Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 12 Oct 2006 20:02 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:e0gti2djea63mblscpo3qv2poervfjale9(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:38:06 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >>message >>news:72cti2912j48l1b64i0lgonubk0o27hr55(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:18:05 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> Simple mental experiments show that m1*m2 works in that form, at least >>>>> in the non-relativistic case. >>>> >>>>Hunh??? Tell me about these simple mental experiments. And tell me why >>>>m1*m2 is any better than m1^1.00000000038 * m2^0.99999999947. >> >>Who says it has to be symmetric? These are, after all, just empirical >>laws >>that explain observed data. Symmetry is an outgrowth of the fact that >>those >>two exponents are the same--there's nothing fundamental that says that any >>two bodies of the same mass will exert the same pull on each >>other...that's >>just what the data tell us. What if the data are wrong--what if, to a >>higher degree of precision >> >>Even if I grant symmetry, why is m1*m2 any better than m1^1.0000000038 * >>m2^1.0000000038? > > Hey, we're making progress. Now you accept that the distance between > the masses actually matters, and you seem to agree that the force > isn't affected by whatever names we assign to the objects. And you continue to avoid the real question, using any distraction possible to avoid answering for an untenable position. Eric Lucas
From: JoeBloe on 12 Oct 2006 20:08 On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:01:08 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> Gave us: >I suspect you haven't fully understood the utility of Ockhams Razor I do not suspect... I KNOW that you are a retard, and I do not have to invoke any retarded premise to know it either.
From: lucasea on 12 Oct 2006 20:08 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:spkti2puac17cur7eluf8qh8k7lp54aqhk(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:04:25 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >> Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. > > > Which you have never shown. Then again, I'm also not the one doing the Chicken Little impersonation. List one extraordinary claim I've made. Eric Lucas
From: JoeBloe on 12 Oct 2006 20:11 On 12 Oct 2006 21:58:40 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic(a)aon.at> Gave us: >On topic post? I have only replied... >Yes? The responded were OT, too? Can you really be so retarded as to not think so?
From: Michael A. Terrell on 12 Oct 2006 20:18
JoeBloe wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:05:43 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >And I'm Eeyore the donkey. > > > You are "The DonkTard"!!! Shouldn't that be "Plonked tard"? -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida |