Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: JoeBloe on 12 Oct 2006 20:23 On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:25:01 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: > The 6 party talks produced something. The US >violated it on Sept 23. How so? CITE?
From: JoeBloe on 12 Oct 2006 20:24 On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:05:36 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >No. In other words, they can load it on a ship. It would be somewhat >better if their rockets worked just well enough for them to be fooled into >using them to carry the nuke. They don't so I don't think they would risk >it. A: Do they even have any ships? and b: If they ever left a port in a ship do you not think at this point that it wouldn't be immediately sunk? And that with great precision and ease, btw.
From: John Larkin on 12 Oct 2006 20:28 On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:02:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"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 > Not so. I've managed to counter three of your statements, namely that there's no distance term, that there's no "2" in Newton's equation, and the clear implication that the M1 and M2 gains could differ (ie, they're asymmetric.) Fixing one goof per day ain't bad and ain't a distraction. As our next step, you could figure out for yourself why the M's aren't exponentiated. Why should I do all the work? John
From: JoeBloe on 12 Oct 2006 20:29 On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:31:04 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> You have your head buried in the sand if you think the WTC was >> _the_ World Trade Centre. > >I'd been wondering about that ! > Especially since it isn't even spelled that way. If you converse and use the word, you can use you spelling, dumbfucks. If you talk about a named item such as a building, you need to have enough brains to call it by its actual proper moniker, you stupid twits!
From: lucasea on 12 Oct 2006 20:33
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:30nti295p83eoe5ghkav7ee1rr4frjl5rf(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:02:23 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Not so. I've managed to counter three of your statements, Actually, no. > namely that > there's no distance term, that there's no "2" in Newton's equation, Those two are the same mistake (not statement). By continuing to harp on it, you're merely introducing distractions to try to avoid the question. When ya got nothing, use a smokescreen. > and the clear implication that the M1 and M2 gains could differ (ie, > they're asymmetric.) No, you haven't. Prove symmetry. > Fixing one goof per day ain't bad and ain't a distraction. As our next > step, you could figure out for yourself why the M's aren't > exponentiated. Why should I do all the work? More bluster to avoid the quesiton. Why should you do the work--because you're the one making the claims. Eric Lucas |