Re: Intelligent Design?

In sci.physics, T Wake
<taswakeAt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:12:27 +0100
<34idnT5I5OfL0fPfRVnyvg@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> message news:lur1k2-hpo.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> In sci.physics, T Wake
>> <taswakeAt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:30:36 +0100
>> <rqSdnac3KraPlvPfRVnyuQ@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>
>>> <macromitch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:1114483763.681731.22640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Gravity is a push.
>>>> The push has a limit.
>>>
>>> What is the limit?
>>
>> What indeed? Neutron stars can't get indefinitely big; at some
>> point one gets a singularity. Even the fact that neutron stars
>> exist at all is a limit; the Pauli Exclusion Principle apparently
>> has failed at such stress levels, which is a little puzzling to
>> me personally but presumably there's a theoretical physicist
>> about that might be able to explain it... :-)
>
> Probably not here :-)

Oh, I dunno; we had one experimenter who performed some
interesting experiments with Fe-57, demonstrating that
gamma ray absorption was interfered with by the simple
expedient of setting the block in motion. :-)

Rather sensitive, that test.

And Uncle Al's making diamonds. Unlike tj frazer, who
seems to think that everyone's interested in his boat,
Uncle Al appears to at least have half a clue. (The other
half is my fault; I can't understand it! :-) But I'm not
sure I'd want to get anywhere near that "devil's solvent"
he's using, whatever it is.)

There's hope for Usenet. I'm not sure how much.

>
>>>
>>>> We cannot fall at the speed of light.
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> No proof possible. We have reasonably good evidence, however.
>> We're accelerating protons to the tera-electron-volt level
>> and they're still not traveling fast enough. :-)
>
> Very true. My main point is Nick has the, erm, tendency
> to make very bold assertations (often contradictory and
> normally lacking in internal logic) and when ever any one
> disagrees or points out his mistakes, his response is
> to demand proof. He has stated himself that he lacks the
> basic mathematical understanding which is why his
> conclusions are often suspect.
>
> I suspect Nick thinks God is the reason we can not fall
> at the speed of light and I would be interested to he
> explains himself.
>

I've noticed that too, admittedly. I can't say I've
paid that much attention, though.

--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New OKC Revelations
    ... people actually DO wake up." ... who disagree with you dupes and your best "rational" argument is ... the level of reason you seem to want to engage in. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: New OKC Revelations
    ... people actually DO wake up." ... who disagree with you dupes and your best "rational" argument is ... Like you and your allies have always asked loaded questions to ... the level of reason you seem to want to engage in. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Off switch blues
    ... when s/he removed the usb device. ... wake up the computer. ... a technical reason or not, but it's part of the usb spec and apple is ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: New OKC Revelations
    ... any sound reason why it's ok that people make deals and comprimises ... people actually DO wake up." ... who disagree with you dupes and your best "rational" argument is ... allies on this issue sincerely want it. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)