science and history
which science chooses to merely sweep under tha table because they don't
have an explanation.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article <1189041153.907079.21010@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
	AEF <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Sep 5, 3:32 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> > On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>
>> >>In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65...@newsfe21.lga>,
>> >>        Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>
>> >>>But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
>> >>>omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
>> >>>exercise for me.
>>
>> >>Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more
>> >>likely than their existence?
>>
>> > Occam's Razor.
>>
>> > An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
>> > against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
>> > Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
>> > probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
>>
>> I think there's a law of "Conservation of Reality"!
> 
> In quantum mechanics there is what is called conservation of
> probability. This basically says that the probabilities of all the
> places a particle might be found must add up to 1, i.e., the particle
> must be somewhere! There is even an differential equation for this
> which relates the probability density with the (probability) flux.
> 

Boy it must have taken a whole bunch of science to come up with the
idea that soemthing has got to be somewhere.  :-)

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

On 09/06/07 06:44, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <1189040986.731316.175580@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> 	AEF <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
>> On Sep 5, 10:15 am, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>>> In article <yKyDi.25334$Zk5.11...@newsfe23.lga>,
>>>         Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65...@newsfe21.lga>,
>>>>>        Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>>>>> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
>>>>>> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
>>>>>> exercise for me.
>>>>> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more
>>>>> likely than their existence?
>>>> Occam's Razor.
>>>> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
>>>> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
>>>> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
>>>> probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
>>> But they are just today's notions.  There are a lot of people who
>> Hmmm. All of our technology is based on these notions, so there must
>> be something very right about them.
> 
> Until someone discovers another notion that explains what we have
> and also the anomalies that don't jive with what we have now.

But that's what science "does".

>                                                                Or
> have we already forgotten that at one time there were only four
> elements?

And there was a whole lot of guesswork unsupported by any (or only
the most superficial) observation whatsoever.

Kinda like in the social "sciences".

>> While there are occasional surprises (as in the fact that the
>> discovery that weak force violates conservation of parity), certain
>> conservation laws work extremely well. The best are probably the laws
>> of thermodynamics. If you could find a way around them, you could
>> become wealthier than BG. ... Good luck.
>>
>> The reality of atoms. That's fairly well established, I believe.
> 
> By today's science.  The understanding of even atoms might be
> different in 1000 years.

Maybe a deeper understanding, but "protons, neutrons and electrons"
as the building blocks of the macro world Just Works.

>>> honestly believe that we will have Warp Drive and al the other stuff
>>> that is science foction today just like today we have what was just
>>> science fiction yesterday.  So you really don't know those are laws,
>> I wouldn't bet much on ever going faster than light.
>>
>> Based on what we know today, many of these wild sci-fi things are
>> really sci-fantasy. "Well, what about what we don't know?", you say.
>> Well, I don't see any point in basing stuff on what we don't know!!!
>> "Let's see, based on what I don't know..." -- you get the idea.
> 
> So, you are supporting my argument.  Someone else has already
> pointed out that many reputable scientists today think it will
> be a possibility.  But our current understanding of science
> says no.

Actually, they says "yes, we *do* know it might work".  We just
don't know how to implement it.

>>> just today's theories.  And, if there is such a being, they're His
>> I'd not suggest fitting wings to your arms and jumping off a cliff --
>> there's the, uh, "law" of gravity in play here.
> 
> Which is relevant how?  Man defeated gravity's hold a long, long time
> ago.  Today, we tempt gravity just for fun and excitement.
> 
>>> laws and he can do with them as He pleases.  Nope, no conflict.
>> "He" doesn't seem to be doing much with them at all.
> 
> What did you want Him to do?  Perform a personal miracle for
> you?  The age of miracles is long past.

Why?

>>> Science and religion only ever conflict when science decides it wants
>>> to be God itself.  Or when certain whackos decide to interpret religion
>> Example, please?
> 
> You gave one of the perfect one's below, what more do you want?
> 
>>> in a way that conflicts.  Reality (as usual) is quite different.
>> What? As in interpreting a 6000-year-old world as being 6000 years
>> old? Yeah, that's wacko all right!
> 
> There is nowhere in the bible where there is a timetable given for
> the time period from creation to Adam and Eve being evicted from
> their luxury condo.  And, pretty much every other conflict can be
> as easily resolved unless one just wants the conflict to be there.
> Trust me, there are just as many conflicts between science and history
> which science chooses to merely sweep under tha table because they don't
> have an explanation.

Pedantic, but important: "Science" doesn't sweep it under the rug,
*humans* sweep it under the rug.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/06/07 06:46, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <1189041153.907079.21010@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
> 	AEF <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
>> On Sep 5, 3:32 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>> On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65...@newsfe21.lga>,
>>>>>        Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>>>>> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
>>>>>> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
>>>>>> exercise for me.
>>>>> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more
>>>>> likely than their existence?
>>>> Occam's Razor.
>>>> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
>>>> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
>>>> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
>>>> probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
>>> I think there's a law of "Conservation of Reality"!
>> In quantum mechanics there is what is called conservation of
>> probability. This basically says that the probabilities of all the
>> places a particle might be found must add up to 1, i.e., the particle
>> must be somewhere! There is even an differential equation for this
>> which relates the probability density with the (probability) flux.
>>
> 
> Boy it must have taken a whole bunch of science to come up with the
> idea that soemthing has got to be somewhere.  :-)

Not science, but thinking and mathematics.

There are a *lot* of people who still believe in magic (I include
Christian miracles in that category).

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/06/07 06:14, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
[snip]
> into my mouth and my nose half severed).  The "plastic" surgeon was able

No need for quotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_surgery
    The word "plastic" derives from the Greek /plastikos/ meaning
    to mold or to shape; its use here is not connected with the
    synthetic polymer material known as plastic. Plastic surgeons
    typically mold and reshape the following tissues of the body:
    bone, cartilage, muscle, fat, and skin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic
    Their name is derived from the fact that many are malleable,
    having the property of plasticity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasticity_%28physics%29
    In physics and materials science, plasticity is a property
    of a material to undergo a non-reversible change of shape
    in response to an applied force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_arts
    Plastic arts are those visual arts that involve the use
    of materials that can be moulded or modulated in some way,
    often in three dimensions.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/06/07 06:00, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <52a3a$46dfa659$cef8887a$2243@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>>
>> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>> I voiced my opinion of a barbaric and heathen ritual and for that you call 
>>> me ignorant and insulting.  Please explain.
>> You've expressed strong feelings against that cosmetic operation. And it 
>> is your right. And there is reason to debate whether any cosmetic 
>> unnecessary operation should be done by parents on a child before age of 
>> consent. But this does not mean that the operation itself is "barbaric" 
>> or "mutilation".
> 
> The World Health Organization and Amnesty Internation would disagree.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk7yc7vAIZY
> 
> However, there is no need to remove any non-diseased functioning part
> of the human body for any reason -- especially before the person whose
> part it is has a say in it.  Besides, what, if anything, is "cosmetic"
> about it?

Cosmetic is a subset of plastic surgery.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <5ka7hdF2pb4pU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
> 
> Until someone discovers another notion that explains what we have
> and also the anomalies that don't jive with what we have now.  Or
> have we already forgotten that at one time there were only four
> elements?
> 

   Those four elements were closer to a religion than a science.  They
   made almost no testable predictions and failed blatantly under a
   great many tests.

   Science is not "I guess" and popularity, or "I have a degree and I
   say so".  It is testable predictions.  The kind folks get Nobel 
   prises for if they find one repeatable sample of test failure.

   Yes I know some people will use the word "science" with things that
   are not testable predictions.  If you have to call it science, then
   it isn't.

In article <AdSDi.418883$wG2.64140@newsfe17.lga>,
	Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
> On 09/06/07 06:44, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article <1189040986.731316.175580@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>> 	AEF <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> On Sep 5, 10:15 am, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>>>> In article <yKyDi.25334$Zk5.11...@newsfe23.lga>,
>>>>         Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>> In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65...@newsfe21.lga>,
>>>>>>        Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>>>>>> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
>>>>>>> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
>>>>>>> exercise for me.
>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more
>>>>>> likely than their existence?
>>>>> Occam's Razor.
>>>>> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
>>>>> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
>>>>> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
>>>>> probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
>>>> But they are just today's notions.  There are a lot of people who
>>> Hmmm. All of our technology is based on these notions, so there must
>>> be something very right about them.
>> 
>> Until someone discovers another notion that explains what we have
>> and also the anomalies that don't jive with what we have now.
> 
> But that's what science "does".

I agree, but someone else said the above were absolutes.

> 
>>                                                                Or
>> have we already forgotten that at one time there were only four
>> elements?
> 
> And there was a whole lot of guesswork unsupported by any (or only
> the most superficial) observation whatsoever.

But it was all supported by "the scientific method" of the time.
You say they guessed and didn't support it, but they thought they
did, based on the knowledge and abilities of their time.  Hindsight
is always 20-20.

> 
> Kinda like in the social "sciences".

Social "science" is much more about engineering than science.

> 
>>> While there are occasional surprises (as in the fact that the
>>> discovery that weak force violates conservation of parity), certain
>>> conservation laws work extremely well. The best are probably the laws
>>> of thermodynamics. If you could find a way around them, you could
>>> become wealthier than BG. ... Good luck.
>>>
>>> The reality of atoms. That's fairly well established, I believe.
>> 
>> By today's science.  The understanding of even atoms might be
>> different in 1000 years.
> 
> Maybe a deeper understanding, but "protons, neutrons and electrons"
> as the building blocks of the macro world Just Works.

As did "earth, wind, fire and water" 2000 years ago.  But even then
some upstart was positing atomic structure, which, by the way, could
not be directly observed but could be infered. (Titus Lucretius Carus,
De Rerum Natura, c. 99 - c. 55 BCE)

> 
>>>> honestly believe that we will have Warp Drive and al the other stuff
>>>> that is science foction today just like today we have what was just
>>>> science fiction yesterday.  So you really don't know those are laws,
>>> I wouldn't bet much on ever going faster than light.
>>>
>>> Based on what we know today, many of these wild sci-fi things are
>>> really sci-fantasy. "Well, what about what we don't know?", you say.
>>> Well, I don't see any point in basing stuff on what we don't know!!!
>>> "Let's see, based on what I don't know..." -- you get the idea.
>> 
>> So, you are supporting my argument.  Someone else has already
>> pointed out that many reputable scientists today think it will
>> be a possibility.  But our current understanding of science
>> says no.
> 
> Actually, they says "yes, we *do* know it might work".  We just
> don't know how to implement it.
> 

Just look at this thread.  We now have both "yes it can" and "no it
can't".  Ah, the wonders of science.

>>>> just today's theories.  And, if there is such a being, they're His
>>> I'd not suggest fitting wings to your arms and jumping off a cliff --
>>> there's the, uh, "law" of gravity in play here.
>> 
>> Which is relevant how?  Man defeated gravity's hold a long, long time
>> ago.  Today, we tempt gravity just for fun and excitement.
>> 
>>>> laws and he can do with them as He pleases.  Nope, no conflict.
>>> "He" doesn't seem to be doing much with them at all.
>> 
>> What did you want Him to do?  Perform a personal miracle for
>> you?  The age of miracles is long past.
> 
> Why?

Don't know, but the next time He talks to me I'll ask Him. :-)

Actually, I am doing research right now on the basis for supposed
apparitions  in modern times and all the evidence seems to point
to social phenomena and not miracles.

> 
>>>> Science and religion only ever conflict when science decides it wants
>>>> to be God itself.  Or when certain whackos decide to interpret religion
>>> Example, please?
>> 
>> You gave one of the perfect one's below, what more do you want?
>> 
>>>> in a way that conflicts.  Reality (as usual) is quite different.
>>> What? As in interpreting a 6000-year-old world as being 6000 years
>>> old? Yeah, that's wacko all right!
>> 
>> There is nowhere in the bible where there is a timetable given for
>> the time period from creation to Adam and Eve being evicted from
>> their luxury condo.  And, pretty much every other conflict can be
>> as easily resolved unless one just wants the conflict to be there.
>> Trust me, there are just as many conflicts between science and history
>> which science chooses to merely sweep under tha table because they don't
>> have an explanation.
> 
> Pedantic, but important: "Science" doesn't sweep it under the rug,
> *humans* sweep it under the rug.
 
And what is "science" other than the result of the actions of
humans?  I overhear students everyday talking about faking lab
results in order to "get the result the teacher wanted".  Do you
really think that after developing this behavior during their
training they are going to miraculously adopt the true scientific
method when they leave here?  Considering how many cases of faked
results I read about everyday, I think the answer to that one is
rather obvious.  Always remember, the most important result of any
scientific exploration, experiment or research is to keep the grant
money coming.  The size of the grant is determined by the result,
not the opposite. 

bill 

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article <pgSDi.418884$wG2.237721@newsfe17.lga>,
	Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
> On 09/06/07 06:46, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article <1189041153.907079.21010@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
>> 	AEF <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> On Sep 5, 3:32 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>>> On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>> In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65...@newsfe21.lga>,
>>>>>>        Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>>>>>> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
>>>>>>> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
>>>>>>> exercise for me.
>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more
>>>>>> likely than their existence?
>>>>> Occam's Razor.
>>>>> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
>>>>> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
>>>>> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
>>>>> probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
>>>> I think there's a law of "Conservation of Reality"!
>>> In quantum mechanics there is what is called conservation of
>>> probability. This basically says that the probabilities of all the
>>> places a particle might be found must add up to 1, i.e., the particle
>>> must be somewhere! There is even an differential equation for this
>>> which relates the probability density with the (probability) flux.
>>>
>> 
>> Boy it must have taken a whole bunch of science to come up with the
>> idea that soemthing has got to be somewhere.  :-)
> 
> Not science, but thinking and mathematics.

Yeah, well, most three year olds could have determined that.

> 
> There are a *lot* of people who still believe in magic (I include
> Christian miracles in that category).

There is no such thing as "magic".  Everything, including miracles,
has an explanation.  Just because you can't observe it, repeat it
or explain it doesn't mean it didn't really happen.
 
bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article <lQz0oGcXF+73@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
> In article <5ka7hdF2pb4pU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>> 
>> Until someone discovers another notion that explains what we have
>> and also the anomalies that don't jive with what we have now.  Or
>> have we already forgotten that at one time there were only four
>> elements?
>> 
> 
>    Those four elements were closer to a religion than a science.  They
>    made almost no testable predictions and failed blatantly under a
>    great many tests.

They were the science of the times.

> 
>    Science is not "I guess" and popularity, or "I have a degree and I
>    say so".  It is testable predictions.  The kind folks get Nobel 
>    prises for if they find one repeatable sample of test failure.

So it is today, thus my reason for saying that hindsight is always
20-20.  People today are so good at judging the past based on things
we have only recently learned.

> 
>    Yes I know some people will use the word "science" with things that
>    are not testable predictions.  If you have to call it science, then
>    it isn't.

Even the definitions of words have changed over time.  What we call
science today they called magic.  
 
bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <5ka7hdF2pb4pU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
> 
>>Until someone discovers another notion that explains what we have
>>and also the anomalies that don't jive with what we have now.  Or
>>have we already forgotten that at one time there were only four
>>elements?
>>
> 
> 
>    Those four elements were closer to a religion than a science.  They
>    made almost no testable predictions and failed blatantly under a
>    great many tests.
> 

We STILL recognize those four elements.  We now call them the four 
states of matter; solid, liquid, gas, and plasma!

"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:46E00296.2010201@comcast.net...

> We STILL recognize those four elements.  We now call them the four states of matter; 
> solid, liquid, gas, and plasma!

Only loosely: a couple more states have been added more recently
Bose-Einstein condensates and, erm Alaska. 

On 09/06/07 07:51, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <AdSDi.418883$wG2.64140@newsfe17.lga>,
> 	Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>> On 09/06/07 06:44, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> In article <1189040986.731316.175580@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>>> 	AEF <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> On Sep 5, 10:15 am, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>>>>> In article <yKyDi.25334$Zk5.11...@newsfe23.lga>,
>>>>>         Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65...@newsfe21.lga>,
>>>>>>>        Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>>>>>>> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
>>>>>>>> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
>>>>>>>> exercise for me.
>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more
>>>>>>> likely than their existence?
>>>>>> Occam's Razor.
>>>>>> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
>>>>>> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
>>>>>> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
>>>>>> probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
>>>>> But they are just today's notions.  There are a lot of people who
>>>> Hmmm. All of our technology is based on these notions, so there must
>>>> be something very right about them.
>>> Until someone discovers another notion that explains what we have
>>> and also the anomalies that don't jive with what we have now.
>> But that's what science "does".
> 
> I agree, but someone else said the above were absolutes.

They are wrong and I am right.  ;)

>>>                                                                Or
>>> have we already forgotten that at one time there were only four
>>> elements?
>> And there was a whole lot of guesswork unsupported by any (or only
>> the most superficial) observation whatsoever.
> 
> But it was all supported by "the scientific method" of the time.
> You say they guessed and didn't support it, but they thought they
> did, based on the knowledge and abilities of their time.  Hindsight
> is always 20-20.

And I'd say that they didn't have Science.

>> Kinda like in the social "sciences".
> 
> Social "science" is much more about engineering than science.

Engineering or pie-in-the-sky New Age hoo hah?

(But I've got to say that experimental psychology seems a valid
science.)

>>>> While there are occasional surprises (as in the fact that the
>>>> discovery that weak force violates conservation of parity), certain
>>>> conservation laws work extremely well. The best are probably the laws
>>>> of thermodynamics. If you could find a way around them, you could
>>>> become wealthier than BG. ... Good luck.
>>>>
>>>> The reality of atoms. That's fairly well established, I believe.
>>> By today's science.  The understanding of even atoms might be
>>> different in 1000 years.
>> Maybe a deeper understanding, but "protons, neutrons and electrons"
>> as the building blocks of the macro world Just Works.
> 
> As did "earth, wind, fire and water" 2000 years ago.  But even then

But had too many holes.

> some upstart was positing atomic structure, which, by the way, could
> not be directly observed but could be infered. (Titus Lucretius Carus,
> De Rerum Natura, c. 99 - c. 55 BCE)
>
>>>>> honestly believe that we will have Warp Drive and al the other stuff
>>>>> that is science foction today just like today we have what was just
>>>>> science fiction yesterday.  So you really don't know those are laws,
>>>> I wouldn't bet much on ever going faster than light.
>>>>
>>>> Based on what we know today, many of these wild sci-fi things are
>>>> really sci-fantasy. "Well, what about what we don't know?", you say.
>>>> Well, I don't see any point in basing stuff on what we don't know!!!
>>>> "Let's see, based on what I don't know..." -- you get the idea.
>>> So, you are supporting my argument.  Someone else has already
>>> pointed out that many reputable scientists today think it will
>>> be a possibility.  But our current understanding of science
>>> says no.
>> Actually, they says "yes, we *do* know it might work".  We just
>> don't know how to implement it.
>>
> 
> Just look at this thread.  We now have both "yes it can" and "no it
> can't".  Ah, the wonders of science.
> 
>>>>> just today's theories.  And, if there is such a being, they're His
>>>> I'd not suggest fitting wings to your arms and jumping off a cliff --
>>>> there's the, uh, "law" of gravity in play here.
>>> Which is relevant how?  Man defeated gravity's hold a long, long time
>>> ago.  Today, we tempt gravity just for fun and excitement.
>>>
>>>>> laws and he can do with them as He pleases.  Nope, no conflict.
>>>> "He" doesn't seem to be doing much with them at all.
>>> What did you want Him to do?  Perform a personal miracle for
>>> you?  The age of miracles is long past.
>> Why?
> 
> Don't know, but the next time He talks to me I'll ask Him. :-)
> 
> Actually, I am doing research right now on the basis for supposed
> apparitions  in modern times and all the evidence seems to point
> to social phenomena and not miracles.

Hmmm.  Why am I not surprised?

>>>>> Science and religion only ever conflict when science decides it wants
>>>>> to be God itself.  Or when certain whackos decide to interpret religion
>>>> Example, please?
>>> You gave one of the perfect one's below, what more do you want?
>>>
>>>>> in a way that conflicts.  Reality (as usual) is quite different.
>>>> What? As in interpreting a 6000-year-old world as being 6000 years
>>>> old? Yeah, that's wacko all right!
>>> There is nowhere in the bible where there is a timetable given for
>>> the time period from creation to Adam and Eve being evicted from
>>> their luxury condo.  And, pretty much every other conflict can be
>>> as easily resolved unless one just wants the conflict to be there.
>>> Trust me, there are just as many conflicts between science and history
>>> which science chooses to merely sweep under tha table because they don't
>>> have an explanation.
>> Pedantic, but important: "Science" doesn't sweep it under the rug,
>> *humans* sweep it under the rug.
>  
> And what is "science" other than the result of the actions of
> humans?

I guess I'd counter that with "science the theory" vs. "science as
practiced".

>          I overhear students everyday talking about faking lab
> results in order to "get the result the teacher wanted".  Do you
> really think that after developing this behavior during their
> training they are going to miraculously adopt the true scientific
> method when they leave here?  Considering how many cases of faked
> results I read about everyday, I think the answer to that one is
> rather obvious.  Always remember, the most important result of any
> scientific exploration, experiment or research is to keep the grant
> money coming.  The size of the grant is determined by the result,
> not the opposite. 

Now you're sounding like a conservative denier of global warming!!!

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

Just to move this where it belongs, OT

As undergrad (44 years ago, wow!) in a class on History of Science
read
History of the Warfare Between Science and Theology, by White (all I  
recall)
Kristendomen och den Fria Tanken, Anton Nystr�m (assuming you can read  
Swedish)



-- 
PL/I for OpenVMS
www.kednos.com

On 09/06/07 08:06, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <lQz0oGcXF+73@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
> 	koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>> In article <5ka7hdF2pb4pU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>>> Until someone discovers another notion that explains what we have
>>> and also the anomalies that don't jive with what we have now.  Or
>>> have we already forgotten that at one time there were only four
>>> elements?
>>>
>>    Those four elements were closer to a religion than a science.  They
>>    made almost no testable predictions and failed blatantly under a
>>    great many tests.
> 
> They were the science of the times.

No.  They had /natural philosophy/.  And engineering.

Which all went away after the Roman Empire fell and didn't reappear
until alchemy attained a critical mass of observed knowledge.

>>    Science is not "I guess" and popularity, or "I have a degree and I
>>    say so".  It is testable predictions.  The kind folks get Nobel 
>>    prises for if they find one repeatable sample of test failure.
> 
> So it is today, thus my reason for saying that hindsight is always
> 20-20.  People today are so good at judging the past based on things
> we have only recently learned.
> 
>>    Yes I know some people will use the word "science" with things that
>>    are not testable predictions.  If you have to call it science, then
>>    it isn't.
> 
> Even the definitions of words have changed over time.  What we call
> science today they called magic.  

No.  What we call *technology* they called magic.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/06/07 07:55, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <pgSDi.418884$wG2.237721@newsfe17.lga>,
> 	Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>> On 09/06/07 06:46, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> In article <1189041153.907079.21010@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
>>> 	AEF <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> On Sep 5, 3:32 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65...@newsfe21.lga>,
>>>>>>>        Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>>>>>>> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
>>>>>>>> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
>>>>>>>> exercise for me.
>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more
>>>>>>> likely than their existence?
>>>>>> Occam's Razor.
>>>>>> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
>>>>>> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
>>>>>> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
>>>>>> probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
>>>>> I think there's a law of "Conservation of Reality"!
>>>> In quantum mechanics there is what is called conservation of
>>>> probability. This basically says that the probabilities of all the
>>>> places a particle might be found must add up to 1, i.e., the particle
>>>> must be somewhere! There is even an differential equation for this
>>>> which relates the probability density with the (probability) flux.
>>>>
>>> Boy it must have taken a whole bunch of science to come up with the
>>> idea that soemthing has got to be somewhere.  :-)
>> Not science, but thinking and mathematics.
> 
> Yeah, well, most three year olds could have determined that.

I'm not so sure about that.  They all believe in Santa Clause, after
all.

>> There are a *lot* of people who still believe in magic (I include
>> Christian miracles in that category).
> 
> There is no such thing as "magic".  Everything, including miracles,
> has an explanation.  Just because you can't observe it, repeat it
> or explain it doesn't mean it didn't really happen.

(I think you and I are confusing "magic" with "supernatural".
"Magic" is a *really* broad term.)

People, though, *want* explanations.

Sciencists will either say "I don't know" or, if they don't want to
seem not-smart, pull something out of their asses.  Woe be to all of
us if that rectal emanation gets published in a Journal!

Religionists will say, "God did it!".

Neo-Pagans will mumble something unintelligible and put pyramids on
their heads while dancing around Stonehenge on Halloween.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

Richard Brodie wrote:
> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message 
> news:46E00296.2010201@comcast.net...
> 
> 
>>We STILL recognize those four elements.  We now call them the four states of matter; 
>>solid, liquid, gas, and plasma!
> 
> 
> Only loosely: a couple more states have been added more recently
> Bose-Einstein condensates and, erm Alaska. 
> 
> 

I thought Alaska was a state of mind!

In article <aJTDi.239234$BX3.39243@newsfe13.lga>,
	Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
> On 09/06/07 07:51, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article <AdSDi.418883$wG2.64140@newsfe17.lga>,
>> 	Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>>> On 09/06/07 06:44, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> In article <1189040986.731316.175580@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> 	AEF <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>> On Sep 5, 10:15 am, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>>>>>> In article <yKyDi.25334$Zk5.11...@newsfe23.lga>,
>>>>>>         Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65...@newsfe21.lga>,
>>>>>>>>        Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
>>>>>>>>> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
>>>>>>>>> exercise for me.
>>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more
>>>>>>>> likely than their existence?
>>>>>>> Occam's Razor.
>>>>>>> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
>>>>>>> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
>>>>>>> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
>>>>>>> probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
>>>>>> But they are just today's notions.  There are a lot of people who
>>>>> Hmmm. All of our technology is based on these notions, so there must
>>>>> be something very right about them.
>>>> Until someone discovers another notion that explains what we have
>>>> and also the anomalies that don't jive with what we have now.
>>> But that's what science "does".
>> 
>> I agree, but someone else said the above were absolutes.
> 
> They are wrong and I am right.  ;)

And so it goes with all science.  And you wonder why ordinary people
might question something like Global Warming?

> 
>>>>                                                                Or
>>>> have we already forgotten that at one time there were only four
>>>> elements?
>>> And there was a whole lot of guesswork unsupported by any (or only
>>> the most superficial) observation whatsoever.
>> 
>> But it was all supported by "the scientific method" of the time.
>> You say they guessed and didn't support it, but they thought they
>> did, based on the knowledge and abilities of their time.  Hindsight
>> is always 20-20.
> 
> And I'd say that they didn't have Science.

Again, like I said, it's easy to do that when you look at the the
5th century with 21st century eyes.

> 
>>> Kinda like in the social "sciences".
>> 
>> Social "science" is much more about engineering than science.
> 
> Engineering or pie-in-the-sky New Age hoo hah?

No, engineering.  More interested in forced change than actually
understanding society (ies).

> 
> (But I've got to say that experimental psychology seems a valid
> science.)

Psychology took a wrong turn way back around the time between Silverman
and Rogers.  It, too, became more about control than understanding.

> 
>>>>> While there are occasional surprises (as in the fact that the
>>>>> discovery that weak force violates conservation of parity), certain
>>>>> conservation laws work extremely well. The best are probably the laws
>>>>> of thermodynamics. If you could find a way around them, you could
>>>>> become wealthier than BG. ... Good luck.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reality of atoms. That's fairly well established, I believe.
>>>> By today's science.  The understanding of even atoms might be
>>>> different in 1000 years.
>>> Maybe a deeper understanding, but "protons, neutrons and electrons"
>>> as the building blocks of the macro world Just Works.
>> 
>> As did "earth, wind, fire and water" 2000 years ago.  But even then
> 
> But had too many holes.

Well, not in the eyes of the "scientists" of the time.

> 
>> some upstart was positing atomic structure, which, by the way, could
>> not be directly observed but could be infered. (Titus Lucretius Carus,
>> De Rerum Natura, c. 99 - c. 55 BCE)
>>
>>>>>> honestly believe that we will have Warp Drive and al the other stuff
>>>>>> that is science foction today just like today we have what was just
>>>>>> science fiction yesterday.  So you really don't know those are laws,
>>>>> I wouldn't bet much on ever going faster than light.
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on what we know today, many of these wild sci-fi things are
>>>>> really sci-fantasy. "Well, what about what we don't know?", you say.
>>>>> Well, I don't see any point in basing stuff on what we don't know!!!
>>>>> "Let's see, based on what I don't know..." -- you get the idea.
>>>> So, you are supporting my argument.  Someone else has already
>>>> pointed out that many reputable scientists today think it will
>>>> be a possibility.  But our current understanding of science
>>>> says no.
>>> Actually, they says "yes, we *do* know it might work".  We just
>>> don't know how to implement it.
>>>
>> 
>> Just look at this thread.  We now have both "yes it can" and "no it
>> can't".  Ah, the wonders of science.
>> 
>>>>>> just today's theories.  And, if there is such a being, they're His
>>>>> I'd not suggest fitting wings to your arms and jumping off a cliff --
>>>>> there's the, uh, "law" of gravity in play here.
>>>> Which is relevant how?  Man defeated gravity's hold a long, long time
>>>> ago.  Today, we tempt gravity just for fun and excitement.
>>>>
>>>>>> laws and he can do with them as He pleases.  Nope, no conflict.
>>>>> "He" doesn't seem to be doing much with them at all.
>>>> What did you want Him to do?  Perform a personal miracle for
>>>> you?  The age of miracles is long past.
>>> Why?
>> 
>> Don't know, but the next time He talks to me I'll ask Him. :-)
>> 
>> Actually, I am doing research right now on the basis for supposed
>> apparitions  in modern times and all the evidence seems to point
>> to social phenomena and not miracles.
> 
> Hmmm.  Why am I not surprised?
> 
>>>>>> Science and religion only ever conflict when science decides it wants
>>>>>> to be God itself.  Or when certain whackos decide to interpret religion
>>>>> Example, please?
>>>> You gave one of the perfect one's below, what more do you want?
>>>>
>>>>>> in a way that conflicts.  Reality (as usual) is quite different.
>>>>> What? As in interpreting a 6000-year-old world as being 6000 years
>>>>> old? Yeah, that's wacko all right!
>>>> There is nowhere in the bible where there is a timetable given for
>>>> the time period from creation to Adam and Eve being evicted from
>>>> their luxury condo.  And, pretty much every other conflict can be
>>>> as easily resolved unless one just wants the conflict to be there.
>>>> Trust me, there are just as many conflicts between science and history
>>>> which science chooses to merely sweep under tha table because they don't
>>>> have an explanation.
>>> Pedantic, but important: "Science" doesn't sweep it under the rug,
>>> *humans* sweep it under the rug.
>>  
>> And what is "science" other than the result of the actions of
>> humans?
> 
> I guess I'd counter that with "science the theory" vs. "science as
> practiced".

Yeah, well theory never seems to translate well to practice but it is
the practice that we are supposed to accept as fact.

> 
>>          I overhear students everyday talking about faking lab
>> results in order to "get the result the teacher wanted".  Do you
>> really think that after developing this behavior during their
>> training they are going to miraculously adopt the true scientific
>> method when they leave here?  Considering how many cases of faked
>> results I read about everyday, I think the answer to that one is
>> rather obvious.  Always remember, the most important result of any
>> scientific exploration, experiment or research is to keep the grant
>> money coming.  The size of the grant is determined by the result,
>> not the opposite. 
> 
> Now you're sounding like a conservative denier of global warming!!!

I don't deny the existence of global warming.  I do deny the total
arrogance of a handful of men (who call themselves scientists) who
not only claim man is the major contributor but actually think man
has the power to do something about it.  I have pointed out in the
past in one of these discussions a pair of interviews with the same
man at NASA who on one hand claimed we were accidentally changing
the climate of the earth and ont he other hand claimed we could not
terraform Mars because man doesn't have the power to change the
climate of a planet.  Go figure.

Tell me again why I should take anything scientists say without an
extremely large grain of salt.  The only interest most of them have
in science is keeping the gravy train running and you don't do that
by saying "there is nothing here to examine".
 
bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

In article <7_zDi.246902$dA7.32966@newsfe16.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>On 09/05/07 08:08, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>> In article <1188944683.389501.295990@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>>> On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
>>> Koehler) wrote:
>>>> In article <1188926008.865710.82...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
>>>>> he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
>>>>    But he did change his mind.  He sent his only son to implement the
>>>>    changes.
>>> no He did not ... that was planned all along ...
>>>
>>> God knows the future ... read revelation and Daniel
>>> and other prophecies and they are happening right
>>> now before your very eyes ...
>>>
>> If he knows the future (which he obviously should being omniscient) then
>> everything is predetermined and hence our free-will is an illusion.
>
>Not true.
>
>"Predetermined" implies a consciously-created pre-set plan of action.
>
No it doesn't. For all I know the future Universe is totally predetermined
(and we have no free will but just an illusion of free will) but that doesn't 
imply that God or any other entity consciously created a plan of how the 
Universe will unfold. The predetermination would come from the initial
conditions and laws of the Universe. 
(For the purposes of this discussion i'm ignoring the complexities about 
pre-determination introduced by our poor understanding of the meaning of 
Quantum theory and treating the Universe as a classical system).




David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University
>Knowing what will happen in the future does not imply that "you"
>*planned* for it to happen that way.
>
>> But then all God's actions must also be predetermined which means he has no
>> free-will and hence is not omnipotent. 
>> (One way out of this impasse might be to suppose that God could see all
>> possible futures and could then choose between them by choosing or not choosing
>> to act at certain points in History. But then surely there must be a "best"
>> future for God's plans hence why would he do anything except instigate that
>> future which being able to see all possible futures he would have seen from the
>> beginning. Hence once again God's actions would be predetermined by his desire
>> for the best possible outcome and hence he would again have no free-will.)
>
>-- 
>Ron Johnson, Jr.
>Jefferson LA  USA
>
>Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
>Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> I have pointed out in the
> past in one of these discussions a pair of interviews with the same
> man at NASA who on one hand claimed we were accidentally changing
> the climate of the earth and ont he other hand claimed we could not
> terraform Mars because man doesn't have the power to change the
> climate of a planet.  Go figure.


Are you aware that NASA, NOAA and other organisations which produced 
"global warming" studies were told by the white house that only the 
white house could publish those reports (giving white house opportunity 
to edit them) and that any interview with media had to first be cleared 
with the white house who would instruct the scientists what to say (in 
order to not clash with the white house reports) ?

Any interview you saw of NASA or NOAA employees was not the NASA or NOAA 
employee speaking, but rather the white house speaking through that 
employee. And your impression of what he had said was exactly what the 
white house's goals had been: discredit the scientists who had proof 
that global warming was man made.

david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> No it doesn't. For all I know the future Universe is totally predetermined
> (and we have no free will but just an illusion of free will) 


Unless the various laws that govern the universe (physics etc) change, 
then the future is already pre-determined. The problem is that we cannot 
  find out what the future will be because we cannot get a total instant 
picture of the universe's state down to subatomic levels in order to 
apply all the laws to see what happens next.

"free will" is simply the chemical and electric reactions in your brain 
coming to what science would say is a foregone conclusion. If we knew 
the exact state of your brain and all the laws that apply to it, we 
could determine what its next "thought" would be.

 From one's point of view, one has taken his/her own decision. But deep 
down, it is really a set of chemical/electrical reactions that happened 
in the brain that led to that decision.

In order to really predict, you need the whole "big picture". You need 
to know that certain reactions in the sun will generate high energy 
particles and that one such partile will penetrate the earth and hit a 
guy's brain, generating the brain's equivalent of a memory error which 
will eventually result in a "different" decision being taken compared to 
if that particle hadn't hit his brain.

In article <1189040986.731316.175580@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
>On Sep 5, 10:15 am, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>> In article <yKyDi.25334$Zk5.11...@newsfe23.lga>,
>>         Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>
>> > On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> >> In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65...@newsfe21.lga>,
>> >>        Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>> >>> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
>> >>> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
>> >>> exercise for me.
>>
>> >> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more
>> >> likely than their existence?
>>
>> > Occam's Razor.
>>
>> > An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
>> > against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
>> > Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
>> > probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
>>
>> But they are just today's notions.  There are a lot of people who
>
>Hmmm. All of our technology is based on these notions, so there must
>be something very right about them.
>
The Conservation laws are closely related to symmetries in Physics see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_in_physics#Conservation_laws_and_symmetry

and Noether's Theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

So for instance a breach of the law of Conservation of Linear Momentum would
equate to the laws of physics varying under spatial translation ie the laws of
physics varying from place to place.
A breach of the law of Conservation of Energy would equate to the laws of
physics varying with respect to translation in time ie the laws of physics
changing with time.

Hence if such conservation laws are not correct our view of the Universe would
have to change rather drastically.


>While there are occasional surprises (as in the fact that the
>discovery that weak force violates conservation of parity), certain
>conservation laws work extremely well. The best are probably the laws
>of thermodynamics. If you could find a way around them, you could
>become wealthier than BG. ... Good luck.
>
>The reality of atoms. That's fairly well established, I believe.
>
>> honestly believe that we will have Warp Drive and al the other stuff
>> that is science foction today just like today we have what was just
>> science fiction yesterday.  So you really don't know those are laws,
>
>I wouldn't bet much on ever going faster than light.
>
But with a warp drive you never do go faster than light - similarly with 
travel through a wormhole. Though of course the fact that current theories do
not rule these possibilities out doesn't necessarily mean that they are
really possible. The point is that the science fiction ideas being investigated
do not actually breach known laws - though they might require exotic forms of
matter and energy in rather larger quantities than we are every likely to get
from things like the Casimir effect.


>Based on what we know today, many of these wild sci-fi things are
>really sci-fantasy. "Well, what about what we don't know?", you say.
>Well, I don't see any point in basing stuff on what we don't know!!!
>"Let's see, based on what I don't know..." -- you get the idea.
>
>> just today's theories.  And, if there is such a being, they're His
>
>I'd not suggest fitting wings to your arms and jumping off a cliff --
>there's the, uh, "law" of gravity in play here.
>
Except birds do it all the time. Strapping wings on your arms and flying
somewhere with lower gravity eg in a dome on the moon or in a space station 
(as described in a number of Sci-fi novels) would almost certainly be 
feasible.

A lot of science fiction ideas may well be feasible but the method by which
they are accomplished will in the majority of cases be far different from that
envisaged by the scifi author. We went to the moon but we didn't use a cannon
like Jules Verne (though in other respects Verne was fairly accurate).




David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University


>> laws and he can do with them as He pleases.  Nope, no conflict.
>
>"He" doesn't seem to be doing much with them at all.
>
>> Science and religion only ever conflict when science decides it wants
>> to be God itself.  Or when certain whackos decide to interpret religion
>
>Example, please?
>
>> in a way that conflicts.  Reality (as usual) is quite different.
>
>What? As in interpreting a 6000-year-old world as being 6000 years
>old? Yeah, that's wacko all right!
>
>AEF
>
>>
>> bill
>>
>> --
>> Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
>> b...@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>> University of Scranton   |
>> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
>
>

In article <fbpdrb$oa0$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>,
	david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
> 
> A lot of science fiction ideas may well be feasible but the method by which
> they are accomplished will in the majority of cases be far different from that
> envisaged by the scifi author. We went to the moon but we didn't use a cannon
> like Jules Verne (though in other respects Verne was fairly accurate).

There are some who would disagree with your idea regarding wether or not
we used a cannon.  Have you ever seen the quote from Chuck Yeager about
why he turned down the opportunity to be one of the first astronauts?

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

On 09/06/07 11:00, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <7_zDi.246902$dA7.32966@newsfe16.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>> On 09/05/07 08:08, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>>> In article <1188944683.389501.295990@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>>>> On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
>>>> Koehler) wrote:
>>>>> In article <1188926008.865710.82...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
>>>>>> he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
>>>>>    But he did change his mind.  He sent his only son to implement the
>>>>>    changes.
>>>> no He did not ... that was planned all along ...
>>>>
>>>> God knows the future ... read revelation and Daniel
>>>> and other prophecies and they are happening right
>>>> now before your very eyes ...
>>>>
>>> If he knows the future (which he obviously should being omniscient) then
>>> everything is predetermined and hence our free-will is an illusion.
>> Not true.
>>
>> "Predetermined" implies a consciously-created pre-set plan of action.
>>
> No it doesn't.

And I disagree.

$ dict predetermined
3 definitions found

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
[gcide]:

  Predetermine \Pre`de*ter"mine\, v. t. [imp. & p. p.
     {Predetermined}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Predermining}.] [Pref. pre-
     + determine: cf. F. pr['e]d['e]terminer.]
     1. To determine (something) beforehand. --Sir M. Hale.
        [1913 Webster]

     2. To doom by previous decree; to foredoom.
        [1913 Webster]

From WordNet (r) 2.1 (2005) [wn]:

  predetermined
      adj 1: set in advance; "a preset plan of action"; "at a
             predetermined time" [syn: {preset}, {predetermined}]

>               For all I know the future Universe is totally predetermined
> (and we have no free will but just an illusion of free will) but that doesn't 
> imply that God or any other entity consciously created a plan of how the 
> Universe will unfold. The predetermination would come from the initial
> conditions and laws of the Universe. 
> (For the purposes of this discussion i'm ignoring the complexities about 
> pre-determination introduced by our poor understanding of the meaning of 
> Quantum theory and treating the Universe as a classical system).

I just totally disagree with that meaning of predetermined.

For example: the end-result of computer simulations are not
predetermined before the sim is run.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On Sep 6, 1:21 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 09/06/07 11:00, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <7_zDi.246902$dA7.32...@newsfe16.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
> >> On 09/05/07 08:08, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> >>> In article <1188944683.389501.295...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, ultra...@gmail.com writes:
> >>>> On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
> >>>> Koehler) wrote:
> >>>>> In article <1188926008.865710.82...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>
> >>>>>> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
> >>>>>> he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
> >>>>>    But he did change his mind.  He sent his only son to implement the
> >>>>>    changes.
> >>>> no He did not ... that was planned all along ...
>
> >>>> God knows the future ... read revelation and Daniel
> >>>> and other prophecies and they are happening right
> >>>> now before your very eyes ...
>
> >>> If he knows the future (which he obviously should being omniscient) then
> >>> everything is predetermined and hence our free-will is an illusion.
> >> Not true.
>
> >> "Predetermined" implies a consciously-created pre-set plan of action.
>
> > No it doesn't.
>
> And I disagree.
>
> $ dict predetermined
> 3 definitions found
>
> From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
> [gcide]:
>
>   Predetermine \Pre`de*ter"mine\, v. t. [imp. & p. p.
>      {Predetermined}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Predermining}.] [Pref. pre-
>      + determine: cf. F. pr['e]d['e]terminer.]
>      1. To determine (something) beforehand. --Sir M. Hale.
>         [1913 Webster]
>
>      2. To doom by previous decree; to foredoom.
>         [1913 Webster]
>
> From WordNet (r) 2.1 (2005) [wn]:
>
>   predetermined
>       adj 1: set in advance; "a preset plan of action"; "at a
>              predetermined time" [syn: {preset}, {predetermined}]
>
> >               For all I know the future Universe is totally predetermined
> > (and we have no free will but just an illusion of free will) but that doesn't
> > imply that God or any other entity consciously created a plan of how the
> > Universe will unfold. The predetermination would come from the initial
> > conditions and laws of the Universe.
> > (For the purposes of this discussion i'm ignoring the complexities about
> > pre-determination introduced by our poor understanding of the meaning of
> > Quantum theory and treating the Universe as a classical system).
>
> I just totally disagree with that meaning of predetermined.
>
> For example: the end-result of computer simulations are not
> predetermined before the sim is run.
>

The conclusion of the sim will be shown to have resulted from our
"preset plan of action" whether that plan was sound or flawed. The
result was "foredoomed." It was "set in advance" and we can trace the
logic back to the beginning and see how the result was obtained.

What's your disagreement? That we didn't know the result in advance?
The definition does not require us to read the future, only the past.

On Sep 6, 11:00 am, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <7_zDi.246902$dA7.32...@newsfe16.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
> >On 09/05/07 08:08, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> >> In article <1188944683.389501.295...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, ultra...@gmail.com writes:
> >>> On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
> >>> Koehler) wrote:
> >>>> In article <1188926008.865710.82...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>
> >>>>> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
> >>>>> he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
> >>>>    But he did change his mind.  He sent his only son to implement the
> >>>>    changes.
> >>> no He did not ... that was planned all along ...
>
> >>> God knows the future ... read revelation and Daniel
> >>> and other prophecies and they are happening right
> >>> now before your very eyes ...
>
> >> If he knows the future (which he obviously should being omniscient) then
> >> everything is predetermined and hence our free-will is an illusion.
>
> >Not true.
>
> >"Predetermined" implies a consciously-created pre-set plan of action.
>
> No it doesn't. For all I know the future Universe is totally predetermined
> (and we have no free will but just an illusion of free will) but that doesn't
> imply that God or any other entity consciously created a plan of how the
> Universe will unfold. The predetermination would come from the initial
> conditions and laws of the Universe.
> (For the purposes of this discussion i'm ignoring the complexities about
> pre-determination introduced by our poor understanding of the meaning of
> Quantum theory and treating the Universe as a classical system).
>

Hoping also to not reenter the QM debate, which is as fruitless as
this one, I whole-heartedly agree with you.

Whether there is a God-being or not who has cast the die, the near
infinite number of past universal events that has brought us to now is
beyond comprehension; as is what effect the convergence of their
seemingly disparate reactions now might have upon the future.

Though "Free will" may be an illusion, the illusion is so grand that
it might as well be real.

==============
An Agnostic's Prayer for Everyone:
  "God protect us from those who hear Your voice."

In article <40ea2$46e0317d$cef8887a$11281@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> 
> Unless the various laws that govern the universe (physics etc) change, 
> then the future is already pre-determined.

   What century are you living in?  The laws of physics specifically say
   that is not so and have said that for about 100 years now.

On 09/06/07 14:51, Doug Phillips wrote:
> On Sep 6, 1:21 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 09/06/07 11:00, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article <7_zDi.246902$dA7.32...@newsfe16.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>>> On 09/05/07 08:08, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>>>>> In article <1188944683.389501.295...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>>>>>> On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
>>>>>> Koehler) wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <1188926008.865710.82...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>>>>>>>> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
>>>>>>>> he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
>>>>>>>    But he did change his mind.  He sent his only son to implement the
>>>>>>>    changes.
>>>>>> no He did not ... that was planned all along ...
>>>>>> God knows the future ... read revelation and Daniel
>>>>>> and other prophecies and they are happening right
>>>>>> now before your very eyes ...
>>>>> If he knows the future (which he obviously should being omniscient) then
>>>>> everything is predetermined and hence our free-will is an illusion.
>>>> Not true.
>>>> "Predetermined" implies a consciously-created pre-set plan of action.
>>> No it doesn't.
>> And I disagree.
>>
>> $ dict predetermined
>> 3 definitions found
>>
>> From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
>> [gcide]:
>>
>>   Predetermine \Pre`de*ter"mine\, v. t. [imp. & p. p.
>>      {Predetermined}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Predermining}.] [Pref. pre-
>>      + determine: cf. F. pr['e]d['e]terminer.]
>>      1. To determine (something) beforehand. --Sir M. Hale.
>>         [1913 Webster]
>>
>>      2. To doom by previous decree; to foredoom.
>>         [1913 Webster]
>>
>> From WordNet (r) 2.1 (2005) [wn]:
>>
>>   predetermined
>>       adj 1: set in advance; "a preset plan of action"; "at a
>>              predetermined time" [syn: {preset}, {predetermined}]
>>
>>>               For all I know the future Universe is totally predetermined
>>> (and we have no free will but just an illusion of free will) but that doesn't
>>> imply that God or any other entity consciously created a plan of how the
>>> Universe will unfold. The predetermination would come from the initial
>>> conditions and laws of the Universe.
>>> (For the purposes of this discussion i'm ignoring the complexities about
>>> pre-determination introduced by our poor understanding of the meaning of
>>> Quantum theory and treating the Universe as a classical system).
>> I just totally disagree with that meaning of predetermined.
>>
>> For example: the end-result of computer simulations are not
>> predetermined before the sim is run.
>>
> 
> The conclusion of the sim will be shown to have resulted from our
> "preset plan of action" whether that plan was sound or flawed. The

Unless there's a RNG in there to simulate unpredictable external
variables.

> result was "foredoomed." It was "set in advance" and we can trace the
> logic back to the beginning and see how the result was obtained.
> What's your disagreement? That we didn't know the result in advance?
> The definition does not require us to read the future, only the past.
> 


-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/06/07 12:57, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <fbpdrb$oa0$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>,
> 	david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>> A lot of science fiction ideas may well be feasible but the method by which
>> they are accomplished will in the majority of cases be far different from that
>> envisaged by the scifi author. We went to the moon but we didn't use a cannon
>> like Jules Verne (though in other respects Verne was fairly accurate).
> 
> There are some who would disagree with your idea regarding wether or not
> we used a cannon.  Have you ever seen the quote from Chuck Yeager about
> why he turned down the opportunity to be one of the first astronauts?

No.

But a cannon and a rocket are polar opposites.  One uses fluid
dynamics and the other Newton's 3rd Law.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On Sep 5, 9:48 pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <1189033960.111680.170...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 4, 9:38 pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> >> In article <1188953048.290434.30...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> {...snip...}
>
> >> >> I happen to prefer every inch of my member, as does Mrs. VAXman,  so if you
> >> >> don't mind, I'll opt out of your barbaric heathen ritual of body mutilation.
>
> >> >Why did you make this incredibly inaccurate, ignorant, insulting
> >> >remark? No one is asking anything of you.
>
> >> I don't see how it is inaccurate or ignorant or insulting?  I happen to
> >> feel that tattooing is just as barbaric and heathen as body mutilation.
>
> >The depth of your ignorance on this matter is beyond astonishing.
>
> Precisely what would you have me google?

Uh, circumcision? Check wikipedia while you're at it. Is that really
beyond you?

> I voiced my opinion of a barbaric and heathen ritual and for that you call
> me ignorant and insulting.  Please explain.

You don't deserve an explanation.

*** MAXIMUM PLONK!!! ***

>
> --
> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
>
[STUPID SIG OMITTED]

AEF

On Sep 6, 5:42 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 09/06/07 14:51, Doug Phillips wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 6, 1:21 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On 09/06/07 11:00, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>
> >>> In article <7_zDi.246902$dA7.32...@newsfe16.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
> >>>> On 09/05/07 08:08, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> >>>>> In article <1188944683.389501.295...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, ultra...@gmail.com writes:
> >>>>>> On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
> >>>>>> Koehler) wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <1188926008.865710.82...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
> >>>>>>>> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
> >>>>>>>> he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
> >>>>>>>    But he did change his mind.  He sent his only son to implement the
> >>>>>>>    changes.
> >>>>>> no He did not ... that was planned all along ...
> >>>>>> God knows the future ... read revelation and Daniel
> >>>>>> and other prophecies and they are happening right
> >>>>>> now before your very eyes ...
> >>>>> If he knows the future (which he obviously should being omniscient) then
> >>>>> everything is predetermined and hence our free-will is an illusion.
> >>>> Not true.
> >>>> "Predetermined" implies a consciously-created pre-set plan of action.
> >>> No it doesn't.
> >> And I disagree.
>
> >> $ dict predetermined
> >> 3 definitions found
>
> >> From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
> >> [gcide]:
>
> >>   Predetermine \Pre`de*ter"mine\, v. t. [imp. & p. p.
> >>      {Predetermined}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Predermining}.] [Pref. pre-
> >>      + determine: cf. F. pr['e]d['e]terminer.]
> >>      1. To determine (something) beforehand. --Sir M. Hale.
> >>         [1913 Webster]
>
> >>      2. To doom by previous decree; to foredoom.
> >>         [1913 Webster]
>
> >> From WordNet (r) 2.1 (2005) [wn]:
>
> >>   predetermined
> >>       adj 1: set in advance; "a preset plan of action"; "at a
> >>              predetermined time" [syn: {preset}, {predetermined}]
>
> >>>               For all I know the future Universe is totally predetermined
> >>> (and we have no free will but just an illusion of free will) but that doesn't
> >>> imply that God or any other entity consciously created a plan of how the
> >>> Universe will unfold. The predetermination would come from the initial
> >>> conditions and laws of the Universe.
> >>> (For the purposes of this discussion i'm ignoring the complexities about
> >>> pre-determination introduced by our poor understanding of the meaning of
> >>> Quantum theory and treating the Universe as a classical system).
> >> I just totally disagree with that meaning of predetermined.
>
> >> For example: the end-result of computer simulations are not
> >> predetermined before the sim is run.
>
> > The conclusion of the sim will be shown to have resulted from our
> > "preset plan of action" whether that plan was sound or flawed. The
>
> Unless there's a RNG in there to simulate unpredictable external
> variables.
>

Which would then be part of our "preset plan of action" and the result
would reflect the conditions we "set in advance" for the sim. What is
your point? Your straw-man is naked.

> > result was "foredoomed." It was "set in advance" and we can trace the
> > logic back to the beginning and see how the result was obtained.
> > What's your disagreement? That we didn't know the result in advance?
> > The definition does not require us to read the future, only the past.
>

Not a response to VAXMAN in particular, but I have to attach this to
the thread somewhere.

If you look in the circumcision article in wikipedia you will see that
contrary to VAXMAN's assertion, the length of the member is unchanged.
(Why he thought otherwise is beyond me.)

You will also find some health benefits, including inhibiting the
spread of AIDS. Hardly "barbaric". In fact I remember reading an
article in the NY Times (might have been an Op-ed) about men in Africa
lining up for the operation to reduce their chances of getting AIDS.

>From the article

[begin quote]
HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases

Three randomised control trials published since 2005 confirm that
adult male circumcision results in a 50-60% reduction in risk of HIV
transmission from female to male.[80] In 2007, the World Health
Organisation and UNAIDS recommended that male circumcision should now
be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention,[2]
but emphasised that it does not provide complete protection against
HIV infection.[81]

McCoombe et al. stated that a layer of keratin could provide
protection from viral entry, and found that the keratin is thinner on
the foreskin than the glans penis, and thinnest on the inner surface
of the foreskin.[82]

A meta-analysis found that circumcision is associated with lower rates
of syphilis, chancroid and possibly genital herpes. [83]
[end quote]

And the next section in the article describes yet more benefits.

Hardly "barbaric" or heathen. Controversial? Definitely. Barbaric or
heathen? Definitely not.

It is also central to Judaism, and even secular Jews are usually
circumcised. Therefore, to call this barbaric is to call Jews barbaric
(not to mention the countless Gentiles who are circumcised). Even the
most secular Jews take great offense to such insults. I don't think
VAXMAN is anti-Semitic, but I'll bite my tongue at this point.

Didn't VAXMAN complain about off-topic posts recently?

AEF

In article <1189120073.708486.303780@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>On Sep 5, 9:48 pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> In article <1189033960.111680.170...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 4, 9:38 pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> >> In article <1188953048.290434.30...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> >> {...snip...}
>>
>> >> >> I happen to prefer every inch of my member, as does Mrs. VAXman,  so if you
>> >> >> don't mind, I'll opt out of your barbaric heathen ritual of body mutilation.
>>
>> >> >Why did you make this incredibly inaccurate, ignorant, insulting
>> >> >remark? No one is asking anything of you.
>>
>> >> I don't see how it is inaccurate or ignorant or insulting?  I happen to
>> >> feel that tattooing is just as barbaric and heathen as body mutilation.
>>
>> >The depth of your ignorance on this matter is beyond astonishing.
>>
>> Precisely what would you have me google?
>
>Uh, circumcision? Check wikipedia while you're at it. Is that really
>beyond you?

....and just what is it that I am to read?  Or maybe you just like people to
look at the penis pictures there?



>> I voiced my opinion of a barbaric and heathen ritual and for that you call
>> me ignorant and insulting.  Please explain.
>
>You don't deserve an explanation.

You have got one humungous hair up your ass for me.  Typical arrogant NYer!
Just like that other peice of shit that's made my life a miserable fuck for
12+ years to the point where I am ready to rope myself an ending if you get
my drift.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

On Sep 6, 7:44 am, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <1189040986.731316.175...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>         AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > On Sep 5, 10:15 am, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> >> In article <yKyDi.25334$Zk5.11...@newsfe23.lga>,
> >>         Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>
> >> > On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >> >> In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65...@newsfe21.lga>,
> >> >>        Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
> >> >>> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
> >> >>> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
> >> >>> exercise for me.
>
> >> >> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more
> >> >> likely than their existence?
>
> >> > Occam's Razor.
>
> >> > An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
> >> > against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
> >> > Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
> >> > probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
>
> >> But they are just today's notions.  There are a lot of people who
>
> > Hmmm. All of our technology is based on these notions, so there must
> > be something very right about them.
>
> Until someone discovers another notion that explains what we have
> and also the anomalies that don't jive with what we have now.  Or
> have we already forgotten that at one time there were only four
> elements?

The fact that technology based on current knowledge works means that
there is enough right about it to base technology on. That doesn't
mean it's perfect. But when these anomalies come up it usually only
limits the previous theory. Consider gravity. For most purposes, the
difference in the force between the Newtonian theory and General
Relativity is unmeasurable. There is still a lot that is "right" about
Newtonian gravity. The only case I can think of that fits your
description is the phlogiston theory of heat, which was quickly showed
to be very incorrect.




>
>
>
> > While there are occasional surprises (as in the fact that the
> > discovery that weak force violates conservation of parity), certain
> > conservation laws work extremely well. The best are probably the laws
> > of thermodynamics. If you could find a way around them, you could
> > become wealthier than BG. ... Good luck.
>
> > The reality of atoms. That's fairly well established, I believe.
>
> By today's science.  The understanding of even atoms might be
> different in 1000 years.

So, I spoke of their reality.

>
>
>
> >> honestly believe that we will have Warp Drive and al the other stuff
> >> that is science foction today just like today we have what was just
> >> science fiction yesterday.  So you really don't know those are laws,
>
> > I wouldn't bet much on ever going faster than light.
>
> > Based on what we know today, many of these wild sci-fi things are
> > really sci-fantasy. "Well, what about what we don't know?", you say.
> > Well, I don't see any point in basing stuff on what we don't know!!!
> > "Let's see, based on what I don't know..." -- you get the idea.
>
> So, you are supporting my argument.  Someone else has already
> pointed out that many reputable scientists today think it will
> be a possibility.  But our current understanding of science
> says no.

Well, perhaps one should never say never. I should have said very,
very unlikely.

>
>
>
> >> just today's theories.  And, if there is such a being, they're His
>
> > I'd not suggest fitting wings to your arms and jumping off a cliff --
> > there's the, uh, "law" of gravity in play here.
>
> Which is relevant how?  Man defeated gravity's hold a long, long time
> ago.  Today, we tempt gravity just for fun and excitement.

Relevant because you claim our "laws" are mere "theories". I'm saying
(I should have said "theory" of gravity) that you better not ignore
the "theory" of gravity or you'll get very hurt or killed. Hey, some
of those bungy-cord people don't come back up. They hit bottom and
die.

> >> laws and he can do with them as He pleases.  Nope, no conflict.
>
> > "He" doesn't seem to be doing much with them at all.
>
> What did you want Him to do?  Perform a personal miracle for
> you?  The age of miracles is long past.

To prove His existence, yes.

>
>
>
> >> Science and religion only ever conflict when science decides it wants
> >> to be God itself.  Or when certain whackos decide to interpret religion
>
> > Example, please?
>
> You gave one of the perfect one's below, what more do you want?

Then you misunderstood me. The Bible clearly implies a world only
thousands of years old, not billions. You don't have to be "whacko" to
come up with that.

>
>
>
> >> in a way that conflicts.  Reality (as usual) is quite different.
>
> > What? As in interpreting a 6000-year-old world as being 6000 years
> > old? Yeah, that's wacko all right!
>
> There is nowhere in the bible where there is a timetable given for
> the time period from creation to Adam and Eve being evicted from
> their luxury condo.  And, pretty much every other conflict can be

If you follow all the begats there is. Some say creation about 3760
BC, others say 4004 BC or something like that. All in the thousands,
not billions.

> as easily resolved unless one just wants the conflict to be there.

The Bible frequently contradicts itself! There are two stories of
creation, e.g. Some claim two version of the 10 Commandments.

> Trust me, there are just as many conflicts between science and history
> which science chooses to merely sweep under tha table because they don't
> have an explanation.

Can you give an example of two?

>
> bill
>
> --
> Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
> b...@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> University of Scranton   |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

AEF

On Sep 6, 6:41 pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <1189120073.708486.303...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 5, 9:48 pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> >> In article <1189033960.111680.170...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> >On Sep 4, 9:38 pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> >> >> In article <1188953048.290434.30...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> >> {...snip...}
>
> >> >> >> I happen to prefer every inch of my member, as does Mrs. VAXman,  so if you
> >> >> >> don't mind, I'll opt out of your barbaric heathen ritual of body mutilation.
>
> >> >> >Why did you make this incredibly inaccurate, ignorant, insulting
> >> >> >remark? No one is asking anything of you.
>
> >> >> I don't see how it is inaccurate or ignorant or insulting?  I happen to
> >> >> feel that tattooing is just as barbaric and heathen as body mutilation.
>
> >> >The depth of your ignorance on this matter is beyond astonishing.
>
> >> Precisely what would you have me google?
>
> >Uh, circumcision? Check wikipedia while you're at it. Is that really
> >beyond you?
>
> ...and just what is it that I am to read?  Or maybe you just like people to
> look at the penis pictures there?
>
> >> I voiced my opinion of a barbaric and heathen ritual and for that you call
> >> me ignorant and insulting.  Please explain.
>
> >You don't deserve an explanation.
>
> You have got one humungous hair up your ass for me.  Typical arrogant NYer!
> Just like that other peice of shit that's made my life a miserable fuck for
> 12+ years to the point where I am ready to rope myself an ending if you get
> my drift.
>

"I've been bawled out, balled up, held up, held down, hung up,
bulldozed, blackjacked, walked on, cheated, squeezed and mooched;
stuck for war tax, excess profits tax, dog tax, and syntax,
Liberty bonds, baby bonds, and bonds of matrimony, Red Cross,
Blue Cross, and the double cross; I've worked like hell, worked
others like hell, have got drunk and got others drunk, lost all
I had, and now because I won't spend or lend what little I earn,
beg, borrow or steal, I've been cussed, discussed, boycotted,
talked to, talked about, lied to, lied about, worked over,
pushed over, pushed under, robbed and damned near ruined.
The only reason I'm sticking around now is to see
         WHAT THE HELL IS NEXT."

Origin unknown, Quoted from
"The Blue Highways" (William Least-Heat Moon)

In article <1189121582.904033.104480@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>Not a response to VAXMAN in particular, but I have to attach this to
>the thread somewhere.

EXCUSE ME?  Where did I ever assert that?


-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

Tom Linden wrote:
> Just to move this where it belongs, OT
>
> As undergrad (44 years ago, wow!) in a class on History of Science
> read
> History of the Warfare Between Science and Theology, by White (all I
> recall)
> Kristendomen och den Fria Tanken, Anton Nystr�m (assuming you can read
> Swedish)

Tom, er du svensk?
Det var sku' satans :)

Dweeb 

On Sep 6, 8:28 pm, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

Sorry, the blank post was a goof. I'll have a response this weekend,
perhaps.

AEF

Bob Koehler wrote:

>    What century are you living in?  The laws of physics specifically say
>    that is not so and have said that for about 100 years now.

Just because *we* cannot get a complete snapshot of the universe without 
disturbing it does not mean that some "God" cannot. Everything reacts 
according to some logic.  "Random" simply means that we have not yet 
mastered the understanding of what moves a particle to the left instead 
of the right.

In concept, if you could get a total snapshot with a total book of all 
the laws that apply to the universe, then you could predict what would 
happen.  Just because humans cannot do this from where we exist doesn't 
mean that conceptually it cannot be done.

JF Mezei wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> I have pointed out in the
>> past in one of these discussions a pair of interviews with the same
>> man at NASA who on one hand claimed we were accidentally changing
>> the climate of the earth and ont he other hand claimed we could not
>> terraform Mars because man doesn't have the power to change the
>> climate of a planet.  Go figure.
>
>
> Are you aware that NASA, NOAA and other organisations which produced
> "global warming" studies were told by the white house that only the
> white house could publish those reports (giving white house
> opportunity to edit them) and that any interview with media had to
> first be cleared with the white house who would instruct the
> scientists what to say (in order to not clash with the white house
> reports) ?
> Any interview you saw of NASA or NOAA employees was not the NASA or
> NOAA employee speaking, but rather the white house speaking through
> that employee. And your impression of what he had said was exactly
> what the white house's goals had been: discredit the scientists who
> had proof that global warming was man made.

Globalw warming is real, AGW is not measurable. Deal with it, rather than 
resorting to conspiracy theories ... chop chop chop chop

Dweeb 

Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <5ka7hdF2pb4pU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu
> (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>>
>> Until someone discovers another notion that explains what we have
>> and also the anomalies that don't jive with what we have now.  Or
>> have we already forgotten that at one time there were only four
>> elements?
>>
>
>   Those four elements were closer to a religion than a science.  They
>   made almost no testable predictions and failed blatantly under a
>   great many tests.
>
>   Science is not "I guess" and popularity, or "I have a degree and I
>   say so".  It is testable predictions.  The kind folks get Nobel
>   prises for if they find one repeatable sample of test failure.
>

I see, like the climate models then ... ?

Dweeb
>   Yes I know some people will use the word "science" with things that
>   are not testable predictions.  If you have to call it science, then
>   it isn't. 

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <lQz0oGcXF+73@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
> koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>> In article <5ka7hdF2pb4pU1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu
>> (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>>>
>>> Until someone discovers another notion that explains what we have
>>> and also the anomalies that don't jive with what we have now.  Or
>>> have we already forgotten that at one time there were only four
>>> elements?
>>>
>>
>>    Those four elements were closer to a religion than a science.
>>    They made almost no testable predictions and failed blatantly
>>    under a great many tests.
>
> They were the science of the times.
>
>>
>>    Science is not "I guess" and popularity, or "I have a degree and I
>>    say so".  It is testable predictions.  The kind folks get Nobel
>>    prises for if they find one repeatable sample of test failure.
>
> So it is today, thus my reason for saying that hindsight is always
> 20-20.  People today are so good at judging the past based on things
> we have only recently learned.
>

Hindsight is an exact science.

>>
>>    Yes I know some people will use the word "science" with things
>>    that are not testable predictions.  If you have to call it
>>    science, then it isn't.
>
> Even the definitions of words have changed over time.  What we call
> science today they called magic.
>

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
-- someone else

Dweeb
> bill 

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> Richard Brodie wrote:
>> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:46E00296.2010201@comcast.net...
>>
>>
>>> We STILL recognize those four elements.  We now call them the four
>>> states of matter; solid, liquid, gas, and plasma!
>>
>>
>> Only loosely: a couple more states have been added more recently
>> Bose-Einstein condensates and, erm Alaska.
>>
>>
>
> I thought Alaska was a state of mind!

Alaska, a state of being :) 

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <fbpdrb$oa0$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>,
> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>>
>> A lot of science fiction ideas may well be feasible but the method
>> by which they are accomplished will in the majority of cases be far
>> different from that envisaged by the scifi author. We went to the
>> moon but we didn't use a cannon like Jules Verne (though in other
>> respects Verne was fairly accurate).
>
> There are some who would disagree with your idea regarding wether or
> not we used a cannon.  Have you ever seen the quote from Chuck Yeager
> about why he turned down the opportunity to be one of the first
> astronauts?
>
> bill

"Spam in a can" ? 

AEF wrote:
> You will also find some health benefits, including inhibiting the
> spread of AIDS. Hardly "barbaric". 


Note that these studies apply to African men in light of their 
promiscuous lifestyle with many mates and the fact that african females 
are not yet strong enough to require men use a condom.

The AIDS rate in europe (which doesn't perform that operation) is not 
significantly higher than the AIDS rate in the USA (where that operation 
was/is part of culture and widespread).


And yes, the reasons why the operation is seen as reducing transmission 
risks are known and well explained. But they only reduce the odds of 
catching it, they don't eliminate it.  In the case of Africa, a slight 
reduction in AIDS transmission makes a HUGE difference because the 
plague is so widespread there.

One huge potential problem is that if African men think that getting the 
operation will result in them becoming immune from AIDS, they may become 
even more promiscusous and the spreading of AIDS may worsen.

On Sep 6, 7:53 pm, "Dr. Dweeb" <s...@dweeb.net> wrote:
> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> > In article <lQz0oGcXF...@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
> > koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
> >> In article <5ka7hdF2pb4...@mid.individual.net>, b...@cs.uofs.edu
> >> (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>
> >>> Until someone discovers another notion that explains what we have
> >>> and also the anomalies that don't jive with what we have now.  Or
> >>> have we already forgotten that at one time there were only four
> >>> elements?
>
> >>    Those four elements were closer to a religion than a science.
> >>    They made almost no testable predictions and failed blatantly
> >>    under a great many tests.
>
> > They were the science of the times.
>
> >>    Science is not "I guess" and popularity, or "I have a degree and I
> >>    say so".  It is testable predictions.  The kind folks get Nobel
> >>    prises for if they find one repeatable sample of test failure.
>
> > So it is today, thus my reason for saying that hindsight is always
> > 20-20.  People today are so good at judging the past based on things
> > we have only recently learned.
>
> Hindsight is an exact science.
>
>
>
> >>    Yes I know some people will use the word "science" with things
> >>    that are not testable predictions.  If you have to call it
> >>    science, then it isn't.
>
> > Even the definitions of words have changed over time.  What we call
> > science today they called magic.
>
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
> -- someone else
>

(Arthur C.) Clark's third law.


Dean Koontz expanded upon the idea in "The Taking":


[spoiler warning]
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
"An extraterrestrial species, hundreds or thousands of years more
advanced than we are, would possess technology that would appear to us
to not be the result of applied science but entirely supernatural,
pure magic.
....
A supernatural event of world-shaking proportions, occurring in a
faithless time when only science is believed to have the power to work
miracles, might appear to be the work of an extraterrestrial species
hundreds or thousands of years more advanced than we are."

Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 09/06/07 11:00, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> 
>>In article <7_zDi.246902$dA7.32966@newsfe16.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>>
>>>On 09/05/07 08:08, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <1188944683.389501.295990@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
>>>>>Koehler) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <1188926008.865710.82...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>" He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
>>>>>>>he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   But he did change his mind.  He sent his only son to implement the
>>>>>>   changes.
>>>>>
>>>>>no He did not ... that was planned all along ...
>>>>>
>>>>>God knows the future ... read revelation and Daniel
>>>>>and other prophecies and they are happening right
>>>>>now before your very eyes ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If he knows the future (which he obviously should being omniscient) then
>>>>everything is predetermined and hence our free-will is an illusion.
>>>
>>>Not true.
>>>
>>>"Predetermined" implies a consciously-created pre-set plan of action.
>>>
>>
>>No it doesn't.
> 
> 
> And I disagree.
> 
> $ dict predetermined
> 3 definitions found
> 
> From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
> [gcide]:
> 
>   Predetermine \Pre`de*ter"mine\, v. t. [imp. & p. p.
>      {Predetermined}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Predermining}.] [Pref. pre-
>      + determine: cf. F. pr['e]d['e]terminer.]
>      1. To determine (something) beforehand. --Sir M. Hale.
>         [1913 Webster]
> 
>      2. To doom by previous decree; to foredoom.
>         [1913 Webster]
> 
> From WordNet (r) 2.1 (2005) [wn]:
> 
>   predetermined
>       adj 1: set in advance; "a preset plan of action"; "at a
>              predetermined time" [syn: {preset}, {predetermined}]
> 
> 
>>              For all I know the future Universe is totally predetermined
>>(and we have no free will but just an illusion of free will) but that doesn't 
>>imply that God or any other entity consciously created a plan of how the 
>>Universe will unfold. The predetermination would come from the initial
>>conditions and laws of the Universe. 
>>(For the purposes of this discussion i'm ignoring the complexities about 
>>pre-determination introduced by our poor understanding of the meaning of 
>>Quantum theory and treating the Universe as a classical system).
> 
> 
> I just totally disagree with that meaning of predetermined.
> 
> For example: the end-result of computer simulations are not
> predetermined before the sim is run.
> 

The results ARE predetermined but they may not be KNOWN in advance!

Dr. Dweeb wrote:
> Globalw warming is real, AGW is not measurable. Deal with it, rather than 
> resorting to conspiracy theories ... chop chop chop chop

I understand that americans have difficulty accepting that their 
government lied to them, but the white house policy of forcing all 
global warming documents and public discussions be funelled through them 
is not a conspiracy theory. it is a fact, and many of the now former 
white house employees have admitted so to foreign media.

Doug Phillips wrote:
> "An extraterrestrial species, hundreds or thousands of years more
> advanced than we are, would possess technology that would appear to us
> to not be the result of applied science but entirely supernatural,
> pure magic.

This would definitely have been true until a couple decades ago.  But 
with advances in hollywood special effects , sci-fi TV and movies have 
give us "normality" in many science fiction concepts.

If some advanced beings landed here and they didn't have transporters, 
we'd say "what, you don't yet have transporters ?" ?

We wouldn't think what they are doing is magic, we'd ask "how did they 
do that ?" or "how does this work".

Yes, we'd be amazed at their technology, but we would know it was 
technology.

On 09/06/07 18:07, AEF wrote:
> On Sep 5, 9:48 pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> In article <1189033960.111680.170...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 4, 9:38 pm, VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>>> In article <1188953048.290434.30...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> {...snip...}
>>>>>> I happen to prefer every inch of my member, as does Mrs. VAXman,  so if you
>>>>>> don't mind, I'll opt out of your barbaric heathen ritual of body mutilation.
>>>>> Why did you make this incredibly inaccurate, ignorant, insulting
>>>>> remark? No one is asking anything of you.
>>>> I don't see how it is inaccurate or ignorant or insulting?  I happen to
>>>> feel that tattooing is just as barbaric and heathen as body mutilation.
>>> The depth of your ignorance on this matter is beyond astonishing.
>> Precisely what would you have me google?
> 
> Uh, circumcision? Check wikipedia while you're at it. Is that really
> beyond you?
> 
>> I voiced my opinion of a barbaric and heathen ritual and for that you call
>> me ignorant and insulting.  Please explain.
> 
> You don't deserve an explanation.
> 
> *** MAXIMUM PLONK!!! ***
> 
>> --
>> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
>>
> [STUPID SIG OMITTED]

I'm as confused at your reaction as VAXman.  What did he do/say wrong?

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/06/07 18:33, AEF wrote:
> Not a response to VAXMAN in particular, but I have to attach this to
> the thread somewhere.
> 
> If you look in the circumcision article in wikipedia you will see that
> contrary to VAXMAN's assertion, the length of the member is unchanged.
> (Why he thought otherwise is beyond me.)

I laughed at VAXmn's comments, knowing them to be meant as light-
hearted banter.

Unless you're Jewish or of a *radical* Christian sect, I think
you're taking this *WAY* too seriously.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/06/07 19:54, Dr. Dweeb wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> Richard Brodie wrote:
>>> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:46E00296.2010201@comcast.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>> We STILL recognize those four elements.  We now call them the four
>>>> states of matter; solid, liquid, gas, and plasma!
>>>
>>> Only loosely: a couple more states have been added more recently
>>> Bose-Einstein condensates and, erm Alaska.
>>>
>>>
>> I thought Alaska was a state of mind!
> 
> Alaska, a state of being :) 

Alaska, a state of bean.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <e6676$46e0c885$cef8887a$20835@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>
>
>Dr. Dweeb wrote:
>> Globalw warming is real, AGW is not measurable. Deal with it, rather than 
>> resorting to conspiracy theories ... chop chop chop chop
>
>I understand that americans have difficulty accepting that their 
>government lied to them, but the white house policy of forcing all 
>global warming documents and public discussions be funelled through them 
>is not a conspiracy theory. it is a fact, and many of the now former 
>white house employees have admitted so to foreign media.

Not all Americans, JF.  The US gov't has been corrupt for decades as well
as all its minions and associate evildoers.  I trust very little anything
that comes from the gov't anywhere in the US.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

In article <wt5Ei.419988$wG2.53873@newsfe17.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>{...snip...}
>I laughed at VAXmn's comments, knowing them to be meant as light-
>hearted banter.

Light-hearted and yet serious!  USC 18 sect. 116 makes female circumcision
-- appropriately called 'Female Genital Mutilation' -- a crime!  I see no
difference with male circumcision.  It is 'Male Genital Mutilation' and it
should be made a criminal offense as well.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000116----000-.html



>Unless you're Jewish or of a *radical* Christian sect, I think
>you're taking this *WAY* too seriously.

Religions... They all preach sexual propriety but have rituals wherein its
practitioners and fondle and mutilate children's genitalia with impugnity.


-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

In article <cn%Di.303$hP1.2@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
> On 09/06/07 14:51, Doug Phillips wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 1:21 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
[...]
>>> For example: the end-result of computer simulations are not
>>> predetermined before the sim is run.
>>>
>> 
>> The conclusion of the sim will be shown to have resulted from our
>> "preset plan of action" whether that plan was sound or flawed. The
> 
> Unless there's a RNG in there to simulate unpredictable external
> variables.

A seeded PRNG merely adds another layer of complexity.  The result is
still preset.

But yes, introducing a random oracle into an deterministic automaton
can result in a non-deterministic automaton.

In article <2t%Di.304$hP1.4@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
> On 09/06/07 12:57, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article <fbpdrb$oa0$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>,
>> 	david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>>> A lot of science fiction ideas may well be feasible but the method by which
>>> they are accomplished will in the majority of cases be far different from that
>>> envisaged by the scifi author. We went to the moon but we didn't use a cannon
>>> like Jules Verne (though in other respects Verne was fairly accurate).
>> 
>> There are some who would disagree with your idea regarding wether or not
>> we used a cannon.  Have you ever seen the quote from Chuck Yeager about
>> why he turned down the opportunity to be one of the first astronauts?
> 
> No.
> 
> But a cannon and a rocket are polar opposites.  One uses fluid
> dynamics and the other Newton's 3rd Law.

A cannon and a rocket are identical.  Both use Newton's 3rt law.
It's just that the one uses a somewhat larger reaction mass than
the other.

On 09/07/07 07:09, briggs@encompasserve.org wrote:
> In article <cn%Di.303$hP1.2@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>> On 09/06/07 14:51, Doug Phillips wrote:
>>> On Sep 6, 1:21 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> [...]
>>>> For example: the end-result of computer simulations are not
>>>> predetermined before the sim is run.
>>>>
>>> The conclusion of the sim will be shown to have resulted from our
>>> "preset plan of action" whether that plan was sound or flawed. The
>> Unless there's a RNG in there to simulate unpredictable external
>> variables.
> 
> A seeded PRNG merely adds another layer of complexity.  The result is
> still preset.

Who uses seeded PRNGs anymore?

I don't know how VMS does it, but /dev/random on Linux returns true
randomness based on randomness in the motherboard.

> But yes, introducing a random oracle into an deterministic automaton
> can result in a non-deterministic automaton.


-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/07/07 07:10, briggs@encompasserve.org wrote:
> In article <2t%Di.304$hP1.4@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>> On 09/06/07 12:57, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> In article <fbpdrb$oa0$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>,
>>> 	david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>>>> A lot of science fiction ideas may well be feasible but the method by which
>>>> they are accomplished will in the majority of cases be far different from that
>>>> envisaged by the scifi author. We went to the moon but we didn't use a cannon
>>>> like Jules Verne (though in other respects Verne was fairly accurate).
>>> There are some who would disagree with your idea regarding wether or not
>>> we used a cannon.  Have you ever seen the quote from Chuck Yeager about
>>> why he turned down the opportunity to be one of the first astronauts?
>> No.
>>
>> But a cannon and a rocket are polar opposites.  One uses fluid
>> dynamics and the other Newton's 3rd Law.
> 
> A cannon and a rocket are identical.  Both use Newton's 3rt law.

Eh.

> It's just that the one uses a somewhat larger reaction mass than
> the other.

Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden
expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of
heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash
and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.]

The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the
projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person
blows a feather with his breath.

OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of
fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine."

However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/07/07 06:11, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <wt5Ei.419988$wG2.53873@newsfe17.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>> {...snip...}
>> I laughed at VAXmn's comments, knowing them to be meant as light-
>> hearted banter.
> 
> Light-hearted and yet serious!  USC 18 sect. 116 makes female circumcision
> -- appropriately called 'Female Genital Mutilation' -- a crime!  I see no
> difference with male circumcision.  It is 'Male Genital Mutilation' and it
> should be made a criminal offense as well.
> 

Everything I've read indicates that females who have suffered FGM
can no longer feel pleasure from the genitalia.

I guarantee you, though, that I (and, apparently, my son, based on
his actions as a small child) feel great pleasure from the That Area
which was allegedly mutilated.

> 
> 
>> Unless you're Jewish or of a *radical* Christian sect, I think
>> you're taking this *WAY* too seriously.
> 
> Religions... They all preach sexual propriety but have rituals wherein its
> practitioners and fondle and mutilate children's genitalia with impugnity.

The doctor did *not* fondle my son's genitalia.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <eFbEi.27549$Zk5.5836@newsfe23.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
> On 09/07/07 07:10, briggs@encompasserve.org wrote:
>> In article <2t%Di.304$hP1.4@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>>> On 09/06/07 12:57, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>> In article <fbpdrb$oa0$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>,
>>>> 	david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>>>>> A lot of science fiction ideas may well be feasible but the method by which
>>>>> they are accomplished will in the majority of cases be far different from that
>>>>> envisaged by the scifi author. We went to the moon but we didn't use a cannon
>>>>> like Jules Verne (though in other respects Verne was fairly accurate).
>>>> There are some who would disagree with your idea regarding wether or not
>>>> we used a cannon.  Have you ever seen the quote from Chuck Yeager about
>>>> why he turned down the opportunity to be one of the first astronauts?
>>> No.
>>>
>>> But a cannon and a rocket are polar opposites.  One uses fluid
>>> dynamics and the other Newton's 3rd Law.
>> 
>> A cannon and a rocket are identical.  Both use Newton's 3rt law.
> 
> Eh.

Newton's 3rd always applies.

> 
>> It's just that the one uses a somewhat larger reaction mass than
>> the other.
> 
> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden
> expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of
> heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash
> and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.]

That's a consequence of the choice of reaction mass.  Once you
make that choice, pretty much everything else follows.

If you use a single rigid object (the gun) as your reaction mass
then you have a limited time to supply the propulsion before you
run out of barrel.  If you want high velocity you need long barrels
or high speed reactions.

If you use the fuel itself as the reaction mass then
you are not time-limited and can incrementally burn the fuel
over an extended period.  Projectile velocity is, however,
constrained by fuel capacity and exhaust velocity.  If you
want high velocity you need high fuel capacity or fuel with
a high energy density.

In either case you are propelling the payload forward under
gas pressure and ejecting reaction mass backward as an immutable
3rd law consequence.  In this sense, a gun and a rocket are the
same rather than being opposites.

> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the
> projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person
> blows a feather with his breath.
> 
> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of
> fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine."
> 
> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd.

In article <6096f$46e0a043$cef8887a$22486@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:

> Everything reacts 
> according to some logic.  "Random" simply means that we have not yet 
> mastered the understanding of what moves a particle to the left instead 
> of the right.

   1)  Faith never responds fully to logic, and I think that's how
   this thread got here.  So I won't ask that anyone's god follow logic
   or the laws of physics.

   2)  The laws of physics do not say "we can't do this now", they say
   "this CANNOT be done".  There are testable consequences of that
   statement beyond inability to make certain measurements and experiments
   have shown them to be true.

In article <46e0a037$0$21932$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk>, "Dr. Dweeb" <spam@dweeb.net> writes:
> I see, like the climate models then ... ?

   Climate models are climate models.  Global warming is measured fact.
   The theories that go into the climate models are not readily testable,
   but some of thier predictions have been measured and found true.

   Which leads credibility to the models and the notion that some of the
   more dire predictions ought to be of concern.  By the time we can
   prove them it may be too late.  If we eventually disprove them we
   may have lost some economic growth dealing with them, but probably
   not our planet.

In article <af6d8$46e0ca92$cef8887a$21250@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> 
> Yes, we'd be amazed at their technology, but we would know it was 
> technology.

   One possible explanation for both religious experiences of the
   past and UFO sightings since shows that much of our society has
   changed in its reaction to unexplainable phenomena.

   If someone resurected Lazarus today, we'd assume they knew something
   about medicine that we don't.

On Sep 6, 10:50 pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Doug Phillips wrote:
> > "An extraterrestrial species, hundreds or thousands of years more
> > advanced than we are, would possess technology that would appear to us
> > to not be the result of applied science but entirely supernatural,
> > pure magic.
>
> This would definitely have been true until a couple decades ago.  But
> with advances in hollywood special effects , sci-fi TV and movies have
> give us "normality" in many science fiction concepts.
>
> If some advanced beings landed here and they didn't have transporters,
> we'd say "what, you don't yet have transporters ?" ?
>
> We wouldn't think what they are doing is magic, we'd ask "how did they
> do that ?" or "how does this work".
>
> Yes, we'd be amazed at their technology, but we would know it was
> technology.

You've addressed the first idea which was an expanded version of
Clark's 3rd law. The "new idea" presented by Mr. Koontz was the second
half of the quote which is the inverse of that law.

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> I see no
> difference with male <operation>.


Mr VAXman, You are pretty way off here. The female operation varies, but 
usually involves the removal of the whole clitoris. The male equivalent 
to that is cutting off your penis at the base. Some also remove the labias.

Note that some males who have not had the operation naturally end up 
with no excess skin after puberty, so such a state without excess skin 
is not unnatural. The male operation surgically mimmicks what happens 
naturally to a certain percentage of the population.

On Sep 7, 7:40 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 09/07/07 07:10, bri...@encompasserve.org wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <2t%Di.304$hP...@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
> >> On 09/06/07 12:57, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >>> In article <fbpdrb$oa...@south.jnrs.ja.net>,
> >>>    davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
> >>>> A lot of science fiction ideas may well be feasible but the method by which
> >>>> they are accomplished will in the majority of cases be far different from that
> >>>> envisaged by the scifi author. We went to the moon but we didn't use a cannon
> >>>> like Jules Verne (though in other respects Verne was fairly accurate).
> >>> There are some who would disagree with your idea regarding wether or not
> >>> we used a cannon.  Have you ever seen the quote from Chuck Yeager about
> >>> why he turned down the opportunity to be one of the first astronauts?
> >> No.
>
> >> But a cannon and a rocket are polar opposites.  One uses fluid
> >> dynamics and the other Newton's 3rd Law.
>
> > A cannon and a rocket are identical.  Both use Newton's 3rt law.
>
> Eh.
>
> > It's just that the one uses a somewhat larger reaction mass than
> > the other.
>
> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden
> expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of
> heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash
> and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.]
>
> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the
> projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person
> blows a feather with his breath.
>
> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of
> fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine."
>
> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd.
>


Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal an opposite
reaction."

You have described actions -- chemicals exploding, gas expanding,
breeze and breath blowing -- and named the reactions to those actions.
Where is the law not applicable in any of your examples?

In article <92689$46e167f1$cef8887a$22566@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>
>
>VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>> I see no
>> difference with male <operation>.
>
>
>Mr VAXman, You are pretty way off here. The female operation varies, but 
>usually involves the removal of the whole clitoris. The male equivalent 
>to that is cutting off your penis at the base. Some also remove the labias.

In some 'female circumcisions' they only remove the clitoral hood which 
is far more akin to the male counterpart.  The point is that there is no
good reason to excise a perfectly good, normal and functioning part of a
perfectly good, normal and functioning body -- especially, without the
owner thereof consenting to it!

There was a lawsuit against a hospital for a man who was admitted for an
operation.  When he awoke, he found he'd been circumcised.  The hospital
claimed it was necessary to insert the urine catheter.  Having been cath-
eterised once when I was in hospital, I see no reason for a knife having
to have been applied to this gentleman.  I believe that a jury felt much
the same.  If his foreskin's removal caused liability to the hospital and
surgical team, why is it not the same for all?



>Note that some males who have not had the operation naturally end up 
>with no excess skin after puberty, so such a state without excess skin 
>is not unnatural. The male operation surgically mimmicks what happens 
>naturally to a certain percentage of the population.

I do not believe in the ritualistic scarification and or mutilation of the 
human body as much as I am against the secular scarification and or mutil-
ation of the human body.  I refused to allow my daughter to have her ears
pierced.  However, as of 14, she was able to go and get it done without my
consent -- how she could prove age at the piecing place is still a question
begging an answer.  Now that she is 20+, she has numerous piercings and a
few tattoos.  I find it all rather repugnant, OK.  She looks like a studded
snow tire with graffiti now.  However, she was of age of consent to do this
to herself!  As repugnant as it looks, I suppose it is her body.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

In article <5katd5F2u9j4U1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
>In article <fbpdrb$oa0$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>,
>	david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>> 
>> A lot of science fiction ideas may well be feasible but the method by which
>> they are accomplished will in the majority of cases be far different from that
>> envisaged by the scifi author. We went to the moon but we didn't use a cannon
>> like Jules Verne (though in other respects Verne was fairly accurate).
>
>There are some who would disagree with your idea regarding wether or not
>we used a cannon.  

Well I can't recall Apollo being shot out of a barrel.


>Have you ever seen the quote from Chuck Yeager about
>why he turned down the opportunity to be one of the first astronauts?
>

No sorry I haven't.



David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

>bill
>
>-- 
>Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
>bill@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>University of Scranton   |
>Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>   

david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <5katd5F2u9j4U1@mid.individual.net>, bill@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
> 
>>In article <fbpdrb$oa0$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>,
>>	david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>>
>>>A lot of science fiction ideas may well be feasible but the method by which
>>>they are accomplished will in the majority of cases be far different from that
>>>envisaged by the scifi author. We went to the moon but we didn't use a cannon
>>>like Jules Verne (though in other respects Verne was fairly accurate).
>>
>>There are some who would disagree with your idea regarding wether or not
>>we used a cannon.  
> 
> 
> Well I can't recall Apollo being shot out of a barrel.
> 
> 
> 
>>Have you ever seen the quote from Chuck Yeager about
>>why he turned down the opportunity to be one of the first astronauts?
>>
> 
> 
> No sorry I haven't.
> 

Did that go something like "50,000 components, each let to the lowest 
bidder..."

In article <KyXDi.39755$Pv4.12282@newsfe19.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>On 09/06/07 11:00, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>> In article <7_zDi.246902$dA7.32966@newsfe16.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>>> On 09/05/07 08:08, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>>>> In article <1188944683.389501.295990@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, ultradwc@gmail.com writes:
>>>>> On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
>>>>> Koehler) wrote:
>>>>>> In article <1188926008.865710.82...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
>>>>>>> he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
>>>>>>    But he did change his mind.  He sent his only son to implement the
>>>>>>    changes.
>>>>> no He did not ... that was planned all along ...
>>>>>
>>>>> God knows the future ... read revelation and Daniel
>>>>> and other prophecies and they are happening right
>>>>> now before your very eyes ...
>>>>>
>>>> If he knows the future (which he obviously should being omniscient) then
>>>> everything is predetermined and hence our free-will is an illusion.
>>> Not true.
>>>
>>> "Predetermined" implies a consciously-created pre-set plan of action.
>>>
>> No it doesn't.
>
>And I disagree.
>
>$ dict predetermined
>3 definitions found
>
>From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
>[gcide]:
>
>  Predetermine \Pre`de*ter"mine\, v. t. [imp. & p. p.
>     {Predetermined}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Predermining}.] [Pref. pre-
>     + determine: cf. F. pr['e]d['e]terminer.]
>     1. To determine (something) beforehand. --Sir M. Hale.
>        [1913 Webster]
>
>     2. To doom by previous decree; to foredoom.
>        [1913 Webster]
>
>From WordNet (r) 2.1 (2005) [wn]:
>
>  predetermined
>      adj 1: set in advance; "a preset plan of action"; "at a
>             predetermined time" [syn: {preset}, {predetermined}]
>
>>               For all I know the future Universe is totally predetermined
>> (and we have no free will but just an illusion of free will) but that doesn't 
>> imply that God or any other entity consciously created a plan of how the 
>> Universe will unfold. The predetermination would come from the initial
>> conditions and laws of the Universe. 
>> (For the purposes of this discussion i'm ignoring the complexities about 
>> pre-determination introduced by our poor understanding of the meaning of 
>> Quantum theory and treating the Universe as a classical system).
>
>I just totally disagree with that meaning of predetermined.
>
>For example: the end-result of computer simulations are not
>predetermined before the sim is run.
>
Yes they are. They are predetermined by the initial conditions and the rules of
the program. The fact that you don't know the outcome doesn't make the result
any less predetermined. 
(I'm simplifying slightly here since to be fully deterministic you have to
consider not just the program and initial conditions but also any additional
input from an external source during the programs running eg user input,
timing sensitivity of the hardware running the simulation eg multiple processes
updating the same data at the same time and hardware errors. 
)


The classical ie Newtonian Universe is a clockwork Universe which is 
theoretically completely deterministic.

Pierre-Simon Laplace 1814

"
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and
the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all
forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which
nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these
data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the
greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an
intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be
present before its eyes.
"
 
In practise there are many situations where even slight changes in initial
conditions result in wildy different behaviour emerging ie Chaotic systems
but for any given set of initial conditions the behaviour is fully
deterministic.  

An omniscient God would be in the position of Laplace's intellect and would
thus have the future present before his eyes.



David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University


>-- 
>Ron Johnson, Jr.
>Jefferson LA  USA
>
>Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
>Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On Sep 7, 12:10 pm, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <KyXDi.39755$Pv4.12...@newsfe19.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
> >On 09/06/07 11:00, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> >> In article <7_zDi.246902$dA7.32...@newsfe16.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
> >>> On 09/05/07 08:08, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> >>>> In article <1188944683.389501.295...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, ultra...@gmail.com writes:
> >>>>> On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
> >>>>> Koehler) wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <1188926008.865710.82...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>
> >>>>>>> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
> >>>>>>> he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
> >>>>>>    But he did change his mind.  He sent his only son to implement the
> >>>>>>    changes.
> >>>>> no He did not ... that was planned all along ...
>
> >>>>> God knows the future ... read revelation and Daniel
> >>>>> and other prophecies and they are happening right
> >>>>> now before your very eyes ...
>
> >>>> If he knows the future (which he obviously should being omniscient) then
> >>>> everything is predetermined and hence our free-will is an illusion.
> >>> Not true.
>
> >>> "Predetermined" implies a consciously-created pre-set plan of action.
>
> >> No it doesn't.
>
> >And I disagree.
>
> >$ dict predetermined
> >3 definitions found
>
> >From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
> >[gcide]:
>
> >  Predetermine \Pre`de*ter"mine\, v. t. [imp. & p. p.
> >     {Predetermined}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Predermining}.] [Pref. pre-
> >     + determine: cf. F. pr['e]d['e]terminer.]
> >     1. To determine (something) beforehand. --Sir M. Hale.
> >        [1913 Webster]
>
> >     2. To doom by previous decree; to foredoom.
> >        [1913 Webster]
>
> >From WordNet (r) 2.1 (2005) [wn]:
>
> >  predetermined
> >      adj 1: set in advance; "a preset plan of action"; "at a
> >             predetermined time" [syn: {preset}, {predetermined}]
>
> >>               For all I know the future Universe is totally predetermined
> >> (and we have no free will but just an illusion of free will) but that doesn't
> >> imply that God or any other entity consciously created a plan of how the
> >> Universe will unfold. The predetermination would come from the initial
> >> conditions and laws of the Universe.
> >> (For the purposes of this discussion i'm ignoring the complexities about
> >> pre-determination introduced by our poor understanding of the meaning of
> >> Quantum theory and treating the Universe as a classical system).
>
> >I just totally disagree with that meaning of predetermined.
>
> >For example: the end-result of computer simulations are not
> >predetermined before the sim is run.
>
> Yes they are. They are predetermined by the initial conditions and the rules of
> the program. The fact that you don't know the outcome doesn't make the result
> any less predetermined.
> (I'm simplifying slightly here since to be fully deterministic you have to
> consider not just the program and initial conditions but also any additional
> input from an external source during the programs running eg user input,
> timing sensitivity of the hardware running the simulation eg multiple processes
> updating the same data at the same time and hardware errors.
> )
>
> The classical ie Newtonian Universe is a clockwork Universe which is
> theoretically completely deterministic.
>
> Pierre-Simon Laplace 1814
>
> "
> We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and
> the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all
> forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which
> nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these
> data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the
> greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an
> intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be
> present before its eyes.
> "

Oh dear. Now you've opened the door for another battle of dead
scientists:-)

>
> In practise there are many situations where even slight changes in initial
> conditions result in wildy different behaviour emerging ie Chaotic systems
> but for any given set of initial conditions the behaviour is fully
> deterministic.
>
> An omniscient God would be in the position of Laplace's intellect and would
> thus have the future present before his eyes.
>

Like I said in another thread long ago that was probably kill-filed by
most c.o.v.er's, an all-powerful and all-knowing God could have
arranged the big-bang to happen in such a way that no further
intervention would have been needed.

It is interesting to read all of the mentions of Chaos made here since
that thread.

On 09/07/07 09:35, Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <af6d8$46e0ca92$cef8887a$21250@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>> Yes, we'd be amazed at their technology, but we would know it was 
>> technology.
> 
>    One possible explanation for both religious experiences of the
>    past and UFO sightings since shows that much of our society has
>    changed in its reaction to unexplainable phenomena.
> 
>    If someone resurected Lazarus today, we'd assume they knew something
>    about medicine that we don't.

But wouldn't explain why They would come *here*.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/07/07 09:30, Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <...>, "Dr. Dweeb" <spam@dweeb.net> writes:
>> I see, like the climate models then ... ?
> 
>    Climate models are climate models.  Global warming is measured fact.
>    The theories that go into the climate models are not readily testable,
>    but some of thier predictions have been measured and found true.
> 
>    Which leads credibility to the models and the notion that some of the

Which still is /argument by authority/.  Many in the AGW
(anthropomorphic global warming) fall for this form of logical fallacy.

Which is not to say it's not true...

>    more dire predictions ought to be of concern.  By the time we can
>    prove them it may be too late.  If we eventually disprove them we
>    may have lost some economic growth dealing with them, but probably
>    not our planet.

And that leads to the question of how to deal with it.

/Kyoto/ let China and India totally off the hook, and they
(especially China) are *big* polluters.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17039

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/07/07 10:08, Doug Phillips wrote:
> On Sep 7, 7:40 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 09/07/07 07:10, bri...@encompasserve.org wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article <2t%Di.304$hP...@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>>> On 09/06/07 12:57, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> In article <fbpdrb$oa...@south.jnrs.ja.net>,
>>>>>    davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>>>>>> A lot of science fiction ideas may well be feasible but the method by which
>>>>>> they are accomplished will in the majority of cases be far different from that
>>>>>> envisaged by the scifi author. We went to the moon but we didn't use a cannon
>>>>>> like Jules Verne (though in other respects Verne was fairly accurate).
>>>>> There are some who would disagree with your idea regarding wether or not
>>>>> we used a cannon.  Have you ever seen the quote from Chuck Yeager about
>>>>> why he turned down the opportunity to be one of the first astronauts?
>>>> No.
>>>> But a cannon and a rocket are polar opposites.  One uses fluid
>>>> dynamics and the other Newton's 3rd Law.
>>> A cannon and a rocket are identical.  Both use Newton's 3rt law.
>> Eh.
>>
>>> It's just that the one uses a somewhat larger reaction mass than
>>> the other.
>> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden
>> expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of
>> heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash
>> and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.]
>>
>> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the
>> projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person
>> blows a feather with his breath.
>>
>> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of
>> fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine."
>>
>> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd.
>>
> 
> 
> Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal an opposite
> reaction."
> 
> You have described actions -- chemicals exploding, gas expanding,
> breeze and breath blowing -- and named the reactions to those actions.
> Where is the law not applicable in any of your examples?

How is "breeze pushing a leaf" an opposite reaction?

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/07/07 08:45, briggs@encompasserve.org wrote:
> In article <eFbEi.27549$Zk5.5836@newsfe23.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>> On 09/07/07 07:10, briggs@encompasserve.org wrote:
>>> In article <2t%Di.304$hP1.4@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>>>> On 09/06/07 12:57, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>>>> In article <fbpdrb$oa0$1@south.jnrs.ja.net>,
>>>>> 	david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk writes:
>>>>>> A lot of science fiction ideas may well be feasible but the method by which
>>>>>> they are accomplished will in the majority of cases be far different from that
>>>>>> envisaged by the scifi author. We went to the moon but we didn't use a cannon
>>>>>> like Jules Verne (though in other respects Verne was fairly accurate).
>>>>> There are some who would disagree with your idea regarding wether or not
>>>>> we used a cannon.  Have you ever seen the quote from Chuck Yeager about
>>>>> why he turned down the opportunity to be one of the first astronauts?
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>> But a cannon and a rocket are polar opposites.  One uses fluid
>>>> dynamics and the other Newton's 3rd Law.
>>> A cannon and a rocket are identical.  Both use Newton's 3rt law.
>> Eh.
> 
> Newton's 3rd always applies.
> 
>>> It's just that the one uses a somewhat larger reaction mass than
>>> the other.
>> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden
>> expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of
>> heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash
>> and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.]
> 
> That's a consequence of the choice of reaction mass.  Once you
> make that choice, pretty much everything else follows.
> 
> If you use a single rigid object (the gun) as your reaction mass
> then you have a limited time to supply the propulsion before you
> run out of barrel.  If you want high velocity you need long barrels
> or high speed reactions.

Understand that part...

> If you use the fuel itself as the reaction mass then
> you are not time-limited and can incrementally burn the fuel
> over an extended period.  Projectile velocity is, however,
> constrained by fuel capacity and exhaust velocity.  If you
> want high velocity you need high fuel capacity or fuel with
> a high energy density.

Understand that part...

> In either case you are propelling the payload forward under
> gas pressure and ejecting reaction mass backward as an immutable

"ejecting reaction mass backward": understand that part...

> 3rd law consequence.  In this sense, a gun and a rocket are the
> same rather than being opposites.

I understand that recoil is a "3rd law consequence".

However, the projectile is traveling THE SAME DIRECTION as the
ejecting reaction mass.  How is that "opposite"?

>> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the
>> projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person
>> blows a feather with his breath.
>>
>> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of
>> fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine."
>>
>> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/07/07 09:25, Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <...>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> 
>> Everything reacts 
>> according to some logic.  "Random" simply means that we have not yet 
>> mastered the understanding of what moves a particle to the left instead 
>> of the right.
> 
>    1)  Faith never responds fully to logic, and I think that's how
>    this thread got here.  So I won't ask that anyone's god follow logic
>    or the laws of physics.
> 
>    2)  The laws of physics do not say "we can't do this now", they say
>    "this CANNOT be done".  There are testable consequences of that
>    statement beyond inability to make certain measurements and experiments
>    have shown them to be true.

For the past 20 years, I've heard "experts" bemoan the coming end of
the semiconductor era.  "Physics just won't let us make transistors
any smaller!!!!"

And then someone figures out a way to make smaller transistors.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

Ron Johnson wrote:
>On 09/07/07 10:08, Doug Phillips wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 7:40 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden
>>> expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of
>>> heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash
>>> and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.]
>>>
>>> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the
>>> projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person
>>> blows a feather with his breath.
>>>
>>> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of
>>> fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine."
>>>
>>> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd.
>>>
>> Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal an opposite
>> reaction."
>>
>> You have described actions -- chemicals exploding, gas expanding,
>> breeze and breath blowing -- and named the reactions to those actions.
>> Where is the law not applicable in any of your examples?

> How is "breeze pushing a leaf" an opposite reaction?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion>

A more precise statement of the third law can be found there:

"LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction:
or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal,
and directed to contrary parts. - Whatever draws or presses another is
as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your
finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a
stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally
drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same
endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much
towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will
obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the
other. If a body impinge upon another, and by its force change the
motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the
mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion,
toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal,
not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to
say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For,
because the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities
made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the
bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in
the next scholium."

Hope that helps.

(For some reason, your post shows up in google groups but is not
accessible. So, I've copied it from elsewhere and replied to my post.)

On Sep 7, 2:58 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 09/07/07 09:30, Bob Koehler wrote:
>
> > In article <...>, "Dr. Dweeb" <s...@dweeb.net> writes:
> >> I see, like the climate models then ... ?
>
> >    Climate models are climate models.  Global warming is measured fact.
> >    The theories that go into the climate models are not readily testable,
> >    but some of thier predictions have been measured and found true.
>
> >    Which leads credibility to the models and the notion that some of the
>
> Which still is /argument by authority/.  Many in the AGW
> (anthropomorphic global warming) fall for this form of logical fallacy.


Anthropomorphic Global Warming: The earth has an infection which is
causing a fever.

Anthropogenic Global Warming: Mankind is the infection. ;-)

On 09/07/07 16:48, Doug Phillips wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2:58 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 09/07/07 09:30, Bob Koehler wrote:
>>
>>> In article <...>, "Dr. Dweeb" <s...@dweeb.net> writes:
>>>> I see, like the climate models then ... ?
>>>    Climate models are climate models.  Global warming is measured fact.
>>>    The theories that go into the climate models are not readily testable,
>>>    but some of thier predictions have been measured and found true.
>>>    Which leads credibility to the models and the notion that some of the
>> Which still is /argument by authority/.  Many in the AGW
>> (anthropomorphic global warming) fall for this form of logical fallacy.
> 
> 
> Anthropomorphic Global Warming: The earth has an infection which is
> causing a fever.

???

Anthro- man
morph - change

I was still wrong, though.  It is Anthropogenic.

> Anthropogenic Global Warming: Mankind is the infection. ;-)
> 
> 


-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On Sep 7, 5:10 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 09/07/07 16:48, Doug Phillips wrote:
>
> > On Sep 7, 2:58 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On 09/07/07 09:30, Bob Koehler wrote:
>
> >>> In article <...>, "Dr. Dweeb" <s...@dweeb.net> writes:
> >>>> I see, like the climate models then ... ?
> >>>    Climate models are climate models.  Global warming is measured fact.
> >>>    The theories that go into the climate models are not readily testable,
> >>>    but some of thier predictions have been measured and found true.
> >>>    Which leads credibility to the models and the notion that some of the
> >> Which still is /argument by authority/.  Many in the AGW
> >> (anthropomorphic global warming) fall for this form of logical fallacy.
>
> > Anthropomorphic Global Warming: The earth has an infection which is
> > causing a fever.
>
> ???
>
> Anthro- man
> morph - change
>

Wiki: "Anthropomorphism is the attribution of uniquely human
characteristics and qualities to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects,
or natural or supernatural phenomena. ..."

> I was still wrong, though.  It is Anthropogenic.
>
> > Anthropogenic Global Warming: Mankind is the infection. ;-)
>

I hoped you'd take as humorous. Far be it from me to ever criticize
anyone for a typo -- if I ever get through a day without making a
mistake, it'll be because haven't done anything (which could be a
mistake, so make that: it'll be because I'm dead;-)

On 09/07/07 16:27, Doug Phillips wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 09/07/07 10:08, Doug Phillips wrote:
>>> On Sep 7, 7:40 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden
>>>> expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of
>>>> heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash
>>>> and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.]
>>>>
>>>> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the
>>>> projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person
>>>> blows a feather with his breath.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of
>>>> fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine."
>>>>
>>>> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd.
>>>>
>>> Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal an opposite
>>> reaction."
>>>
>>> You have described actions -- chemicals exploding, gas expanding,
>>> breeze and breath blowing -- and named the reactions to those actions.
>>> Where is the law not applicable in any of your examples?
> 
>> How is "breeze pushing a leaf" an opposite reaction?
> 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion>
> 
> A more precise statement of the third law can be found there:
> 
> "LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction:
> or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal,
> and directed to contrary parts. - Whatever draws or presses another is
> as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your
> finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a
> stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally
> drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same
> endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much
> towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will
> obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the
> other. If a body impinge upon another, and by its force change the
> motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the
> mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion,
> toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal,
> not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to
> say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For,
> because the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities
> made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the
> bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in
> the next scholium."
> 
> Hope that helps.

It does.  The ground pushes up against me as I walk, the table
pushes up against the book, etc.

But it does not (yet, to me) explain the "excess" force from the
expanding gas which accelerates the projectile down the barrel.

Another example: it is N3 that keeps a stationary rubber ball *on*
the table, but it is the "excess" force from gravity, a throwing
arm, what the ball and table are made of, etc, which causes it to
bounce back off the table.

What am I misunderstanding?

> (For some reason, your post shows up in google groups but is not
> accessible. So, I've copied it from elsewhere and replied to my post.)
> 


-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On Sep 7, 5:23 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 09/07/07 16:27, Doug Phillips wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> On 09/07/07 10:08, Doug Phillips wrote:
> >>> On Sep 7, 7:40 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden
> >>>> expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of
> >>>> heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash
> >>>> and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.]
>
> >>>> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the
> >>>> projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person
> >>>> blows a feather with his breath.
>
> >>>> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of
> >>>> fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine."
>
> >>>> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd.
>
> >>> Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal an opposite
> >>> reaction."
>
> >>> You have described actions -- chemicals exploding, gas expanding,
> >>> breeze and breath blowing -- and named the reactions to those actions.
> >>> Where is the law not applicable in any of your examples?
>
> >> How is "breeze pushing a leaf" an opposite reaction?
>
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion>
>
> > A more precise statement of the third law can be found there:
>
> > "LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction:
> > or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal,
> > and directed to contrary parts. - Whatever draws or presses another is
> > as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your
> > finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a
> > stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally
> > drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same
> > endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much
> > towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will
> > obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the
> > other. If a body impinge upon another, and by its force change the
> > motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the
> > mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion,
> > toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal,
> > not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to
> > say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For,
> > because the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities
> > made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the
> > bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in
> > the next scholium."
>
> > Hope that helps.
>
> It does.  The ground pushes up against me as I walk, the table
> pushes up against the book, etc.
>
> But it does not (yet, to me) explain the "excess" force from the
> expanding gas which accelerates the projectile down the barrel.
>
> Another example: it is N3 that keeps a stationary rubber ball *on*
> the table, but it is the "excess" force from gravity, a throwing
> arm, what the ball and table are made of, etc, which causes it to
> bounce back off the table.
>
> What am I misunderstanding?
>

All three of Newton's law apply to all (classical) motion: inertia,
acceleration and reciprocal actions. (Note that the 3rd law applies
even if actual "motion" doesn't occur because the opposing forces
offset each other.) All three laws apply to what happens in a gun
chamber, just as they do to you or me typing at a keyboard or walking
down the street. You're right that other laws come into effect, but
they don't invalidate Newton's.

In a gun chamber, the force of the explosion is exerted against the
"containment" and the containment resists. If the resistance isn't
sufficient, the force will continue outward until it has been absorbed
(accumulated resistance) to offset it.

The bullet, having an "escape" will not (should not) be able to resist
as much and some of the force will be transfered into motion -- but
plug the barrel and the gun will likely explode if the force is too
great to contain.

    "The changes made by these actions are equal,
     not in the velocities but in the motions of
     the bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are
     not hindered by any other impediments."

If the gun were not allowed to recoil (the direction of which is a
reaction of the bullet's motion) the forces would still interact
within the entire chamber.

I'm sure I've oversimplified it, and I hope I haven't misused any
terms that further add to confusion. If I have, I'm pretty sure
someone will jump in to chastise me and will provide you with a better
explanation.

Hunger and thirst now call me elsewhere.

Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 09/07/07 16:27, Doug Phillips wrote:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> On 09/07/07 10:08, Doug Phillips wrote:
>>>> On Sep 7, 7:40 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden
>>>>> expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of
>>>>> heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash
>>>>> and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.]
>>>>>
>>>>> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the
>>>>> projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person
>>>>> blows a feather with his breath.
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of
>>>>> fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine."
>>>>>
>>>>> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd.
>>>>>
>>>> Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal an opposite
>>>> reaction."
>>>>
>>>> You have described actions -- chemicals exploding, gas expanding,
>>>> breeze and breath blowing -- and named the reactions to those actions.
>>>> Where is the law not applicable in any of your examples?
>>> How is "breeze pushing a leaf" an opposite reaction?
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion>
>>
>> A more precise statement of the third law can be found there:
>>
>> "LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction:
>> or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal,
>> and directed to contrary parts. - Whatever draws or presses another is
>> as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your
>> finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a
>> stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally
>> drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same
>> endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much
>> towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will
>> obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the
>> other. If a body impinge upon another, and by its force change the
>> motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the
>> mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion,
>> toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal,
>> not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to
>> say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For,
>> because the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities
>> made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the
>> bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in
>> the next scholium."
>>
>> Hope that helps.
> 
> It does.  The ground pushes up against me as I walk, the table
> pushes up against the book, etc.
> 
> But it does not (yet, to me) explain the "excess" force from the
> expanding gas which accelerates the projectile down the barrel.
> 
> Another example: it is N3 that keeps a stationary rubber ball *on*
> the table, but it is the "excess" force from gravity, a throwing
> arm, what the ball and table are made of, etc, which causes it to
> bounce back off the table.
> 
> What am I misunderstanding?

The gun barrel is open at one end (hopefully 8-) ) at the time
propellant in the bullet (shell) is burning. The resistance to
displacement exhibited by the gun barrel walls, stiff and unmoving 8-) )
versus the lack of resistance (in a vacuum) or very low value of
resistance to displacement exhibited by the column of air in the gun's
barrel when compared to the resistance of the barrel's walls, forces (no
pun intended 8-) ) the bullet to move toward the barrel's open end as
the burning propellant produces expanding gas pressure. For a short time
before the propellant is totally consumed the resulting gas pressure is
uniformly and equally applied to the barrel walls and the base of the
bullet. The barrels walls do not move (much 8-) ), the bullet can and
does.

A rocket motor operates in exactly the same fashion. The rocket's burn
chamber is enclosed by walls in all directions except for the opening
that leads to the nozzle. These walls resist displacement by the gas
pressure created by burning the rocket motor's propellant. The gas
pressure opposite the nozzle opening is what propels the rocket motor
(and the stuff attached to it 8-) ) in the same direction as that
exerted gas pressure. This force is why a rocket motor can operate in a
vacuum. The exhaust gases leaving the motor via the exhaust nozzle do
not 'push' against the atmosphere to move the rocket, there being no
'air' in outer space.

> 
>> (For some reason, your post shows up in google groups but is not
>> accessible. So, I've copied it from elsewhere and replied to my post.)
>>
> 
> 

Jeff

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On 09/07/07 17:22, Doug Phillips wrote:
> On Sep 7, 5:10 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 09/07/07 16:48, Doug Phillips wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 7, 2:58 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On 09/07/07 09:30, Bob Koehler wrote:
>>>>> In article <...>, "Dr. Dweeb" <s...@dweeb.net> writes:
>>>>>> I see, like the climate models then ... ?
>>>>>    Climate models are climate models.  Global warming is measured fact.
>>>>>    The theories that go into the climate models are not readily testable,
>>>>>    but some of thier predictions have been measured and found true.
>>>>>    Which leads credibility to the models and the notion that some of the
>>>> Which still is /argument by authority/.  Many in the AGW
>>>> (anthropomorphic global warming) fall for this form of logical fallacy.
>>> Anthropomorphic Global Warming: The earth has an infection which is
>>> causing a fever.
>> ???
>>
>> Anthro- man
>> morph - change
>>
> 
> Wiki: "Anthropomorphism is the attribution of uniquely human
> characteristics and qualities to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects,
> or natural or supernatural phenomena. ..."

That's essentially how I learned it.  "Change an X into a human."

>> I was still wrong, though.  It is Anthropogenic.
>>
>>> Anthropogenic Global Warming: Mankind is the infection. ;-)
> 
> I hoped you'd take as humorous. Far be it from me to ever criticize
> anyone for a typo -- if I ever get through a day without making a
> mistake, it'll be because haven't done anything (which could be a
> mistake, so make that: it'll be because I'm dead;-)
> 


-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/07/07 18:27, Doug Phillips wrote:
> On Sep 7, 5:23 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 09/07/07 16:27, Doug Phillips wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>> On 09/07/07 10:08, Doug Phillips wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 7, 7:40 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden
>>>>>> expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of
>>>>>> heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash
>>>>>> and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.]
>>>>>> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the
>>>>>> projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person
>>>>>> blows a feather with his breath.
>>>>>> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of
>>>>>> fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine."
>>>>>> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd.
>>>>> Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal an opposite
>>>>> reaction."
>>>>> You have described actions -- chemicals exploding, gas expanding,
>>>>> breeze and breath blowing -- and named the reactions to those actions.
>>>>> Where is the law not applicable in any of your examples?
>>>> How is "breeze pushing a leaf" an opposite reaction?
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion>
>>> A more precise statement of the third law can be found there:
>>> "LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction:
>>> or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal,
>>> and directed to contrary parts. - Whatever draws or presses another is
>>> as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your
>>> finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a
>>> stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally
>>> drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same
>>> endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much
>>> towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will
>>> obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the
>>> other. If a body impinge upon another, and by its force change the
>>> motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the
>>> mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion,
>>> toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal,
>>> not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to
>>> say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For,
>>> because the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities
>>> made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the
>>> bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in
>>> the next scholium."
>>> Hope that helps.
>> It does.  The ground pushes up against me as I walk, the table
>> pushes up against the book, etc.
>>
>> But it does not (yet, to me) explain the "excess" force from the
>> expanding gas which accelerates the projectile down the barrel.
>>
>> Another example: it is N3 that keeps a stationary rubber ball *on*
>> the table, but it is the "excess" force from gravity, a throwing
>> arm, what the ball and table are made of, etc, which causes it to
>> bounce back off the table.
>>
>> What am I misunderstanding?
>>
> 
> All three of Newton's law apply to all (classical) motion: inertia,
> acceleration and reciprocal actions. (Note that the 3rd law applies
> even if actual "motion" doesn't occur because the opposing forces
> offset each other.) All three laws apply to what happens in a gun
> chamber, just as they do to you or me typing at a keyboard or walking
> down the street. You're right that other laws come into effect, but
> they don't invalidate Newton's.

I'm not saying that N3 is *invalidated*, just not used by the bullet.

> In a gun chamber, the force of the explosion is exerted against the
> "containment" and the containment resists. If the resistance isn't
> sufficient, the force will continue outward until it has been absorbed
> (accumulated resistance) to offset it.

Inertia and acceleration.

I understand that completely.

> The bullet, having an "escape" will not (should not) be able to resist
> as much and some of the force will be transfered into motion -- but
> plug the barrel and the gun will likely explode if the force is too
> great to contain.

Because of inertia and acceleration.

>     "The changes made by these actions are equal,
>      not in the velocities but in the motions of
>      the bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are
>      not hindered by any other impediments."
> > If the gun were not allowed to recoil (the direction of which is a
> reaction of the bullet's motion)

And that of the expanding gas.

>                                 the forces would still interact
> within the entire chamber.

But the gun *must* recoil.  It's N3.  A force meter on a strong,
stiff backstop would measure it, even if the gun didn't move.

> I'm sure I've oversimplified it, and I hope I haven't misused any
> terms that further add to confusion. If I have, I'm pretty sure
> someone will jump in to chastise me and will provide you with a better
> explanation.

Sorry.  Since the bullet travels   I still don't understand how N3
makes the *bullet* fly out the barrel.

> Hunger and thirst now call me elsewhere.
> 


-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/07/07 21:05, Jeff Campbell wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 09/07/07 16:27, Doug Phillips wrote:
>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>> On 09/07/07 10:08, Doug Phillips wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 7, 7:40 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a
>>>>>> sudden expansion of the material usually accompanied by
>>>>>> the production of heat and large changes in pressure
>>>>>> (and typically also a flash and/or loud noise) upon
>>>>>> initiation; this is called the explosion.]
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel
>>>>>> "blows" the projectile out the barrel like a breeze
>>>>>> blows a leaf, or a person blows a feather with his
>>>>>> breath.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the
>>>>>> ejection of fast moving fluid from within a rocket
>>>>>> engine."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of
>>>>>> Newton's 3rd.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal
>>>>> an opposite reaction."
>>>>> 
>>>>> You have described actions -- chemicals exploding, gas
>>>>> expanding, breeze and breath blowing -- and named the
>>>>> reactions to those actions. Where is the law not
>>>>> applicable in any of your examples?
>>>> How is "breeze pushing a leaf" an opposite reaction?
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion>
>>> 
>>> A more precise statement of the third law can be found there:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal
>>> reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other
>>> are always equal, and directed to contrary parts. - Whatever
>>> draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that
>>> other. If you press a stone with your finger, the finger is
>>> also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a stone tied to a
>>> rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally drawn back
>>> towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same 
>>> endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as
>>> much towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the
>>> horse, and will obstruct the progress of the one as much as
>>> it advances that of the other. If a body impinge upon
>>> another, and by its force change the motion of the other,
>>> that body also (because of the equality of the mutual
>>> pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion, 
>>> toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions
>>> are equal, not in the velocities but in the motions of the
>>> bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are not hindered by any
>>> other impediments. For, because the motions are equally
>>> changed, the changes of the velocities made toward contrary
>>> parts are reciprocally proportional to the bodies. This law
>>> takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in the
>>> next scholium."
>>> 
>>> Hope that helps.
>> 
>> It does.  The ground pushes up against me as I walk, the table 
>> pushes up against the book, etc.
>> 
>> But it does not (yet, to me) explain the "excess" force from
>> the expanding gas which accelerates the projectile down the
>> barrel.
>> 
>> Another example: it is N3 that keeps a stationary rubber ball
>> *on* the table, but it is the "excess" force from gravity, a
>> throwing arm, what the ball and table are made of, etc, which
>> causes it to bounce back off the table.
>> 
>> What am I misunderstanding?
> 
> The gun barrel is open at one end (hopefully 8-) ) at the time 
> propellant in the bullet (shell) is burning. The resistance to 
> displacement exhibited by the gun barrel walls, stiff and
> unmoving 8-) ) versus the lack of resistance (in a vacuum) or
> very low value of resistance to displacement exhibited by the
> column of air in the gun's barrel when compared to the resistance
> of the barrel's walls, forces (no pun intended 8-) ) the bullet
> to move toward the barrel's open end as the burning propellant
> produces expanding gas pressure. For a short time before the
> propellant is totally consumed the resulting gas pressure is 
> uniformly and equally applied to the barrel walls and the base of
> the bullet. The barrels walls do not move (much 8-) ), the bullet
> can and does.

Correct.  Inertia and acceleration.

/Mythbusters/ is always fun to watch.  Firing a 12ga shotgun
submerged in water caused the barrel to explode.

> A rocket motor operates in exactly the same fashion. The rocket's
> burn chamber is enclosed by walls in all directions except for
> the opening that leads to the nozzle. These walls resist
> displacement by the gas pressure created by burning the rocket
> motor's propellant. The gas pressure opposite the nozzle opening
> is what propels the rocket motor (and the stuff attached to it
> 8-) ) in the same direction as that exerted gas pressure. This
> force is why a rocket motor can operate in a

You mean the *opposite* direction as the gas?

> vacuum. The exhaust gases leaving the motor via the exhaust
> nozzle do not 'push' against the atmosphere to move the rocket,
> there being no 'air' in outer space.

Correct.  Purely Newton's 3rd Law.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:48:03 -0700, Dr. Dweeb <spam@dweeb.net> wrote:

> Tom Linden wrote:
>> Just to move this where it belongs, OT
>>
>> As undergrad (44 years ago, wow!) in a class on History of Science
>> read
>> History of the Warfare Between Science and Theology, by White (all I
>> recall)
>> Kristendomen och den Fria Tanken, Anton Nystr�m (assuming you can read
>> Swedish)
>
> Tom, er du svensk?
> Det var sku' satans :)
I lapidarisk stil, St�mmer.
>
> Dweeb
>
>



-- 
PL/I for OpenVMS
www.kednos.com

re: rocket engines

Another way to look at it is to look at ion engines.

ION engines are essentially glorified cathode ray tubes without a 
phosphor plate in the front.

A tiny ion is created, and is then accelerated by magnets out of the engine.

for every joule of energy given to that ion, a joule of energy in the 
opposite direction is given to the "thing" that pushes the ion.

Now, say an ion weights 1 gramme. The ship weighs 1000 kilos (1000*1000 
grammes).

To accelerate the ship by an extra 1km/h, you will need to accelerate 
the ion by 1000*1000 = 1,000,000 km/h.

So, as you push the ion out the back, it also pushes the ship out in the 
front.

In the case of ion engine, it is essentially magnets which accelerate it.

In the case of a rocket engine, it is pressure differential between the 
combustion chamber and the outside which accelerates the burning gases 
out the exhaust. The pressure differential is due to the gases pushing 
against the walls of the combustion chambers and then finding a way out 
where there is less pressure.

Another way to look at it: if you have a heavy rock and you are on sheer 
ice. If you throw the rock, you will be pushed in the opposite direction 
of where you threw the rock.

In article <TvKm+IKGzuiz@eisner.encompasserve.org>, koehler@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>In article <40ea2$46e0317d$cef8887a$11281@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>> 
>> Unless the various laws that govern the universe (physics etc) change, 
>> then the future is already pre-determined.
>
>   What century are you living in?  The laws of physics specifically say
>   that is not so and have said that for about 100 years now.
>
The newtonian classical universe is entirely deterministic ie a clockwork
Universe.

Relativity is even stronger. Two events separated in space which I regard as
happening simultaneously will be regarded as having happened at different times
by someone in an inertial frame which is moving with respect to me.
The only way to maintain a single consistent universe is to suppose that
space-time forms a fixed block and that the "now" which each inertial frame
observer sees is a slice through that fixed block - the angle between the
slices viewed by different inertial frame observers being determined by the
relative velocities of the different inertial frames.
The total fixed block is the complete space-time history of the Universe.
Hence the total history of the Universe is fixed ie predetermined.


In quantum theory (which I didn't really want to get into again) the
Schroedinger wave equation is perfectly deterministic however we don't have an
accepted mechanism for the collapse of the wave function (or even in some
interpretations an acceptance that it does collapse) hence we are unable to say 
anything about the deterministic nature of that collapse.



David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University

Ron Johnson wrote:

> Sorry.  Since the bullet travels   I still don't understand how N3
> makes the *bullet* fly out the barrel.


During combustion, the gases/matter between the start of the barrel and 
the bullet want to greatly expand. But they are not given room to 
expand, so the pressure rises to accomodate this.

As the pressure rises, the gases push in every direction. When they push 
against the gun barrel, nothing happens because the barrel is not 
eleastic and doesn't let expansion occur.

When they push against the bullet, the bullet moves towards the end of 
the barrel. The bases are happy because by having pushed the bullet, it 
now gives them a bit more room within the barrel. But they want more so 
they keep pushing on the bullet.

Once the bullet has left the barrel, the gases can then escape from the 
barrel and the pressure equalises between barrel and outside air.

But as long as there is a pressure difference between the combustion 
area and the oustide, the gases in the combustion area will want to push 
anything in the way of reaching the area where there is lower pressure.

In article <ec5d9$46e2d179$cef8887a$19414@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>
>
>re: rocket engines
>
>Another way to look at it is to look at ion engines.
>
>ION engines are essentially glorified cathode ray tubes without a 
>phosphor plate in the front.
>
>A tiny ion is created, and is then accelerated by magnets out of the engine.
>
>for every joule of energy given to that ion, a joule of energy in the 
>opposite direction is given to the "thing" that pushes the ion.
>
>Now, say an ion weights 1 gramme. The ship weighs 1000 kilos (1000*1000 
>grammes).
>
>To accelerate the ship by an extra 1km/h, you will need to accelerate 
>the ion by 1000*1000 = 1,000,000 km/h.
>
>So, as you push the ion out the back, it also pushes the ship out in the 
>front.
>
>In the case of ion engine, it is essentially magnets which accelerate it.

Magnets?  Or other charged areas to accelerate the ion?  An ion, being 
a charged particle would loop in a magnetic field (Maxwell's Equations
applied here: Curl B = 1/c dE/dt (derivative is partial)).  


-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

On 09/08/07 11:53, JF Mezei wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> 
>> Sorry.  Since the bullet travels   I still don't understand how N3
>> makes the *bullet* fly out the barrel.
> 
> 
> During combustion, the gases/matter between the start of the barrel and
> the bullet want to greatly expand. But they are not given room to
> expand, so the pressure rises to accomodate this.
> 
> As the pressure rises, the gases push in every direction. When they push
> against the gun barrel, nothing happens because the barrel is not
> eleastic and doesn't let expansion occur.

You've never watched /Mythbusters/.

> When they push against the bullet, the bullet moves towards the end of
> the barrel. The bases are happy because by having pushed the bullet, it
> now gives them a bit more room within the barrel. But they want more so
> they keep pushing on the bullet.
> 
> Once the bullet has left the barrel, the gases can then escape from the
> barrel and the pressure equalises between barrel and outside air.
> 
> But as long as there is a pressure difference between the combustion
> area and the oustide, the gases in the combustion area will want to push
> anything in the way of reaching the area where there is lower pressure.

And gas pushing against the bullet is an action-reaction, correct?

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/08/07 12:50, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <ec5d9$46e2d179$cef8887a$19414@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>>
>> re: rocket engines
>>
>> Another way to look at it is to look at ion engines.
>>
>> ION engines are essentially glorified cathode ray tubes without a 
>> phosphor plate in the front.
>>
>> A tiny ion is created, and is then accelerated by magnets out of the engine.
>>
>> for every joule of energy given to that ion, a joule of energy in the 
>> opposite direction is given to the "thing" that pushes the ion.
>>
>> Now, say an ion weights 1 gramme. The ship weighs 1000 kilos (1000*1000 
>> grammes).
>>
>> To accelerate the ship by an extra 1km/h, you will need to accelerate 
>> the ion by 1000*1000 = 1,000,000 km/h.
>>
>> So, as you push the ion out the back, it also pushes the ship out in the 
>> front.
>>
>> In the case of ion engine, it is essentially magnets which accelerate it.
> 
> Magnets?  Or other charged areas to accelerate the ion?

"Charged grids" is how I've always read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_engines#General_design

>                                                          An ion, being 
> a charged particle would loop in a magnetic field (Maxwell's Equations
> applied here: Curl B = 1/c dE/dt (derivative is partial)).  
> 
> 


-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <cn%Di.303$hP1.2@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>On 09/06/07 14:51, Doug Phillips wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 1:21 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On 09/06/07 11:00, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> In article <7_zDi.246902$dA7.32...@newsfe16.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>>>>> On 09/05/07 08:08, davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>>>>>> In article <1188944683.389501.295...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>>>>>>> On Sep 4, 4:50 pm, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
>>>>>>> Koehler) wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <1188926008.865710.82...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,  ultra...@gmail.com writes:
>>>>>>>>> " He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for
>>>>>>>>> he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
>>>>>>>>    But he did change his mind.  He sent his only son to implement the
>>>>>>>>    changes.
>>>>>>> no He did not ... that was planned all along ...
>>>>>>> God knows the future ... read revelation and Daniel
>>>>>>> and other prophecies and they are happening right
>>>>>>> now before your very eyes ...
>>>>>> If he knows the future (which he obviously should being omniscient) then
>>>>>> everything is predetermined and hence our free-will is an illusion.
>>>>> Not true.
>>>>> "Predetermined" implies a consciously-created pre-set plan of action.
>>>> No it doesn't.
>>> And I disagree.
>>>
>>> $ dict predetermined
>>> 3 definitions found
>>>
>>> From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
>>> [gcide]:
>>>
>>>   Predetermine \Pre`de*ter"mine\, v. t. [imp. & p. p.
>>>      {Predetermined}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Predermining}.] [Pref. pre-
>>>      + determine: cf. F. pr['e]d['e]terminer.]
>>>      1. To determine (something) beforehand. --Sir M. Hale.
>>>         [1913 Webster]
>>>
>>>      2. To doom by previous decree; to foredoom.
>>>         [1913 Webster]
>>>
>>> From WordNet (r) 2.1 (2005) [wn]:
>>>
>>>   predetermined
>>>       adj 1: set in advance; "a preset plan of action"; "at a
>>>              predetermined time" [syn: {preset}, {predetermined}]
>>>
>>>>               For all I know the future Universe is totally predetermined
>>>> (and we have no free will but just an illusion of free will) but that doesn't
>>>> imply that God or any other entity consciously created a plan of how the
>>>> Universe will unfold. The predetermination would come from the initial
>>>> conditions and laws of the Universe.
>>>> (For the purposes of this discussion i'm ignoring the complexities about
>>>> pre-determination introduced by our poor understanding of the meaning of
>>>> Quantum theory and treating the Universe as a classical system).
>>> I just totally disagree with that meaning of predetermined.
>>>
>>> For example: the end-result of computer simulations are not
>>> predetermined before the sim is run.
>>>
>> 
>> The conclusion of the sim will be shown to have resulted from our
>> "preset plan of action" whether that plan was sound or flawed. The
>
>Unless there's a RNG in there to simulate unpredictable external
>variables.
>
In computer programs random number generators do not truly generate random 
numbers they generate pseudorandom numbers using a seed. So long as the inputs 
used to generate the seed are the same the same random number will be 
generated.
You could also use a physical external process to generate random numbers but
again this would not usually be truly random. To get something many would
regard as truly random you would need to use quantum processes.

(However as I mentioned in a previous post any relativistic quantum theory 
would define simultaneity of spatially separated events differently for
observers moving relative to each other and hence would for any theory which
posited a single consistent universe - ie excluding the many-world and similar
theories - have to require a fixed pre-determined future for the Universe.)


David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University 


>> result was "foredoomed." It was "set in advance" and we can trace the
>> logic back to the beginning and see how the result was obtained.
>> What's your disagreement? That we didn't know the result in advance?
>> The definition does not require us to read the future, only the past.
>> 
>
>
>-- 
>Ron Johnson, Jr.
>Jefferson LA  USA
>
>Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
>Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <4obEi.295402$5y.136665@newsfe18.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>On 09/07/07 07:09, briggs@encompasserve.org wrote:
>> In article <cn%Di.303$hP1.2@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>>> On 09/06/07 14:51, Doug Phillips wrote:
>>>> On Sep 6, 1:21 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>> For example: the end-result of computer simulations are not
>>>>> predetermined before the sim is run.
>>>>>
>>>> The conclusion of the sim will be shown to have resulted from our
>>>> "preset plan of action" whether that plan was sound or flawed. The
>>> Unless there's a RNG in there to simulate unpredictable external
>>> variables.
>> 
>> A seeded PRNG merely adds another layer of complexity.  The result is
>> still preset.
>
>Who uses seeded PRNGs anymore?
>
>I don't know how VMS does it, but /dev/random on Linux returns true
>randomness based on randomness in the motherboard.
>
Which itself is not truly random.

David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University



>> But yes, introducing a random oracle into an deterministic automaton
>> can result in a non-deterministic automaton.
>
>
>-- 
>Ron Johnson, Jr.
>Jefferson LA  USA
>
>Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
>Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <WAiEi.70483$GO6.26744@newsfe21.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>On 09/07/07 09:25, Bob Koehler wrote:
>> In article <...>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>> 
>>> Everything reacts 
>>> according to some logic.  "Random" simply means that we have not yet 
>>> mastered the understanding of what moves a particle to the left instead 
>>> of the right.
>> 
>>    1)  Faith never responds fully to logic, and I think that's how
>>    this thread got here.  So I won't ask that anyone's god follow logic
>>    or the laws of physics.
>> 
>>    2)  The laws of physics do not say "we can't do this now", they say
>>    "this CANNOT be done".  There are testable consequences of that
>>    statement beyond inability to make certain measurements and experiments
>>    have shown them to be true.
>
>For the past 20 years, I've heard "experts" bemoan the coming end of
>the semiconductor era.  "Physics just won't let us make transistors
>any smaller!!!!"
>
But that is limits of technology not limits of physical law.
Travelling to Alpha Centauri in a reasonable amount of time is a technology
problem. Travelling there faster than light is a physical law problem.
The first is potentially solvable the second is according to current knowledge
of how the Universe works impossible. That doesn't necessarily mean that a
method could not be devised in which you travel at under the speed of light
but reached Alpha Centauri in less than 4 years eg Warp travel, wormhole etc

David Webb
Security team leader
CCSS
Middlesex University


>And then someone figures out a way to make smaller transistors.
>
>-- 
>Ron Johnson, Jr.
>Jefferson LA  USA
>
>Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
>Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:

>  Travelling there faster than light is a physical law problem.


I see people breaking the law every day, they go faster than the speed 
limits :-)

Seriously, I fully understand that a particle accelerator would not be 
able to accelerate a particle to faster than speed of light. The 
propulsion is based on a static item (the magnets or whatever) which 
remain at speed 0 whilst they accelerate the particle. First, the energy 
that is transfered from the static item to the particle may not be able 
to travel faster than light, and second, there is the theory it will 
require an infinite amount of energy.

HOWEVER, if you are on a self propelled ship, going 1km/h below the 
speed of light, is there really something stopping you from increasing 
throttle to go to 1 km/h above speed of light ?

In the case of a self propelled ship, The water you would eject from a 
H2 O2 engine would be going at a slow speed relative to the ship, just 
enough to accelerate the ship a little bit more. Furthermore, the water 
would be at relatively the same energy level as the ship and thus, if it 
takes a huge amount of energy to accelerate the ship by 1 km/h, 
accelerating the water from the ship would also generate a huge amount 
of energy.

JF Mezei wrote:
> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> 
>>  Travelling there faster than light is a physical law problem.
> 
> 
> 
> I see people breaking the law every day, they go faster than the speed 
> limits :-)
> 
> Seriously, I fully understand that a particle accelerator would not be 
> able to accelerate a particle to faster than speed of light. The 
> propulsion is based on a static item (the magnets or whatever) which 
> remain at speed 0 whilst they accelerate the particle. First, the energy 
> that is transfered from the static item to the particle may not be able 
> to travel faster than light, and second, there is the theory it will 
> require an infinite amount of energy.
> 
> HOWEVER, if you are on a self propelled ship, going 1km/h below the 
> speed of light, is there really something stopping you from increasing 
> throttle to go to 1 km/h above speed of light ?
>

Yes!  Your effective mass increases at relativistic speeds.  As you 
approach C your mass approaches infinity and the energy required to 
accelerate also approaches infinity.

Einstein might be wrong but unless I were as smart as Einstein, I would 
hesitate to say so!!

JF Mezei wrote:
> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> 
>>  Travelling there faster than light is a physical law problem.
> 
> 
> I see people breaking the law every day, they go faster than the speed 
> limits :-)
> 
> Seriously, I fully understand that a particle accelerator would not be 
> able to accelerate a particle to faster than speed of light. The 
> propulsion is based on a static item (the magnets or whatever) which 
> remain at speed 0 whilst they accelerate the particle. First, the energy 
> that is transfered from the static item to the particle may not be able 
> to travel faster than light, and second, there is the theory it will 
> require an infinite amount of energy.
> 
> HOWEVER, if you are on a self propelled ship, going 1km/h below the 
> speed of light, is there really something stopping you from increasing 
> throttle to go to 1 km/h above speed of light ?

YES!  According to Einstein's Theory, the effective mass of the ship 
will increase so that giving the ship more energy will not significantly 
increase the speed (velocity) up to or greater than the speed of light.

	m[effective mass] = m[mass at rest]/sqrt(1 - (v/c)**2)

where v is the apparent velocity, c is the speed of light, sqrt is the 
square root, and "**2" means squared.  The main result of trying to go 
faster is that it gets "heavier".  The effective mass goes infinite for
all objects with non-zero rest mass as they approach the speed of light. 
  [Photons have zero rest mass; they can 'travel' at the speed of light.]

So far, there have been no non-quantum (i.e. macroscopic world - things
the size of space ships as opposed to sub-atomic particles) 
contradictions to this part of Einstein's theory.

> In the case of a self propelled ship, The water you would eject from a 
> H2 O2 engine would be going at a slow speed relative to the ship, just 
> enough to accelerate the ship a little bit more. Furthermore, the water 
> would be at relatively the same energy level as the ship and thus, if it 
> takes a huge amount of energy to accelerate the ship by 1 km/h, 
> accelerating the water from the ship would also generate a huge amount 
> of energy.

Joe
Ph. D. in Physics
University of Colorado, 1969

On Sep 7, 5:27 pm, Doug Phillips <dphil...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> >On 09/07/07 10:08, Doug Phillips wrote:
> >> On Sep 7, 7:40 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden
> >>> expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of
> >>> heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash
> >>> and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.]
>
> >>> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the
> >>> projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person
> >>> blows a feather with his breath.
>
> >>> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of
> >>> fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine."
>
> >>> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd.
>
> >> Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal an opposite
> >> reaction."
>
> >> You have described actions -- chemicals exploding, gas expanding,
> >> breeze and breath blowing -- and named the reactions to those actions.
> >> Where is the law not applicable in any of your examples?
> > How is "breeze pushing a leaf" an opposite reaction?
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion>
>
> A more precise statement of the third law can be found there:
>
> "LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction:
> or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal,
> and directed to contrary parts. - Whatever draws or presses another is
> as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your
> finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a
> stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally
> drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same
> endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much
> towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will
> obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the
> other. If a body impinge upon another, and by its force change the
> motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the
> mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion,
> toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal,
> not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to
> say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For,
> because the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities
> made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the
> bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in
> the next scholium."
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> (For some reason, your post shows up in google groups but is not
> accessible. So, I've copied it from elsewhere and replied to my post.)

This third law has now been generalized to the law of conservation of
momentum. (In non-relativistic kinematics, the momentum of a body is
the product of its mass and velocity.) This generalization is needed
to cover electromagnetism and quantum processes. For example, when an
atom emits a photon, there is a reaction force (recoil) on the atom.
But there is no force on the photon. Yet momentum is still conserved.
Additionally, electromagnetic fields have momentum which can be
exchanged with physical bodies.

This is like when conservation of mass and conservation of energy were
merged into one. The former became "subsumed" (if that's the right
word) into the latter.

AEF

AEF

On Sep 9, 12:44 pm, "Joe H. Gallagher" <dtr...@ix.net.com> wrote:
> JF Mezei wrote:
> > davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>
> >>  Travelling there faster than light is a physical law problem.
>
> > I see people breaking the law every day, they go faster than the speed
> > limits :-)
>
> > Seriously, I fully understand that a particle accelerator would not be
> > able to accelerate a particle to faster than speed of light. The
> > propulsion is based on a static item (the magnets or whatever) which
> > remain at speed 0 whilst they accelerate the particle. First, the energy
> > that is transfered from the static item to the particle may not be able
> > to travel faster than light, and second, there is the theory it will
> > require an infinite amount of energy.
>
> > HOWEVER, if you are on a self propelled ship, going 1km/h below the
> > speed of light, is there really something stopping you from increasing
> > throttle to go to 1 km/h above speed of light ?

Yes. You're thinking Newtonian mechanics here. In relativity, the
relationships between energy, momentum, and speed are different. For
non-relativistic speeds (speeds small compared to the speed of light,
say, less than 10% of c), the relationships reduce to the familiar
Newtonian ones. (Even at 10% the speed of light, gamma [the factor by
which things get "weird" (relativistic)] is only 1.005.)

At 1km/h below the speed of light (or any other speed, for that
matter), any additional energy used to speed up your spaceship will
increase the kinetic energy of the ship by that amount (minus
inefficiencies), but the speed will still not exceed c.

> YES!  According to Einstein's Theory, the effective mass of the ship
> will increase so that giving the ship more energy will not significantly
> increase the speed (velocity) up to or greater than the speed of light.
>
>         m[effective mass] = m[mass at rest]/sqrt(1 - (v/c)**2)

or

    m = m_0 * gamma

where gamma is the gamma I eluded to above.

>
> where v is the apparent velocity, c is the speed of light, sqrt is the
> square root, and "**2" means squared.  The main result of trying to go
> faster is that it gets "heavier".  The effective mass goes infinite for
> all objects with non-zero rest mass as they approach the speed of light.

The increased effective mass comes from the energy you put into the
space ship to make it go faster.

>   [Photons have zero rest mass; they can 'travel' at the speed of light.]
>
> So far, there have been no non-quantum (i.e. macroscopic world - things
> the size of space ships as opposed to sub-atomic particles)
> contradictions to this part of Einstein's theory.

The special theory of relativity has been verified to very high
precision.

Note that GPS signals require relativistic corrections to work
properly.

> > In the case of a self propelled ship, The water you would eject from a
> > H2 O2 engine would be going at a slow speed relative to the ship, just
> > enough to accelerate the ship a little bit more. Furthermore, the water
> > would be at relatively the same energy level as the ship and thus, if it
> > takes a huge amount of energy to accelerate the ship by 1 km/h,
> > accelerating the water from the ship would also generate a huge amount
> > of energy.
>
> Joe
> Ph. D. in Physics
> University of Colorado, 1969

AEF

On Sep 6, 10:59 am, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <aJTDi.239234$BX3.39...@newsfe13.lga>,
>         Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>
> > On 09/06/07 07:51, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >> In article <AdSDi.418883$wG2.64...@newsfe17.lga>,
> >>        Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
> >>> On 09/06/07 06:44, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >>>> In article <1189040986.731316.175...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>        AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>>>> On Sep 5, 10:15 am, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <yKyDi.25334$Zk5.11...@newsfe23.lga>,
> >>>>>>         Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>
> >>>>>>> On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65...@newsfe21.lga>,
> >>>>>>>>        Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
> >>>>>>>>> But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
> >>>>>>>>> omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
> >>>>>>>>> exercise for me.
> >>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more
> >>>>>>>> likely than their existence?
> >>>>>>> Occam's Razor.
> >>>>>>> An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
> >>>>>>> against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
> >>>>>>> Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
> >>>>>>> probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
> >>>>>> But they are just today's notions.  There are a lot of people who
> >>>>> Hmmm. All of our technology is based on these notions, so there must
> >>>>> be something very right about them.
> >>>> Until someone discovers another notion that explains what we have
> >>>> and also the anomalies that don't jive with what we have now.
> >>> But that's what science "does".
>
> >> I agree, but someone else said the above were absolutes.
>
> > They are wrong and I am right.  ;)

I was right about the fifth force!!!

>
> And so it goes with all science.  And you wonder why ordinary people
> might question something like Global Warming?

Wishful thinking? Not wanting to sacrifice? Not wanting to spend money
and effort on finding a solution? Not wanting to be duped? Skepticism?
(Come up with some of your own!)

None of these mean that AGW is bogus.

> >>>>                                                                Or
> >>>> have we already forgotten that at one time there were only four
> >>>> elements?
> >>> And there was a whole lot of guesswork unsupported by any (or only
> >>> the most superficial) observation whatsoever.
>
> >> But it was all supported by "the scientific method" of the time.
> >> You say they guessed and didn't support it, but they thought they
> >> did, based on the knowledge and abilities of their time.  Hindsight
> >> is always 20-20.
>
> > And I'd say that they didn't have Science.
>
> Again, like I said, it's easy to do that when you look at the the
> 5th century with 21st century eyes.

The four elements are a result of philosophers, not scientists. These
were guesses that seemed reasonable at the time. "In 1661, Boyle wrote
that it was useless to _guess_ at what the basic substances of the
world might be. One had to determine what they were by experiment." --
Atom, by Isaac Asimov.

You don't need to compare eyes of different eras. If they didn't
experiment, observe carefully, analyze the results to check the
theory, it wasn't science.

And the "fundamentalness" of elements is somewhat relative. In a sense
the four elements (or five if you add aether) do more or less include
everything observable at the time, in a rough sense. Then you get to
atomism which has been proven correct. The atoms come in varities
known as the (chemical) elements which are irreducible chemically. So
it appeared they were "fundamental". But they weren't! With nuclear
processes you can change one element to another (though it's very
expensive per gram of converted element!). And of course it was found
that atoms consists of electrons, protons, and neutrons. So they
weren't so fundamental at all. And even the protons and neutrons have
been found to be composed of quarks.

So it depends what you mean by "elements". (Please spare me the beaten-
to-a-mushy-pulp Clinton "is" joke. :-) If by elements you mean the
chemical elements, then yes, the four- or five-element theory was
bogus. If you mean the most irreducible elements obtainable without
restricting one to chemical processes, then even the current
"elements" are not really fundamental elements and who knows if even
quarks may ultimately turn out to have some structure (that is, be
composed of yet more fundamental particles). Note that none of this
subatomic stuff will have any effect on weather and climate
forecasting!!!

[...]
>
> >>>>> While there are occasional surprises (as in the fact that the
> >>>>> discovery that weak force violates conservation of parity), certain
> >>>>> conservation laws work extremely well. The best are probably the laws
> >>>>> of thermodynamics. If you could find a way around them, you could
> >>>>> become wealthier than BG. ... Good luck.
>
> >>>>> The reality of atoms. That's fairly well established, I believe.
> >>>> By today's science.  The understanding of even atoms might be
> >>>> different in 1000 years.
> >>> Maybe a deeper understanding, but "protons, neutrons and electrons"
> >>> as the building blocks of the macro world Just Works.
>
> >> As did "earth, wind, fire and water" 2000 years ago.  But even then
>
> > But had too many holes.
>
> Well, not in the eyes of the "scientists" of the time.

They were philosophers, not scientists. Did they do experiments to
test their ideas as Boyle suggested? If not, it was not science.

> >> some upstart was positing atomic structure, which, by the way, could
> >> not be directly observed but could be infered. (Titus Lucretius Carus,
> >> De Rerum Natura, c. 99 - c. 55 BCE)
>
> >>>>>> honestly believe that we will have Warp Drive and al the other stuff
> >>>>>> that is science foction today just like today we have what was just
> >>>>>> science fiction yesterday.  So you really don't know those are laws,
> >>>>> I wouldn't bet much on ever going faster than light.
>
> >>>>> Based on what we know today, many of these wild sci-fi things are
> >>>>> really sci-fantasy. "Well, what about what we don't know?", you say.
> >>>>> Well, I don't see any point in basing stuff on what we don't know!!!
> >>>>> "Let's see, based on what I don't know..." -- you get the idea.
> >>>> So, you are supporting my argument.  Someone else has already
> >>>> pointed out that many reputable scientists today think it will
> >>>> be a possibility.  But our current understanding of science
> >>>> says no.
> >>> Actually, they says "yes, we *do* know it might work".  We just
> >>> don't know how to implement it.
>
> >> Just look at this thread.  We now have both "yes it can" and "no it
> >> can't".  Ah, the wonders of science.

Well, let's not mix quotes and call it science.

It appears based on current knowledge that certain things are very
unlikely to happen. (I shouldn't have said never.) Trust me as someone
who has actually performed experiments with relativistic particles and
studied special relativity with fancy mathematics: Breaking the speed
of light barrier looks really, really unlikely. I'd also put
conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and conservation of
angular momentum on the list of really, really solid stuff. Yes, maybe
there is some violation or modification coming, but I think it highly
unlikely (remember beta decay!). Oh, add to that the Second Law of
Thermodynamics!

[...]

> >>>>>> Science and religion only ever conflict when science decides it wants
> >>>>>> to be God itself.  Or when certain whackos decide to interpret religion
> >>>>> Example, please?
> >>>> You gave one of the perfect one's below, what more do you want?
>
> >>>>>> in a way that conflicts.  Reality (as usual) is quite different.
> >>>>> What? As in interpreting a 6000-year-old world as being 6000 years
> >>>>> old? Yeah, that's wacko all right!
> >>>> There is nowhere in the bible where there is a timetable given for
> >>>> the time period from creation to Adam and Eve being evicted from
> >>>> their luxury condo.  And, pretty much every other conflict can be
> >>>> as easily resolved unless one just wants the conflict to be there.
> >>>> Trust me, there are just as many conflicts between science and history
> >>>> which science chooses to merely sweep under tha table because they don't
> >>>> have an explanation.
> >>> Pedantic, but important: "Science" doesn't sweep it under the rug,
> >>> *humans* sweep it under the rug.
>
> >> And what is "science" other than the result of the actions of
> >> humans?
>
> > I guess I'd counter that with "science the theory" vs. "science as
> > practiced".
>
> Yeah, well theory never seems to translate well to practice but it is
> the practice that we are supposed to accept as fact.

Nonsense. QED has been extensively tested over a humoungous range of
distances and energies and there is no known violation. Transistors
work on principles of quantum mechanics, without which we wouldn't be
posting this stuff. It is because of the theories of quantum mechanics
and classical electromagnetism (among others) that we can have all the
whiz-bang technology we have today.

QM predicts the most unbelievable things. Yet it is the only way we
know to explain a HUMONGOUS RANGE OF PHENOMENA. There is no phenomenon
known that appears not to be ultimately explainable in terms of QM
(except the problem of describing General Relativity (a gravitation
theory) and QM in the same scheme -- yet few, if any, scientists doubt
the existence of gravitons with spin 2 (spin being a purely QM
concept) And again, this will not affect climate models!).

***** Please keep this in mind: It is the fact that most of our
technology is based on established findings in science. And the fact
that these technologies actually work as they're supposed to means
that there must be something very right about these findings. *****

> >>          I overhear students everyday talking about faking lab
> >> results in order to "get the result the teacher wanted".  Do you
> >> really think that after developing this behavior during their
> >> training they are going to miraculously adopt the true scientific
> >> method when they leave here?  Considering how many cases of faked

When I did my optical pumping experiment in Grad Lab, I got great
results. In my oral presentation to the class, someone remarked on
what a nice line I had (my data was consistent with the theory). To
that I jokingly quipped, "sometimes the laws of physics really are
what it says in the book". (NOTE THAT I SAID ***JOKINGLY***.) Well,
that aside, the not-so-good results many students get are probably due
to impurities, bad equipment, bad technique, bad analysis. What do you
expect of beginning students?! Experimental science is hard! It is in
general quite difficult to set up a situation in which all necessary
factors are under control. But when these experiements are done with
great care, proper equipment, and proper analysis you don't have to
fake anything. (There are also cases like indistinguishability of
idenctial particles (say electrons) that I alluded to in previous
posts. It is not that we measured them directly to be
indistinguishable -- it is that distinguishable vs. non has vastly
different results, which when checked prove indistinguishability. So
certain things like this have easily checked consequences.)

> >> results I read about everyday, I think the answer to that one is
> >> rather obvious.  Always remember, the most important result of any
> >> scientific exploration, experiment or research is to keep the grant
> >> money coming.  The size of the grant is determined by the result,
> >> not the opposite.

This is part of my explanation for funding the fifth force research. I
heard about experiments with copper balls floating in a barrel of
water, drilling holes in arctic ice and "accurately estimating" the
mass distribution of rocks and water near the hole and such. I was
very skeptical. I was very vocal about it at the time. Had I known
physicists often place bets on such things I would have done so and
made a pile of money! Anyway, getting back on track, I suspected that
the scientists weren't doing their error analysis properly. Then later
we heard about the sixth force! It was supposed to be slightly
attractive (the 5th was slightly repulsive) and at that moment I was
even more certain I was right. The scientists underestimated their
error bars, and their data was in the end all consistent with zero
force, which is the correct answer.

Why did this happen? Partly the jump-on-the-bandwagon effect. Partly
an apparent chance for fame. Partly to get funding! But in the end, it
turned out to be baloney and was properly abandoned, just like n-rays
and cold fusion and phlogiston were. Scientists are only human and
occasionally get carried away.

But in the long run, good science wins out over bad. And the source of
funding makes a difference. If gov't is funding basic research, this
is usually not as big a problem as when a corporation with a vested
interest in the outcome funds some research to make their products
look better. Let's keep this in mind!

> > Now you're sounding like a conservative denier of global warming!!!
>
> I don't deny the existence of global warming.  I do deny the total
> arrogance of a handful of men (who call themselves scientists) who
> not only claim man is the major contributor but actually think man
> has the power to do something about it.  I have pointed out in the
> past in one of these discussions a pair of interviews with the same
> man at NASA who on one hand claimed we were accidentally changing
> the climate of the earth and ont he other hand claimed we could not
> terraform Mars because man doesn't have the power to change the
> climate of a planet.  Go figure.

Uh, we don't have 6 billion people and their industries and products
on Mars!!! I think that makes a difference, no? And the difference
needed to make Mars livable is hugely bigger than Earth's global
warming.

Please keep in mind that the bulk of our atmosphere, if represented on
a typcial globe, would be thinner than the paper on its surface.

I can understand your being skeptical, but based on what you write
about other parts of science I think you overdo it.

> Tell me again why I should take anything scientists say without an
> extremely large grain of salt.  The only interest most of them have
> in science is keeping the gravy train running and you don't do that
> by saying "there is nothing here to examine".

Because if that were appropriate, all our technology which does work,
wouldn't work. Different levels of skepticism are appropriate for
different parts of science. And context matters, too, of course.

Let's not equate global warming research with general science. One is
a very small part of the other. And even if global warming science is
as bad as you say it is, it doesn't mean the rest of science is as
bad.

That's why!

Hey, if there were "nothing here to examine" these scientists could
always become string theorists! :-)

Now, let me ask you this. Consider two worlds: A and B. And both
worlds there is a consensus of scientists warning about AGW. But both
worlds appear identical to the layperson. Now in world A there really
is AGW, but in world B there isn't. Tell me, now, how you would
differentiate between the two? I'd think that in world B there'd be
some credible challanges to the AGW claims made by some reputable
scientists somewhere. But what I've seen in these COV threads (I may
well have missed it as I don't have the near-infinite time needed to
have read them all!!!) is claims about thermometers being located next
to chimneys, or immersed deep inside volcanos, or what not. I agree
that one needs to be skeptical, but I do think you're overdoing it and
not making a great case for it.

BTW, I think the case for AGW is better than was the case for the
fifth force. It is a difficult topic and hopefully we'll get it right,
wheatever the correct answer is.

AEF

>
> bill
>
> --
> Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
> b...@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> University of Scranton   |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

On Sep 9, 1:36 pm, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 9, 12:44 pm, "Joe H. Gallagher" <dtr...@ix.net.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > JF Mezei wrote:
> > > davi...@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>
> > >>  Travelling there faster than light is a physical law problem.
>
> > > I see people breaking the law every day, they go faster than the speed
> > > limits :-)
>
> > > Seriously, I fully understand that a particle accelerator would not be
> > > able to accelerate a particle to faster than speed of light. The
> > > propulsion is based on a static item (the magnets or whatever) which
> > > remain at speed 0 whilst they accelerate the particle. First, the energy
> > > that is transfered from the static item to the particle may not be able
> > > to travel faster than light, and second, there is the theory it will
> > > require an infinite amount of energy.
>
> > > HOWEVER, if you are on a self propelled ship, going 1km/h below the
> > > speed of light, is there really something stopping you from increasing
> > > throttle to go to 1 km/h above speed of light ?
>
> Yes. You're thinking Newtonian mechanics here. In relativity, the
> relationships between energy, momentum, and speed are different. For
> non-relativistic speeds (speeds small compared to the speed of light,
> say, less than 10% of c), the relationships reduce to the familiar
> Newtonian ones. (Even at 10% the speed of light, gamma [the factor by
> which things get "weird" (relativistic)] is only 1.005.)
>
> At 1km/h below the speed of light (or any other speed, for that
> matter), any additional energy used to speed up your spaceship will
> increase the kinetic energy of the ship by that amount (minus
> inefficiencies), but the speed will still not exceed c.
>
> > YES!  According to Einstein's Theory, the effective mass of the ship
> > will increase so that giving the ship more energy will not significantly
> > increase the speed (velocity) up to or greater than the speed of light.
>
> >         m[effective mass] = m[mass at rest]/sqrt(1 - (v/c)**2)
>
> or
>
>     m = m_0 * gamma
>
> where gamma is the gamma I eluded to above.

Yikes! that should be "alluded", of course.
>
>
>
> > where v is the apparent velocity, c is the speed of light, sqrt is the
> > square root, and "**2" means squared.  The main result of trying to go
> > faster is that it gets "heavier".  The effective mass goes infinite for
> > all objects with non-zero rest mass as they approach the speed of light.
>
> The increased effective mass comes from the energy you put into the
> space ship to make it go faster.
>
> >   [Photons have zero rest mass; they can 'travel' at the speed of light.]
>
> > So far, there have been no non-quantum (i.e. macroscopic world - things
> > the size of space ships as opposed to sub-atomic particles)
> > contradictions to this part of Einstein's theory.
>
> The special theory of relativity has been verified to very high
> precision.
>
> Note that GPS signals require relativistic corrections to work
> properly.
>
> > > In the case of a self propelled ship, The water you would eject from a
> > > H2 O2 engine would be going at a slow speed relative to the ship, just
> > > enough to accelerate the ship a little bit more. Furthermore, the water
> > > would be at relatively the same energy level as the ship and thus, if it
> > > takes a huge amount of energy to accelerate the ship by 1 km/h,
> > > accelerating the water from the ship would also generate a huge amount
> > > of energy.
>
> > Joe
> > Ph. D. in Physics
> > University of Colorado, 1969
>
> AEF

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> Yes!  Your effective mass increases at relativistic speeds.  As you 
> approach C your mass approaches infinity and the energy required to 
> accelerate also approaches infinity.

But the mass of the fuel you expell/burn/throw out the back also 
increases in the same ratio as that of the ship and thus provides the 
same acceleration of the ship.

The "can't go beyond speed of light" applies very well when you have an 
external static force such as in a particle accelerator.  That force 
does not change, so if the mass of the ship increases, the acceleration 
diminishes.

In article <9356a$46e41375$cef8887a$19776@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>
>
>david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
>
>>  Travelling there faster than light is a physical law problem.
>
>
>I see people breaking the law every day, they go faster than the speed 
>limits :-)
>
>Seriously, I fully understand that a particle accelerator would not be 
>able to accelerate a particle to faster than speed of light. The 
>propulsion is based on a static item (the magnets or whatever) which 
>remain at speed 0 whilst they accelerate the particle. First, the energy 
>that is transfered from the static item to the particle may not be able 
>to travel faster than light, and second, there is the theory it will 
>require an infinite amount of energy.
>
>HOWEVER, if you are on a self propelled ship, going 1km/h below the 
>speed of light, is there really something stopping you from increasing 
>throttle to go to 1 km/h above speed of light ?

YES!

E = M *c*c

Even a SMALL mass would require an EXTREME amount of energy to accelerate 
to the speed of light.

If you are familiar with the various Lorentz transformations, M increases
too as it is accelerated so you need MORE and MORE energy as you speed up.

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker   VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM
           
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?" 

http://tmesis.com/drat.html

On 09/09/07 07:53, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <snip>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
[snip]
>> For the past 20 years, I've heard "experts" bemoan the coming end of
>> the semiconductor era.  "Physics just won't let us make transistors
>> any smaller!!!!"
>>
> But that is limits of technology not limits of physical law.

These were always presented as *physical* limits that "can't" be
overcome.

> Travelling to Alpha Centauri in a reasonable amount of time is a technology
> problem. Travelling there faster than light is a physical law problem.
> The first is potentially solvable the second is according to current knowledge
> of how the Universe works impossible. That doesn't necessarily mean that a
> method could not be devised in which you travel at under the speed of light

And then people will just say, "simply a matter of engineering",
just like we say now about formerly intractable problems.

> but reached Alpha Centauri in less than 4 years eg Warp travel, wormhole etc

Or photonic travel.  (/K-PAX/ is a *really* great movie.  Most
everyone [except Boob] on this list would really enjoy it.)

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/09/07 11:34, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
[snip]
> 
> Einstein might be wrong but unless I were as smart as Einstein, I would
> hesitate to say so!!

You're drifting towards /argument from authority/.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/09/07 11:44, Joe H. Gallagher wrote:
[snip]
> 
> Joe
> Ph. D. in Physics
> University of Colorado, 1969

When an old physicist says "It can be done.", it can be done.  When
an old physicist says "It can't be done.", it probably can...

;)

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On 09/09/07 07:32, david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> In article <4obEi.295402$5y.136665@newsfe18.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>> On 09/07/07 07:09, briggs@encompasserve.org wrote:
>>> In article <cn%Di.303$hP1.2@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>>>> On 09/06/07 14:51, Doug Phillips wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 6, 1:21 pm, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>> For example: the end-result of computer simulations are not
>>>>>> predetermined before the sim is run.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The conclusion of the sim will be shown to have resulted from our
>>>>> "preset plan of action" whether that plan was sound or flawed. The
>>>> Unless there's a RNG in there to simulate unpredictable external
>>>> variables.
>>> A seeded PRNG merely adds another layer of complexity.  The result is
>>> still preset.
>> Who uses seeded PRNGs anymore?
>>
>> I don't know how VMS does it, but /dev/random on Linux returns true
>> randomness based on randomness in the motherboard.
>>
> Which itself is not truly random.

Actually, it *is* random, because it uses "noise" from the mobo
instead of an algorithm.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

On Sep 6, 7:46 am, b...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <1189041153.907079.21...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
>         AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > On Sep 5, 3:32 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Ron Johnson wrote:
> >> > On 09/05/07 06:52, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
> >> >>In article <KMnDi.69513$GO6.65...@newsfe21.lga>,
> >> >>        Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>
> >> >>>But since it's *highly* unlikely that supernatural
> >> >>>omnipotent/omniscient beings exist, this is all a theoretical
> >> >>>exercise for me.
>
> >> >>Just out of curiosity, what makes their non-existence any more
> >> >>likely than their existence?
>
> >> > Occam's Razor.
>
> >> > An omnipotent supernatural being that goes around "doing things"
> >> > against the understood laws of nature would cause havoc with the
> >> > Laws of the Conservation of {Matter, Energy and Momentum).  And
> >> > probably a couple of others that I can't think of at the moment.
>
> >> I think there's a law of "Conservation of Reality"!
>
> > In quantum mechanics there is what is called conservation of
> > probability. This basically says that the probabilities of all the
> > places a particle might be found must add up to 1, i.e., the particle
> > must be somewhere! There is even an differential equation for this
> > which relates the probability density with the (probability) flux.
>
> Boy it must have taken a whole bunch of science to come up with the
> idea that soemthing has got to be somewhere.  :-)

On a more serious note, in the development of quantum mechanics, it
was necessary to come up with a suitable interpretation of the wave
function. Max Born suggested that the absolute value squared of the
wave function would represent the probability density of finding the
particle. (You integrate this density over a given volume to determine
the probability of finding the particle in the volume.) Naturally
physicists needed to check that this was consistent with the fact that
the particle must be somewhere. Also, they needed to check that a
probability current density (or "flux") could be defined such that the
flow of such into or out of any given volume would be matched by an
equal change in the probability of finding the particle inside that
volume. This was given the name "conservation of probability". If
conservation of probability didn't hold, the given interpretation of
the wave function would have to be rejected. This conservation
equation comes in a differential form (for any given point) and an
integral form (for finite volumes). (So I didn't quite give the full
story in my previous post above -- apologies.)

AEF

>
> bill
>
> --
> Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
> b...@cs.scranton.edu     |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
> University of Scranton   |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

Ron Johnson wrote:
> On 09/09/07 11:34, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> [snip]
> 
>>Einstein might be wrong but unless I were as smart as Einstein, I would
>>hesitate to say so!!
> 
> 
> You're drifting towards /argument from authority/.
> 

There seems to be more than a bit of experimental evidence to suggest 
that Einstein was right!  AFAIK there is NO experimental evidence that 
anything material has ever traveled faster than light or ever will.

On 09/09/07 21:40, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 09/09/07 11:34, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Einstein might be wrong but unless I were as smart as Einstein, I would
>>> hesitate to say so!!
>>
>>
>> You're drifting towards /argument from authority/.
>>
> 
> There seems to be more than a bit of experimental evidence to suggest
> that Einstein was right! AFAIK there is NO experimental evidence that
> anything material has ever traveled faster than light or ever will.

That's not what I said or even meant.

Just because he was very smart and correct about many things does
not, as you *seem* to have implied, does not mean that we should
bestow zen master status upon him.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <BbkEi.239334$BX3.95903@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
> On 09/07/07 16:27, Doug Phillips wrote:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> On 09/07/07 10:08, Doug Phillips wrote:
>>>> On Sep 7, 7:40 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden
>>>>> expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of
>>>>> heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash
>>>>> and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.]
>>>>>
>>>>> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the
>>>>> projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person
>>>>> blows a feather with his breath.
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of
>>>>> fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine."
>>>>>
>>>>> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd.
>>>>>
>>>> Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal an opposite
>>>> reaction."
>>>>
>>>> You have described actions -- chemicals exploding, gas expanding,
>>>> breeze and breath blowing -- and named the reactions to those actions.
>>>> Where is the law not applicable in any of your examples?
>> 
>>> How is "breeze pushing a leaf" an opposite reaction?
>> 
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion>
>> 
>> A more precise statement of the third law can be found there:
>> 
>> "LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction:
>> or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal,
>> and directed to contrary parts. - Whatever draws or presses another is
>> as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your
>> finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a
>> stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally
>> drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same
>> endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much
>> towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will
>> obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the
>> other. If a body impinge upon another, and by its force change the
>> motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the
>> mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion,
>> toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal,
>> not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to
>> say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For,
>> because the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities
>> made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the
>> bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in
>> the next scholium."
>> 
>> Hope that helps.
> 
> It does.  The ground pushes up against me as I walk, the table
> pushes up against the book, etc.
> 
> But it does not (yet, to me) explain the "excess" force from the
> expanding gas which accelerates the projectile down the barrel.

Nor does it explain the excess force from the expanding gas
in a rocket nozzle or in a gun barrel.

There's a chemical reaction that explains that excess force.

> Another example: it is N3 that keeps a stationary rubber ball *on*
> the table, but it is the "excess" force from gravity, a throwing
> arm, what the ball and table are made of, etc, which causes it to
> bounce back off the table.
> 
> What am I misunderstanding?

At a guess, you are under the delusion that for every physical situation
that is explainable there is a single explanation that captures
the essential details and that all other explanations are wrong.

You may also be conflating "explanation" and "cause".

In article <_hFEi.71628$rH6.27721@newsfe22.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
> On 09/08/07 11:53, JF Mezei wrote:
>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> 
>>> Sorry.  Since the bullet travels   I still don't understand how N3
>>> makes the *bullet* fly out the barrel.
>> 
>> 
>> During combustion, the gases/matter between the start of the barrel and
>> the bullet want to greatly expand. But they are not given room to
>> expand, so the pressure rises to accomodate this.
>> 
>> As the pressure rises, the gases push in every direction. When they push
>> against the gun barrel, nothing happens because the barrel is not
>> eleastic and doesn't let expansion occur.
> 
> You've never watched /Mythbusters/.

In the normal firing of a gun the barrel is approximately rigid.  The
fact that in extraordinary circumstances, the barrel is spectacularly
non-rigid is normally irrelevant.

> 
>> When they push against the bullet, the bullet moves towards the end of
>> the barrel. The bases are happy because by having pushed the bullet, it
>> now gives them a bit more room within the barrel. But they want more so
>> they keep pushing on the bullet.
>> 
>> Once the bullet has left the barrel, the gases can then escape from the
>> barrel and the pressure equalises between barrel and outside air.
>> 
>> But as long as there is a pressure difference between the combustion
>> area and the oustide, the gases in the combustion area will want to push
>> anything in the way of reaching the area where there is lower pressure.
> 
> And gas pushing against the bullet is an action-reaction, correct?

The gas against the bullet and the bullet against the gas is one
third law force pair, yes.

The gas in one region against the gas in an adjacent region and vice
versa is another third law force pair as well.

The gas against the sides of the barrel and the sides of the barrel
against the gas is another third law pair.

Personally I find that personifying physical forces and talking
about what gasses "want" to do somewhat distasteful.

But given initial conditions of a motionless bullet at rest near one
end of a gun barrel with a region of high pressure, high temperature
gas behind it and a region of normal atmospheric pressure air ahead,
there's an obvious way for the situation to progress -- the bullet
accelerates down the barrel and out of the gun.

This is a solution to Newton's equations of motion.

There's also a non-obvious way.  The high pressure, high temperature
gasses could re-assemble into gunpowder, the primer could re-assemble,
the hammer could bounce back and latch into place and the finger could
come gently off the trigger.

This is also a solution to Newton's equations of motion.

In article <9356a$46e41375$cef8887a$19776@TEKSAVVY.COM>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> david20@alpha2.mdx.ac.uk wrote:
> 
>>  Travelling there faster than light is a physical law problem.
> 
> 
> I see people breaking the law every day, they go faster than the speed 
> limits :-)
> 
> Seriously, I fully understand that a particle accelerator would not be 
> able to accelerate a particle to faster than speed of light. The 
> propulsion is based on a static item (the magnets or whatever) which 
> remain at speed 0 whilst they accelerate the particle. First, the energy 
> that is transfered from the static item to the particle may not be able 
> to travel faster than light, and second, there is the theory it will 
> require an infinite amount of energy.
> 
> HOWEVER, if you are on a self propelled ship, going 1km/h below the 
> speed of light, is there really something stopping you from increasing 
> throttle to go to 1 km/h above speed of light ?

You can add 1 km/h in the ship's frame of reference.  No problem.
But that doesn't add 1 km/h in a frame of reference where the ship
is already moving near c.

There's a relativistic velocity addition formula that applies.

vf = (vi + vd)/(1 + vivd/c^2)

Where

vf is final ship velocity in some rest frame,
vi is initial ship velocity in that same rest frame
vd = delta v in the ship frame

> In the case of a self propelled ship, The water you would eject from a 
> H2 O2 engine would be going at a slow speed relative to the ship, just 
> enough to accelerate the ship a little bit more. Furthermore, the water 
> would be at relatively the same energy level as the ship and thus, if it 
> takes a huge amount of energy to accelerate the ship by 1 km/h, 
> accelerating the water from the ship would also generate a huge amount 
> of energy.

From a hand-waving point of view, there are indeed huge quantities getting
thrown around in a rocket moving near the speed of light.

Hand waving does not substitute for calculations.
Huge does not substitute for infinite.

On Sep 10, 7:22 am, bri...@encompasserve.org wrote:
> In article <BbkEi.239334$BX3.95...@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
> > On 09/07/07 16:27, Doug Phillips wrote:
> >> Ron Johnson wrote:
> >>> On 09/07/07 10:08, Doug Phillips wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 7, 7:40 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden
> >>>>> expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of
> >>>>> heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash
> >>>>> and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.]
>
> >>>>> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the
> >>>>> projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person
> >>>>> blows a feather with his breath.
>
> >>>>> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of
> >>>>> fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine."
>
> >>>>> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd.
>
> >>>> Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal an opposite
> >>>> reaction."
>
> >>>> You have described actions -- chemicals exploding, gas expanding,
> >>>> breeze and breath blowing -- and named the reactions to those actions.
> >>>> Where is the law not applicable in any of your examples?
>
> >>> How is "breeze pushing a leaf" an opposite reaction?
>
> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion>
>
> >> A more precise statement of the third law can be found there:
>
> >> "LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction:
> >> or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal,
> >> and directed to contrary parts. - Whatever draws or presses another is
> >> as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your
> >> finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a
> >> stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally
> >> drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same
> >> endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much
> >> towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will
> >> obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the
> >> other. If a body impinge upon another, and by its force change the
> >> motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the
> >> mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion,
> >> toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal,
> >> not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to
> >> say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For,
> >> because the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities
> >> made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the
> >> bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in
> >> the next scholium."
>
> >> Hope that helps.
>
> > It does.  The ground pushes up against me as I walk, the table
> > pushes up against the book, etc.
>
> > But it does not (yet, to me) explain the "excess" force from the
> > expanding gas which accelerates the projectile down the barrel.
>
> Nor does it explain the excess force from the expanding gas
> in a rocket nozzle or in a gun barrel.
>
> There's a chemical reaction that explains that excess force.
>
> > Another example: it is N3 that keeps a stationary rubber ball *on*
> > the table, but it is the "excess" force from gravity, a throwing
> > arm, what the ball and table are made of, etc, which causes it to
> > bounce back off the table.
>
> > What am I misunderstanding?
>
> At a guess, you are under the delusion that for every physical situation
> that is explainable there is a single explanation that captures
> the essential details and that all other explanations are wrong.
>
> You may also be conflating "explanation" and "cause".

Don't forget the recoil of the gun. The gases push the bullet forward
and gun backward.

I'm not sure what is meant here by "excess" force, but maybe this will
help clear it up.

AEF

On 09/10/07 06:46, briggs@encompasserve.org wrote:
> In article <snip>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
>> On 09/08/07 11:53, JF Mezei wrote:
>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry.  Since the bullet travels   I still don't understand how N3
>>>> makes the *bullet* fly out the barrel.
>>>
>>> During combustion, the gases/matter between the start of the barrel and
>>> the bullet want to greatly expand. But they are not given room to
>>> expand, so the pressure rises to accomodate this.
>>>
>>> As the pressure rises, the gases push in every direction. When they push
>>> against the gun barrel, nothing happens because the barrel is not
>>> eleastic and doesn't let expansion occur.
>> You've never watched /Mythbusters/.
> 
> In the normal firing of a gun the barrel is approximately rigid.  The
> fact that in extraordinary circumstances, the barrel is spectacularly
> non-rigid is normally irrelevant.

But spectacularly enjoyable to watch.

As is what happens to a supersonic bullet at a 22 degree angle into
the water.

And shooting a 12ga deer slug into a plexiglas tank of water.

[snip]
> 
> Personally I find that personifying physical forces and talking
> about what gasses "want" to do somewhat distasteful.

ACK.  Anthropomorphism is "natural", but can easily confuse the issue.

-- 
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!

In article <1189426372.388487.37070@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,  AEF <spamsink2001@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Sep 10, 7:22 am, bri...@encompasserve.org wrote:
>> In article <BbkEi.239334$BX3.95...@newsfe13.lga>, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> writes:
>> > On 09/07/07 16:27, Doug Phillips wrote:
>> >> Ron Johnson wrote:
>> >>> On 09/07/07 10:08, Doug Phillips wrote:
>> >>>> On Sep 7, 7:40 am, Ron Johnson <ron.l.john...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>>>> Guns use chemically unstable materials to "[produce] a sudden
>> >>>>> expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of
>> >>>>> heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash
>> >>>>> and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion.]
>>
>> >>>>> The gas expanding in the confined area of the barrel "blows" the
>> >>>>> projectile out the barrel like a breeze blows a leaf, or a person
>> >>>>> blows a feather with his breath.
>>
>> >>>>> OTOH, rockets "[obtain] thrust by the reaction to the ejection of
>> >>>>> fast moving fluid from within a rocket engine."
>>
>> >>>>> However... the gun's recoil is an expression of Newton's 3rd.
>>
>> >>>> Newton's third law: "For every action there is an equal an opposite
>> >>>> reaction."
>>
>> >>>> You have described actions -- chemicals exploding, gas expanding,
>> >>>> breeze and breath blowing -- and named the reactions to those actions.
>> >>>> Where is the law not applicable in any of your examples?
>>
>> >>> How is "breeze pushing a leaf" an opposite reaction?
>>
>> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion>
>>
>> >> A more precise statement of the third law can be found there:
>>
>> >> "LAW III: To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction:
>> >> or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal,
>> >> and directed to contrary parts. - Whatever draws or presses another is
>> >> as much drawn or pressed by that other. If you press a stone with your
>> >> finger, the finger is also pressed by the stone. If a horse draws a
>> >> stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say) will be equally
>> >> drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the same
>> >> endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much
>> >> towards the stone, as it does the stone towards the horse, and will
>> >> obstruct the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the
>> >> other. If a body impinge upon another, and by its force change the
>> >> motion of the other, that body also (because of the equality of the
>> >> mutual pressure) will undergo an equal change, in its own motion,
>> >> toward the contrary part. The changes made by these actions are equal,
>> >> not in the velocities but in the motions of the bodies; that is to
>> >> say, if the bodies are not hindered by any other impediments. For,
>> >> because the motions are equally changed, the changes of the velocities
>> >> made toward contrary parts are reciprocally proportional to the
>> >> bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved in
>> >> the next scholium."
>>
>> >> Hope that helps.
>>
>> > It does.  The ground pushes up against me as I walk, the table
>> > pushes up against the book, etc.
>>
>> > But it does not (yet, to me) explain the "excess" force from the
>> > expanding gas which accelerates the projectile down the barrel.
>>
>> Nor does it explain the excess force from the expanding gas
>> in a rocket nozzle or in a gun barrel.
>>
>> There's a chemical reaction that explains that excess force.
>>
>> > Another example: it is N3 that keeps a stationary rubber ball *on*
>> > the table, but it is the "excess" force from gravity, a throwing
>> > arm, what the ball and table are made of, etc, which causes it to
>> > bounce back off the table.
>>
>> > What am I misunderstanding?
>>
>> At a guess, you are under the delusion that for every physical situation
>> that is explainable there is a single explanation that captures
>> the essential details and that all other explanations are wrong.
>>
>> You may also be conflating "explanation" and "cause".
> 
> Don't forget the recoil of the gun. The gases push the bullet forward
> and gun backward.
> 
> I'm not sure what is meant here by "excess" force, but maybe this will
> help clear it up.

Here's my understanding of "excess" force in context...

The scenario in question is a rubber ball sitting on a table.  Or
a bullet sitting stationary in a not-yet-fired cartridge.

There is a "ordinary" force that simply holds the ball or bullet in
place against the force of gravity.

And there is an "excess" force that accelerates a bouncing ball away
from the table or propels a fired bullet down the barrel of the gun.


If I reconstruct Ron's concern properly, he sees people saying that
Newton's third law explains bullets and rockets and bouncing balls.
But he doesn't see anything in Newton's third law to explain these
"excess" forces.

Of course he's perfectly correct in this.

The "excess" force on the bouncing ball is due to an an elastic deformation
of rubber molecules -- the ball is stressed and deformed out of its
normal spherical shape.  Newton's third law is silent on the nature of
the deformation and stresses in the rubber ball.  Hooke's law may
approximately apply.

The "excess" force on the bullet is due to high temperature, high
pressure gas in the firing chamber.  Newton's third law is silent
on the nature of the temperature, pressure and resulting forces.
Boyle's law may approximately apply.