"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

Bob Noel wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

No scientist today postulates a beginning?

Did I say that?

Why do your think no scientist is included in that "other" group?


Because creationism isn't science.



Bertie

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)

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?

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

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

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

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.

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)

"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.