Re: Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible?

[No One]

No One wrote, On 1/7/2008 1:38 AM:

In others words, you just lost face.

In other words, you are made a fool of yourself by trying to drag
a counter-culture writer into the discussion.

Oh yeah, the quote you snipped:

"The system as a whole appears to be a distribution of solid entities
or nodes of energy in the midst of emptiness or space. Human
consciousness preoccupies itself with these entities, and virtually
ignores their spatial background." --The Art of Contemplation, 1972.

It was snipped for a reason - it is mere poetry that has no
relevance to what was being discussed.

 

[No One]

We didn't collect that data a billion years ago. That's the point. We
collected it very recently.

The cosmic microwave background radiation gives us quite literally a view
of what the universe looked like billions of years ago.

The concept is that we didn't start collecting that data a billion years
ago. We weren't here a billion years ago. Is that too hard for you to
understand?

Is it so hard for you to understand that the speed of light is finite
and that, as you look at more distant objects, you are also looking
backwards in time?

 

[Meltdarok]

No One wrote, On 1/7/2008 2:11 PM:

Nope. You made a fool of yourself by trying to drag a philosopher
of sorts into a discussion in which he had no expertise, which also
seems to be true of you.

Declaring victory, which is what you are trying to do, won't work.

Get real. You're doing just what he said, ignoring the background
field-- and feeling quite smug about it as well. You have absolutely
no *numbers* about it to quote one way or another, so you ignore.

The quote you snipped:

"The system as a whole appears to be a distribution of solid entities
or nodes of energy in the midst of emptiness or space. Human
consciousness preoccupies itself with these entities, and virtually
ignores their spatial background." --The Art of Contemplation, 1972.

 

[No One]

"A lot of times." How many? How checked? Cite them.


That wasn't a replication study. It was one of those big, exciting studies
that funding sources like to fund, just like I said. Would you like to cite
any more evidence in support of my statements?

You are lying - they are measuring the same thing that was measured
nearly 20 times over the last century, and the other reference I
gave you, <http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm> (see Table V)
showed several previous experiments that used the same technique
(but usually with better accuracy in subsequent years).

Like I say, the results, each a little more accurate than the last and all
in support of exactly what was expected according to the presently accepted
theory, are easily accepted because they are already believed.

How dumb can you get? If you found a case where the equivalence principle
broke down, it would be one of the most exciting events in this field
in a century or more.

It isn't a replication if it doesn't repeat a previous experiment.

It is a measurement of the same physical quantity. You want to try
differnet techniques when possible in case there is some unknown
effect that biases the outcome in a specific case.

This was no replication but a refinement of the equipment taken to a
level never seen before. That's press-sexy enough to attract
funding.

This idea of yours that "sexy" is all there is to it is childish.

Measuring something more precisely is a triumph of the technology
but not a revolutionary discovery. All it did was confirm what is
already believed. That's why the results were accepted so quickly.

You are repeating yourself and you are completely wrong.

Yep. We love to tout better measuring devices. However, if any of those
attempts comes up with unexpected numbers, it'll be a long tiome before
those new numbers are accepted as something other than an "artifact" or
"methodological problems". I keep telling you, people are people. They
easily accept evidence that confirms their beliefs and suspect evidence that
disconfiorms them. You're doing the same thing right now.

ROTFLMAO. You have such a naive view of the world. You can bet your ass
that, if someone found a violation of the equivalence principle, they'd
do every sort of cross check they could think of to make sure they weren't
fooling themselves - so they wouldn't be proven wrong in subsequent
experiments.

It was a tiny adjustment in a theory that you yourself have said has
been unchanged for fifty years, except for tiny adjustments.

I said that quantum electrodynamics was pretty much unchanged for
50 years. CP violation occurs in the weak interaction.

So you didn't actually mean to say that the theory has not been changed
since the 1940's?

Nope - I simply pointed out to work that showed how to create a single
theory that included both the elctromagnetic force and the weak interaction,
and that this had no effect on the results we were discussing. If I
hadn't mentioned that, some wiseguy would start to rant, mostly to boost
his ego.

Dunce, you are a complete and utter moron. See? We're still even. Don't
waste your time on this sort of nonsense. You're not impressing anybody
with it. Argue the point or don't. Throwing temper tantrums about it only
wastes your time.

Dude, you really are an idiot. You have no idea what you are babbling
about, and that is a fact. The problem with people like you is that
you have no valid point whatsoever, want to argue it incessantly,
and then whine when people who know what they are talking about get
bored with your stupidity.

 

[No One]

No One wrote, On 1/7/2008 2:11 PM:

Get real. You're doing just what he said, ignoring the background
field-- and feeling quite smug about it as well. You have absolutely
no *numbers* about it to quote one way or another, so you ignore.

No, you are simply making a fool of yourself, and the musings of some
poet are being ignored because those musings are mere entertainment
and have nothing to do with what was being discussed.

 

[No One]

What you mean to say is that you really don't understand what is
going on. If anything, you are showing yourself to be the fool as
you don't have *any* comment to make about it without your numbers.

As Lord Kelvin once said,

"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express
it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you
cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your
knowledge of it is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may
be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your
thoughts, advanced it to the stage of science."

 

[Dionisio]

We didn't collect that data a billion years ago. That's the point. We
collected it very recently.

That's like saying that because we didn't see your birth, you couldn't possibly be alive.


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

Have you noticed all the concern over child safety? And how about those folks worried
about everybody's health? Wouldn't it be great if the two came together? I can see it now:
The child-proof candy wrapper. Just in time for Halloween.
--Dionisio, May 1994

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[Richard Henry]

That's like saying that because we didn't see your birth, you couldn't

possibly be alive.

I didn't see his first day of school. Therefore, he is uneducated.

 

[Tom]

You are lying -

Lying about what? That it's not a replication study? That's self-evident.
Nobody ever did it before, ergo it is not replicating anybody else's
experiment.

they are measuring the same thing that was measured
nearly 20 times over the last century,

They are measuring the same thing in different ways. That's not what
replication studes do. A replication study confirms that an experiment's
results are reliable by duplicating the experiment exactly.

and the other reference I
gave you, <http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm> (see Table V)
showed several previous experiments that used the same technique
(but usually with better accuracy in subsequent years).

I see some oblique mentions of some expeimients, but it's not at all clear
that their methodologies were identical. In fact, it seems to be saying
that a whole bunch of different ways have been tried to measure the same
phenomenon. So those are not replication studies either.

How dumb can you get?

Good question. Keep trying. You seem to be getting dumber with each new
post.

It is a measurement of the same physical quantity.

Try sounding out the words. It may impriove your comprehension. It isn't a
replication if it doesn't repeat a previous experiment.

This idea of yours that "sexy" is all there is to it is childish.

Your idea that I'm saying the "'sexy' is all there is to it" is childish.

You are repeating yourself and you are completely wrong.

There is a reason why I repeat myself so often. Really dim people need lots
of repetition before an idea sinks in.

ROTFLMAO. You have such a naive view of the world. You can bet your ass
that, if someone found a violation of the equivalence principle, they'd
do every sort of cross check they could think of to make sure they weren't
fooling themselves - so they wouldn't be proven wrong in subsequent
experiments.

Exactly. They simply wouldn't believe their own results. They'd have to
test them over and over to be sure they could believe their own eyes. Now
you're starting to catch on. If the results are unexpected, people tend not
to believe them.

Nope - I simply pointed out to work that showed how to create a single
theory that included both the elctromagnetic force and the weak
interaction,
and that this had no effect on the results we were discussing.

Then, as I said, you're agreeing with my point that theories are standing
unchallenged for less and less time these days.

Dude, you really are an idiot.

I see that "repeating yourself" business is kind of catchy. So, I'll repeat
some more for you. You're not impressing anybody.

The problem with people like you is that
you have no valid point whatsoever, want to argue it incessantly,
and then whine when people who know what they are talking about get
bored with your stupidity.

Sounds like a wonderful brave exit speech.

 

[Tom]

This figures, if you can't understand it, change its meaning.
This link does not agree with you.

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

Shame

Yes, it is a shame that "gnostic gospels" is not the same term as "Gnostic
bibles". Will you be changing your term to "Gnostic gospels" then?

 

[Tom]

The part that you seem to be missing is that _you_ don't _have_ to be
there to understand what happened.

The part *you* are missing is that you haven't been collecting something for
a billion years if you only started to collect it a few years ago. Wake the
**** up.

I am not a "blind faith" type.

You think you don't rely on blind faith because you don't believe some of
the stuff other people have blind faith in. It's a common mistake of
believers to presume that only other people are mere believers. Believers
think they *know*.

 

[Tom]

The cosmic microwave background radiation gives us quite literally a view
of what the universe looked like billions of years ago.

But we didn't collect it a billion years ago. Pay attention.

Is it so hard for you to understand that the speed of light is finite
and that, as you look at more distant objects, you are also looking
backwards in time?

Oh, that old saw. Look, the light that reaches us is reaching us here and
now, not a billion years ago. We are collecting that light now, not a
billion years ago. The light is old. The collecting of the data in it is
new.

You can say that looking at a fossilized dinosaur bone is looking into the
past, but what you're really looking at is a curiously shaped rock, in the
present, and trying to figure out as best you can, in the present, how it
got into that shape.

 

[Tom]

That's like saying that because we didn't see your birth, you couldn't
possibly be alive.

That's remarkably stupid of you. You should learn how to separate what I'm
saying from what you imagine I'm saying. Where did you get the ridiculous
notion that I don't think the universe exists?

 

[No One]

Lying about what? That it's not a replication study? That's self-evident.
Nobody ever did it before, ergo it is not replicating anybody else's
experiment.

If you want to know, reply to the full sentence instead of snipping it
just before I told you what.

They are measuring the same thing in different ways. That's not what
replication studes do. A replication study confirms that an experiment's
results are reliable by duplicating the experiment exactly.

See <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4117/is_200603/ai_n17187787>:
"any modifications or extensions of the original study (in
constructive replication) can be based on current knowledge of
existing research in the same field."

I clearly gave you cases where the same technique was used in testing
the equivalence principle. 8 of them used a torsion balance. The
difference is that, later in the 20th century, manufacturing techniques
had improved so that they could build a more sensitive balance.
So, they were in fact replicating a previous experiment but with better
(i.e, more accurate) equipment.

I see some oblique mentions of some expeimients, but it's not at all clear
that their methodologies were identical.

A lot isn't clear to you. That's why you should give up and stick to
whatever philosophical mumble jumble you are comfortable with. You
might want to restrict yourself to religious newsgroups.

In fact, it seems to be saying
that a whole bunch of different ways have been tried to measure the same
phenomenon. So those are not replication studies either.


Good question. Keep trying. You seem to be getting dumber with each new
post.

So, you are one of those arrogant fools who expects everyone to agree
with them when they are completely off base.

Try sounding out the words. It may impriove your comprehension. It isn't a
replication if it doesn't repeat a previous experiment.

Try to learn the subject matter before making a fool of yourself.

Sounds like a wonderful brave exit speech.

Sounds like you want a lot of attention.

 

[No One]

But we didn't collect it a billion years ago. Pay attention.

We measured the intensity of electromagnetic radiation that has been
traveling through empty space for billions of years. That gives us a
picture of what the universe was like that many billions of years ago.

Oh, that old saw.

<snip>

It is not an "old saw" but something that astronomers and
astrophysicists have to keep in mind all the time. How else are you
going to determine how galaxies evolve? Where it gets tricky is
at the limits of what you can see - at the farthest distances, we
can only pick up the brightest objects, and you have to compensate
when doing surveys: otherwise you'd think that objects in the past
were on the average brighter than they actually were.

It seems to me that you are incapable of following any discussion.
Stick with your religious groups and don't bother anyone else.

 

[No One]

That's remarkably stupid of you. You should learn how to separate what I'm
saying from what you imagine I'm saying. Where did you get the ridiculous
notion that I don't think the universe exists?

Where did you get the ridiculous notion that he claimed that you said
that you don't think the universe exists?

 

[Tom]

If you want to know, reply to the full sentence instead of snipping it
just before I told you what.

The rest of your sentence was just noise. It contained nothing whatsoever
about what you think I was "lying" about. You're merely using the excuse of
snippage to avoid dealing with the self-evident truth of what I've been
saying.

See <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4117/is_200603/ai_n17187787>:
"any modifications or extensions of the original study (in
constructive replication) can be based on current knowledge of
existing research in the same field."

From that same article:

"Polit and Beck (p730) define replication as 'the deliberate repetition of
research procedures in a second investigation for the purpose of determining
if earlier results can be repeated.'"

The experiment you cited was not a replication study. It was research in
the same area as other research, but it did not deliberately repeat anybody
else's procedure.

A lot isn't clear to you.

Nor to you.

 

[Tom]

We measured the intensity of electromagnetic radiation that has been
traveling through empty space for billions of years.

When did we collect it? A billion years ago? Or more recently?

<snip>

It is not an "old saw" but something that astronomers and
astrophysicists have to keep in mind all the time.

It's a cliche. It's a metaphor. It's not expected to be interpreted
literally.

How else are you
going to determine how galaxies evolve?

Not by stupidly claiming that you've been collecting information for a
billion years.

 

[Tom]

Where did you get the ridiculous notion that he claimed that you said
that you don't think the universe exists?

Get all that concrete out of your head.

 

[john w]

x-no-archive: yes
On 06 Jan 2008 19:26:27 -0800, No One <[email protected]>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.

An electron has a non-zero rest mass, an electric charge, spin (1/2),
and a magnetic dipole moment, among other properties. When bound to a
nucleus, it can be in states with non-zero angular momentum in addition to
its spin, which is an intrinsic property.

You might want to learn something before posting.

Um.... No One. You have made a fatal mistake.
Correcting Vernon is like correcting God.
Smart people don't!

Vernon knows everything about everything.
If you don't believe that, just ask him!!

Seriously, it's nice to see someone correcting him.
I have a brother in law who is an engineer, and he'd likely have
made the same comment you did.

Vern is so backward, he actually thinks he worked on "Windows."

chuckle.

He doesn't seem to know that Bill stole Windows from Steve Jobs (
Apple) who --iirc-- stole it from Xerox.
I know that much because the company I was working for was
developing Windows for SEVERAL companies, and Xerox got it FIRST.
I won't say what company I worked for at the time. (I'm saving it
for my auto-bio). But the company that developed Windows was a
start-up (Microsoft spin-off) in Redmond, WA.
I'll tell you the company's initials (since you'll likely never
identify a defunct co by initials). "SST".

But I wouldn't correct Vern much, he has a short fuse and a NASTY
mouth. (he's a punk)

I corrected his stupid remarks (inaccurate, AND lies) a few times,
and now he makes UGLY, stupid, CHILDISH, untrue comments about me
frequently.

This guy's a "Christian?"


Regards!

john w