If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
"Dan Luke" wrote in
: "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote: isn't there a politics/ alt.lithium.withdrawl group somewhere to talk about fascism, hillary, GW etc.? I never let an idiotic remark pass. It's pretty much my only firm rule in life. I follow that rule. It's an awesome responsibility in a world containing so many idiots. But it passes the time. Well, exactly Bertie |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
|
#333
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
Bob,
because a simplistic, borderline dumb statement like "Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded" has no basis in science. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
Thomas Borchert wrote:
Bob, because a simplistic, borderline dumb statement like "Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded" has no basis in science. Throughout the entire Clinton presidency Hillary's husband waved a succession of his girlfriends in front of her face. Did she ever cry in public? Not that I can remember. But let someone ask her how a campaign is affecting her and here come the tears. Don't you ladies realize how phony she is? |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
Bob Noel wrote:
No scientist today postulates a beginning? IMHO no one with a grasp of logic and a clear understanding of the concept of causality would postulate a "beginning" to time. It would either be pointlessly self-referential or require the postulation of some sort of meta-time in which causality (something to support "before" and "after" concepts) was still applicable. But that would then beg the question of postulating a beginning to the "meta-time". By the way, I would recommend the following book for anyone interested in the physics and philosophy of time: "Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time" by Huw Price. http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Ar...d_bxgy_b_img_a Tough reading because it requires some deep thinking, but no math. Those with a very strong background in math and physics at the senior to graduate college level might find this book worth some study: "The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time" by H. D. Zeh http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Ar...d_bxgy_b_img_a |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
On 2008-01-12, Jim Logajan wrote:
IMHO no one with a grasp of logic and a clear understanding of the concept of causality would postulate a "beginning" to time. It would either be pointlessly self-referential or require the postulation of some sort of meta-time in which causality (something to support "before" and "after" concepts) was still applicable. But that would then beg the question of postulating a beginning to the "meta-time". _A Brief History of Time_ suggests otherwise, in chapter 9. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!) Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390 |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
Jim Logajan wrote:
"The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time" by H. D. Zeh http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Ar...ions/dp/019511 7980/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a That should have been: http://www.amazon.com/Physical-Basis...d_bxgy_b_img_a |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
Jay Maynard wrote:
On 2008-01-12, Jim Logajan wrote: IMHO no one with a grasp of logic and a clear understanding of the concept of causality would postulate a "beginning" to time. It would either be pointlessly self-referential or require the postulation of some sort of meta-time in which causality (something to support "before" and "after" concepts) was still applicable. But that would then beg the question of postulating a beginning to the "meta-time". _A Brief History of Time_ suggests otherwise, in chapter 9. I've never read that book, but here is a lecture of his that deals directly with the question: "The Beginning of Time" http://www.hawking.org.uk/pdf/bot.pdf As I (mis?)understand it, it postulates what I would label a meta-time (in this case Hawking labels it "imaginary time") that is basically a closed curve onto which "real time" is mapped such that "real time" has a "beginning" and "ending" points on the imaginary time and space surface. By the way, the book by Huw Price that I mention discusses Hawking's views in "Brief History" and Price doesn't agree with Hawking. It appears that Hawking has changed his view of "time" on at least one occasion. |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
DVaridel,
Creationist - In the beginning there was God, and He created everything Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded Hmmmmm Here's the answer I should have given in the first place: Creationist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, so we make up this cozy feeling fairy tale with a bearded guy in it, then we go and kill or oppress people by the gazillions supposedly in the name of that guy, but really for our personal gain, be it economic, political or otherwise. Scientist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, we'll keep trying to make sense of it, but still have no idea, and that's a good thing, too, because "We don't know" is an answer we can not only live with, but one we wholeheartedly embrace. No one needs to get hurt in this process. Hmmmm -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#340
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
"Thomas Borchert" wrote
because a simplistic, borderline dumb statement like "Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded" has no basis in science. ::chuckle:: Okay then, to be more precise the groups should have been labelled "Creationists" and "Non-Creationists" ..... just seemed a little wordy to me. The Big Bang idea 'has no basis in science'. So what's "science's" take this week? In the last few years I've read that there was stuff that had done nothing forever then it exploded. It is expected to slow and then shrink back to a tight lump of stuff. Close? David -- I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Old polish aircraft TS-8 "Bies" ("Bogy") - for sale | >pk | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 16th 06 07:48 AM |
"Airplane Drivers" and "Self Centered Idiots" | Skylune | Piloting | 28 | October 16th 06 05:40 AM |
Dispelling the Myth: Hillary Clinton and the Purple Heart | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | February 21st 06 05:41 AM |
Desktop Wallpaper - "The "Hanoi Taxi"". | T. & D. Gregor, Sr. | Simulators | 0 | December 31st 05 06:59 PM |