Ball Lightning
in [Physics]
|
Prev: $50,000 for KILLING FBI, CIA, NSA and NIS DIRECTORS
Next: * Iarnrod Hates US * the usenet kook makes HUGE stinking turd pile in newsgroups by failing to confront prove FACT that his claims are physically impossible
From: Double-A on 27 May 2010 20:32 On May 27, 3:30 pm, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > On May 27, 12:41 pm, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > "bert" <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote in message > > >news:824a0864-ada6-4662-9b9d-5ad66c2b9d87(a)s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com.... > > Florida the lighning capital of the world has this to say. Ball > > lighning is harder to see than a flying saucer. It fits with all sci- > > fiction, TreBert > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > You saw a flying saucer? > > No but about 7% did and that includes Billy Carter treBert What do you call it when lightning strikes the oil slick and the whole Gulf of Mexico goes up in a ball of flame? Is that ball lightning? Double-A P.S. I wonder if the US has any laws against smoking in the vicinity of flammable oceans?
From: Mitchell Jones on 27 May 2010 22:27 In article <8689l4FlvfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/05/2010 22:56, Mitchell Jones wrote: > > In article<86801kFph1U2(a)mid.individual.net>, > > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 27/05/2010 19:50, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >>> In article<wAyLn.7480$v%3.4039(a)newsfe15.ams2>, > >>> "Androcles"<Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> "Mitchell Jones"<mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote in message > >>>> news:mjones-64395F.12240327052010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com... > >>>> | In article<htf1k6$gkq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > >>>> | "hanson"<hanson(a)quick.net> wrote: > >>>> | > >>>> |> .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahaha... > >>>> |> > > >>>> |> "Mitchell Jones"<mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: > >>>> |> > [snip] > >>>> |> O Mighty Hanson! :-) > >>>> |> > > >>>> |> hanson wrote: > >>>> |> ... hahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... I have been called many > >>>> |> things, but "O Mighty Hanson!" gets top billing and I will bestow > >>>> |> onto you for that epic and memorable Honorization at least as > >>>> |> many "attaboys" as there are the numbers of years that you have > >>>> |> been here on earth. > >>>> |> ==== You are a truly good man and a wise one at that. ==== > >>>> |> See what some elegant apple-polishing gets you....... > >>>> |> It beats arguing any and all times.... ahahahaha.. > >>>> |> > > >>>> |> So, in the interest of science, let me repeat for your benefit: > >>>> |> > > >>>> |> All the arguing and/or reasoning that occurs when the anthropic > >>>> |> element or the Self is involved will lead to spiraling and sooner > >>>> |> or later to circular "reasoning"... which is where Kant& all > >>>> |> heuristic thinkers end up. > >>>> | > >>>> | ***{Understanding the foundations of knowledge is difficult, but it is > >>>> | also important. The foundation, after all, is the base on which > >>>> | everything else rests. Hence if it is unsound, the entire structure is > >>>> | unsound. > >>>> | > >>>> | Since you imply that my reasoning is circular, please identify the > >>>> | circularity in the following: > >>>> | > >>>> | (1) The question to be answered is whether the principle of > >>>> | continuity--that no thing may come into existence out of nothing or > >>>> | vanish into nothing--is true. > >>>> | > >>>> > >>>> The chicken came from an egg but the chicken's mind did not come > >>>> from an egg's mind. Your "reasoning" is false. > >>> > >>> ***{Since things cannot come into existence out of nothing, it follows > >>> that they come into existence out of something--which means: the > >> > >> Well, apart from universes and virtual particles. > > > > ***{Attempting to refute the only reasoning by which the existence of an > > external world, hence of science, hence of scientific theories, can be > > established, by citing a couple of allegedly "scientific" theories, > > seems rather akin to attempting to lift oneself off of the floor by > > tugging at one's own bootstraps, don't you think? :-) --MJ}*** > > > > ***************************************************************** > > If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility > > that you are in my killfile. --MJ > > No. > Your claims that "something from nothing" is impossible is an act of > faith on your part. ***{Pardon me for persisting here, but what you are saying seems very strange to me. In a nutshell, my argument is that denial of the principle of continuity requires the denier to doubt the existence of his own mind, which is an act of self-contradiction. Therefore, since denial of continuity leads to a contradiction, it follows that the principle of continuity must be true. Where, exactly, does an "act of faith" occur in that line of reasoning? --Mitchell Jones}*** > -- > Dirk > > http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK > http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show ***************************************************************** If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility that you are in my killfile. --MJ
From: HVAC on 28 May 2010 07:03 "bert" <herbertglazier79(a)msn.com> wrote in message news:8440931f-b928-4a30-9d0b-d508b716fb40(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com... On May 27, 12:41 pm, "HVAC" <mr.h...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "bert" <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote in message > > news:824a0864-ada6-4662-9b9d-5ad66c2b9d87(a)s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > Florida the lighning capital of the world has this to say. Ball > lighning is harder to see than a flying saucer. It fits with all sci- > fiction, TreBert > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > You saw a flying saucer? No but about 7% did and that includes Billy Carter Billy Carter? The maker of Billy Beer? HE saw a ufo? If there's one thing better than Bert's predictions, it's Bert's reporting........
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 28 May 2010 08:17 On 28/05/2010 03:27, Mitchell Jones wrote: > In article<8689l4FlvfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 27/05/2010 22:56, Mitchell Jones wrote: >>> In article<86801kFph1U2(a)mid.individual.net>, >>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 27/05/2010 19:50, Mitchell Jones wrote: >>>>> In article<wAyLn.7480$v%3.4039(a)newsfe15.ams2>, >>>>> "Androcles"<Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Mitchell Jones"<mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:mjones-64395F.12240327052010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com... >>>>>> | In article<htf1k6$gkq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>>>>> | "hanson"<hanson(a)quick.net> wrote: >>>>>> | >>>>>> |> .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahaha... >>>>>> |> > >>>>>> |> "Mitchell Jones"<mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: >>>>>> |> > [snip] >>>>>> |> O Mighty Hanson! :-) >>>>>> |> > >>>>>> |> hanson wrote: >>>>>> |> ... hahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... I have been called many >>>>>> |> things, but "O Mighty Hanson!" gets top billing and I will bestow >>>>>> |> onto you for that epic and memorable Honorization at least as >>>>>> |> many "attaboys" as there are the numbers of years that you have >>>>>> |> been here on earth. >>>>>> |> ==== You are a truly good man and a wise one at that. ==== >>>>>> |> See what some elegant apple-polishing gets you....... >>>>>> |> It beats arguing any and all times.... ahahahaha.. >>>>>> |> > >>>>>> |> So, in the interest of science, let me repeat for your benefit: >>>>>> |> > >>>>>> |> All the arguing and/or reasoning that occurs when the anthropic >>>>>> |> element or the Self is involved will lead to spiraling and sooner >>>>>> |> or later to circular "reasoning"... which is where Kant& all >>>>>> |> heuristic thinkers end up. >>>>>> | >>>>>> | ***{Understanding the foundations of knowledge is difficult, but it is >>>>>> | also important. The foundation, after all, is the base on which >>>>>> | everything else rests. Hence if it is unsound, the entire structure is >>>>>> | unsound. >>>>>> | >>>>>> | Since you imply that my reasoning is circular, please identify the >>>>>> | circularity in the following: >>>>>> | >>>>>> | (1) The question to be answered is whether the principle of >>>>>> | continuity--that no thing may come into existence out of nothing or >>>>>> | vanish into nothing--is true. >>>>>> | >>>>>> >>>>>> The chicken came from an egg but the chicken's mind did not come >>>>>> from an egg's mind. Your "reasoning" is false. >>>>> >>>>> ***{Since things cannot come into existence out of nothing, it follows >>>>> that they come into existence out of something--which means: the >>>> >>>> Well, apart from universes and virtual particles. >>> >>> ***{Attempting to refute the only reasoning by which the existence of an >>> external world, hence of science, hence of scientific theories, can be >>> established, by citing a couple of allegedly "scientific" theories, >>> seems rather akin to attempting to lift oneself off of the floor by >>> tugging at one's own bootstraps, don't you think? :-) --MJ}*** >>> >>> ***************************************************************** >>> If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility >>> that you are in my killfile. --MJ >> >> No. >> Your claims that "something from nothing" is impossible is an act of >> faith on your part. > > ***{Pardon me for persisting here, but what you are saying seems very > strange to me. > > In a nutshell, my argument is that denial of the principle of continuity > requires the denier to doubt the existence of his own mind, which is an > act of self-contradiction. Therefore, since denial of continuity leads Tell it to the Buddha. > to a contradiction, it follows that the principle of continuity must be > true. > > Where, exactly, does an "act of faith" occur in that line of reasoning? Your belief that what you say is true. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Mitchell Jones on 28 May 2010 09:15
In article <869qivFptaU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 28/05/2010 03:27, Mitchell Jones wrote: > > In article<8689l4FlvfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 27/05/2010 22:56, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >>> In article<86801kFph1U2(a)mid.individual.net>, > >>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 27/05/2010 19:50, Mitchell Jones wrote: > >>>>> In article<wAyLn.7480$v%3.4039(a)newsfe15.ams2>, > >>>>> "Androcles"<Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "Mitchell Jones"<mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote in message > >>>>>> news:mjones-64395F.12240327052010(a)newsfarm.iad.highwinds-media.com... > >>>>>> | In article<htf1k6$gkq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > >>>>>> | "hanson"<hanson(a)quick.net> wrote: > >>>>>> | > >>>>>> |> .... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahahaha... > >>>>>> |> > > >>>>>> |> "Mitchell Jones"<mjones(a)21cenlogic.com> wrote: > >>>>>> |> > [snip] > >>>>>> |> O Mighty Hanson! :-) > >>>>>> |> > > >>>>>> |> hanson wrote: > >>>>>> |> ... hahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... I have been called many > >>>>>> |> things, but "O Mighty Hanson!" gets top billing and I will > >>>>>> |> bestow > >>>>>> |> onto you for that epic and memorable Honorization at least as > >>>>>> |> many "attaboys" as there are the numbers of years that you have > >>>>>> |> been here on earth. > >>>>>> |> ==== You are a truly good man and a wise one at that. ==== > >>>>>> |> See what some elegant apple-polishing gets you....... > >>>>>> |> It beats arguing any and all times.... ahahahaha.. > >>>>>> |> > > >>>>>> |> So, in the interest of science, let me repeat for your benefit: > >>>>>> |> > > >>>>>> |> All the arguing and/or reasoning that occurs when the anthropic > >>>>>> |> element or the Self is involved will lead to spiraling and > >>>>>> |> sooner > >>>>>> |> or later to circular "reasoning"... which is where Kant& all > >>>>>> |> heuristic thinkers end up. > >>>>>> | > >>>>>> | ***{Understanding the foundations of knowledge is difficult, but it > >>>>>> | is > >>>>>> | also important. The foundation, after all, is the base on which > >>>>>> | everything else rests. Hence if it is unsound, the entire structure > >>>>>> | is > >>>>>> | unsound. > >>>>>> | > >>>>>> | Since you imply that my reasoning is circular, please identify the > >>>>>> | circularity in the following: > >>>>>> | > >>>>>> | (1) The question to be answered is whether the principle of > >>>>>> | continuity--that no thing may come into existence out of nothing or > >>>>>> | vanish into nothing--is true. > >>>>>> | > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The chicken came from an egg but the chicken's mind did not come > >>>>>> from an egg's mind. Your "reasoning" is false. > >>>>> > >>>>> ***{Since things cannot come into existence out of nothing, it follows > >>>>> that they come into existence out of something--which means: the > >>>> > >>>> Well, apart from universes and virtual particles. > >>> > >>> ***{Attempting to refute the only reasoning by which the existence of an > >>> external world, hence of science, hence of scientific theories, can be > >>> established, by citing a couple of allegedly "scientific" theories, > >>> seems rather akin to attempting to lift oneself off of the floor by > >>> tugging at one's own bootstraps, don't you think? :-) --MJ}*** > >>> > >>> ***************************************************************** > >>> If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility > >>> that you are in my killfile. --MJ > >> > >> No. > >> Your claims that "something from nothing" is impossible is an act of > >> faith on your part. > > > > ***{Pardon me for persisting here, but what you are saying seems very > > strange to me. > > > > In a nutshell, my argument is that denial of the principle of continuity > > requires the denier to doubt the existence of his own mind, which is an > > act of self-contradiction. Therefore, since denial of continuity leads > > Tell it to the Buddha. > > > to a contradiction, it follows that the principle of continuity must be > > true. > > > > Where, exactly, does an "act of faith" occur in that line of reasoning? > > Your belief that what you say is true. ***{So my "act of faith" lies in the fact that I am willing to be convinced by a proof. I can live with that. :-) --MJ}*** > -- > Dirk > > http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK > http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show ***************************************************************** If I seem to be ignoring you, consider the possibility that you are in my killfile. --MJ |