Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnfkr$8qk_010@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <676fc$453b76e5$4fe75d1$17105@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
unsettled <unsettled@nonsense.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
snip

Do these people own no logic circuits in their brains?

Lucas & Wake have trouble nustering a single correctly
functioning neuron between them.

I realize that.

Really? Do you honestly think that?

Prior to being kill filed, unsettled and JoeBloe provide nothing but insults
and sychopancy. If this is what criteria _you_ use to determine if some one
has a "functioning neuron" I am disapointed.

However, the reality is at no stage have you (or the sycophants) managed to
construct an argument which has any logical integrity.

It a serious problem and you should be very
worried about their kind of thinking because it is becoming
the politcally correct way to think.

You use two disingenuous tactics here.

First off you create the assumption that "political correctness" is a "bad
thing" which is not always the case. Current, popular, use of the term
implies it is "bad" but the reality is political correctness is just a
buzzword to mock people doing the "right thing" (not insulting co-workers
for example). Yes it can be taken to the extreme at which point it becomes
bad, but extremism is not mainstream.

Secondly, you use this false assumption to try and criticise the logical
arguments put in front of you. You do not try to say anything we[tinw] have
said is wrong - you just demonise the line of thinking.

This will cause political
leaders who pander the same way to be elected.

All political leaders pander to the electorate.

You are using demon #2 based on false assumption again.

These people
will make the decision to not deal with Islamic extremists.

Nonsense.

They will deny reality until it is too late to do anything
about it.

Nonsense.

There one difference between WWII and now.

There are lots of differences between WWII and now. This is a very bad
analogy to use, as in the run up to WWII the Nazis ignored the international
community, demonised a religion and militarised based on the false threats.

Nazi Germany was a nation with a powerful miliary machine and advanced
technology.

Islamic extremism isn't.

Today's
technology is sophisticated enough to wipe out 75% of the
world's population within 12 months. Even in the black plague
days, the creep of death waves took longer.

This is why trying to dismiss these people with name calling
is not an acceptable tactic.

No, but it is the only tactic some people have.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnibo$8qk_020@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <6qSdndc6PtVrmqDYRVnyjQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi55a$8qk_008@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <453A24D6.FD9A2EED@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Why not start listening to and watching the BBC
?

I have and I do. I now listen to the BBC to see which
slant of surrendering to the Islamic extremists they
are taking that day.

Amazing. Can you let me know when you come across any please?

Any report about the Palestinians will give you a start.

You think the BBC has surrendered to the Palestinians ?

No. That will be the consequence.


Of what?

Choosing to protray groups of people, whose goal is to
destroy production, as good guys who should be pitied
and aided in their endeavors, will have the result
of the society that produces these programs to surrender.

Nonsense. Phantom demon based on false assumption.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnhh9$8qk_016@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <ehildp$rv0$12@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <ehi52h$8qk_007@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <453C44D7.540280C@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Funny, you've offered no solutions to the problems that have been
created
by the current administration.

STate a problem. You keep contending that Iraq is one. It is
not.

It's all going badly wrong in Iraq right now.

Of course it is. The goal is to Democrats in power in the US
elections.

Whose goal ?

The Islamic extremists. Based on past history, they believe
that Democrats will not retaliate with swift and deadly force
when their next mess is made against the US.

/BAH
The Democrats supported action in Afghanistan.

Yup. And Kerry's campaign for president, both in 2003 and now,
is to promise to go back and wage that war all over again.

Bush's invasion of Iraq, OTOH,
had nothing to do with the US being attacked.

It is one step in the stragegy. It is a necessary step.

Incorrect. Invading Iraq was irrelevant in the war on terror. It has created
a new training ground for terrorists and driven much more Islamic support
for their cause - now they are viewed as "freedom fighters" or "warriors"
not criminals.

It was
also the only step that could produce good results with minimum
risk.

Nonsense. What was the "good result" in the war on Terror which followed the
invasion of Iraq?

This is still true unless the Democrats succeed in
diverting the world from the original threat.

Stop building phantom fears.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehnhl4$8qk_017@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <453CBD2E.2081C49F@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

STate a problem. You keep contending that Iraq is one. It is
not.

It's all going badly wrong in Iraq right now.

Of course it is. The goal is to Democrats in power in the US
elections.

Whose goal ?

The Islamic extremists. Based on past history, they believe
that Democrats will not retaliate with swift and deadly force
when their next mess is made against the US.

And do pray tell me how these extremists can influence the elections in
the
USA.

Ben Ladin said he would stop attacking if the voters voted for
Kerry. There was a news item that a similar ad is playing on
that al jazeer network. I haven't checked that one out.

Hahahaah.

So all the US had to do to end the War on Terror would have been to vote for
Kerry. You selfish B*st*rds. Why didn't you all vote for him?

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehni4n$8qk_019@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <RT3%g.23038$7I1.13549@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehi52h$8qk_007@s784.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <453C44D7.540280C@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Funny, you've offered no solutions to the problems that have been
created
by the current administration.

STate a problem. You keep contending that Iraq is one. It is
not.

It's all going badly wrong in Iraq right now.

Of course it is. The goal is to Democrats in power in the US
elections.

Whose goal ?

The Islamic extremists. Based on past history, they believe
that Democrats will not retaliate with swift and deadly force
when their next mess is made against the US.

Ahh...so *that's* why the picked a Republican presidency to carry out
their
worst attack in history against anybody, ever. Now I understand your
logic.

No, the plans were made during Clinton's adminstration. The first
bombing did not produce much reaction. Plans were made for a
second bombing. None of this happened when Bush was president.

Do get your timelines straight.

So what you are saying is that UBL attacked the WTC to get the US to invade
Afghanistan. Because Clinton did nothing (other than bombing Africa a bit),
they kept going. Bush, being a kindly person, did as UBL wanted.

You say this is a good thing?

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ehni07$8qk_018@s885.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <453DA904.61F1CEC3@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


unsettled wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

It's all going badly wrong in Iraq right now.

Of course it is. The goal is to Democrats in power in the US
elections.

Whose goal ?


The Islamic extremists. Based on past history, they believe
that Democrats will not retaliate with swift and deadly force
when their next mess is made against the US.

As has been demonstrated in the past.

Really ? The actions of the Republicans has made things far worse IMO.

If Bush hadn't organized, the bombs in the Underground would have
blasted that infrastucture to inoperability.

Really? What did Bush do to reduce the damage in the London Underground on 7
Jul 05?

If the US-led occupation of Iraq hadn't taken place, would the bombs have
still gone off?

The UK is at its highest security alert state since the IRA bombing
campaigns. It is higher now than it was in 2002. The war in Iraq has
_increased_ the problem not reduced it.

There would have
been more airplanes used as bombs.

Really? In the US maybe, but it is internal flights which cause the problem
not international ones. It seems most of the "anti-terror measures" are now
implemented on international flights.

Strange how this works, isn't it?

Spain would have had more crippling of its infrastructure.

Spain wouldn't have been bombed.

Afghanistan would still be
training new recruits. The Islamic moderates would still be
in hidden in their closets.

Where are they now? They are hiding from the demonisation Islam is getting
in the west.

Nobody would be trying to keep
Iran from deploying atomic bombs.

Amazing.

Women would not be gaining
access to mobility and education in Saudi Arabia.

What has this got to do with Bush?

Pakistan would
still be exporting its atomic bomb knowledge without restraint.

Pakistan is an "ally" in the "war on terror."

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:26:19 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Reminds me of a professor I had, a psychologist in the Army Air Force
in WWII. He discovered that graduates of the cooks and bakers school
were better aerial gunners than graduates of the aerial gunnery
school.

Just means the aerial gunnery school was poor.

Do people still say "duh"?

Using anecdotal evidence like this to justify assumptions is poor science.

This is a *discussion* group, not a peer-reviewed journal. If somebody
says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up."

John

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:ichvj2dk0kq2i2hh75047tico4h8gammnv@4ax.com...

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:26:19 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Reminds me of a professor I had, a psychologist in the Army Air Force
in WWII. He discovered that graduates of the cooks and bakers school
were better aerial gunners than graduates of the aerial gunnery
school.

Just means the aerial gunnery school was poor.

Do people still say "duh"?

Probably.

Using anecdotal evidence like this to justify assumptions is poor science.

This is a *discussion* group, not a peer-reviewed journal. If somebody
says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up."

Not always. However, the discussion was about the validity of science and
the like.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <j9vuj25679i7d4bp38km98lii0acq1ajai@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:55:01 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:



It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best
description of gravity in the domain in which it applies.

I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs.

You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow some one

Einstein

may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect
because of [insert reason here].

General relativity, as demonstrated in the orbit of Mercury.

But even that cannot be entirely correct, as it is incompatible with quantum
mechanics.

This is not prohibited by anything in the
scientific method.


Nope!

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:56:33 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Isn't that how Hitler got started?

Yes. However Germany is not suffering a massive economic depression and
smarting from a recent, unfair, peace treaty. In the 1930s Germany still had
the capability of becoming a world power in military terms. This is no
longer the case.

Especially so as the Brits and French and Russians have nukes.

Nearly irrelevant in the European context.

The way things are going we ( the above ) need to target the USA.

---
Are you advocating a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US?

Pre-emptive strikes are the idea of your lot.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Jamie wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
T Wake wrote:

Islamic Extremism does not pose a greater threat than other threats people
live with on a daily basis.

Indeed.

Oddly, the threat from Islamic Extremism has markedly _increased_ since
2003. The plan is not working.

The 'plan' if there ever really was one was critically flawed from the very
beginning.

Graham

Oh, and you have all the answers! typical./

Not invading Iraq would have been a good place to start.

Graham

 

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:ichvj2dk0kq2i2hh75047tico4h8gammnv@4ax.com...

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:26:19 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Reminds me of a professor I had, a psychologist in the Army Air Force
in WWII. He discovered that graduates of the cooks and bakers school
were better aerial gunners than graduates of the aerial gunnery
school.

Just means the aerial gunnery school was poor.

Do people still say "duh"?


Using anecdotal evidence like this to justify assumptions is poor science.

This is a *discussion* group, not a peer-reviewed journal.

Bad science is not situational. Doesn't matter where it is, basing
assumption on anecdotal evidence is bad science.

If somebody
says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up."

That would be based on observational evidence, not anecdotal evidence. An
assumption based on anecdotal evidence would be "it rained the past two
Tuesdays, so therefore I conclude that it always rains on Tuesday."

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message

If somebody
says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up."

That would be based on observational evidence, not anecdotal evidence. An
assumption based on anecdotal evidence would be "it rained the past two
Tuesdays, so therefore I conclude that it always rains on Tuesday."

An absence of clouds would make the assertion look pretty flaky anyway !

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:13:43 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:12jnj2pr90683t4t52trio488da5i0lknk@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:00:51 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3m1nj2pba4fh96h1ljc3lurpprr2vpsrhe@4ax.com...
On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:02:42 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Yes, thank you for that although I was looking for clarification in the
context of the rest of the post.

Redshift, from cosmological expansion, occurs outside large scale
structures
and as a result there is no major anomaly in the actions within the
local
group or the cluster. The oddity is the mass required to create this
blueshift, given the lack of anything "visible."

---
All that's required for the masses involved in the blueshift to be
blue-shifted toward each other is for them to be attracted to each
other more strongly than they're being attracted to the wall,
separately.

Yes. It creates a problem as to where the wall "is" though.

---
Perhaps not. Considering that there's a limit to the velocity
attainable by matter, and that the wall is accelerating that matter
ever more strongly as the matter approaches the wall, it may be that
the "wall" isn't a physical, but a dimensional "threshold" where
matter goes transluminal and joins the infinite cheese. Defining
where it _is_, then, would merely require measuring the redshifts of
two galaxies headed in the same direction, determining the distance
between them and their accelerations, and then extrapolating the
distance required for the far galaxy to achieve C as its
acceleration increased.

The recession of large scale structures is not a "velocity" in the normal
sense of the word, it is describes something which may be better visualised
as "space increasing" but that heads down all kind of mad roads as well.

---
I have no problem with "space increasing", in fact it's an integral
part of my hypothesis. Consider: If there's an external
gravitational force being exerted throughout the bubble, then all
the matter in the bubble will be accelerating toward the wall with a
velocity depending on its distance from the wall and the force
exerted by the attractors in/behind the wall. Consequently, looking
at the contents of the bubble over time will give the appearance of
an expanding "sponge cake" with raisins in it, the raisins all
moving away from each other, which is one of the classical views of
the expanding big-bang universe. What the big-bang picture can't
explain, however, is _why_ the expansion is accelerating, since
gravity is attractive and wholly contained within the big-bang
universe.

My hypothesis explains it by positing that there is gravitation
external to our bubble which is causing the matter in the bubble to
be attracted to the external attractor(s)
---

Depending on the value for H_0 objects beyond a certain distance will be
recessing - from the Earth - at speeds greater than C.

---
That's only true for the so-called cosmological redshift where the
_space_ between objects can expand at v>C. For Doppler redshift the
velocity of the objects will be bound by special relativity and must
always be <C. My hypothesis allows an object to accelerate until it
becomes part of the wall and leaves the observable universe, or it
may accelerate until it goes transluminal and becomes part of that
wall. I haven't quite got that part down yet.
---

We can still deduce
their existence by their interaction with intermediaries - objects that are
(for example) half way between them and the Earth.

---
OK
---

The measured red shifts of all large scale structures is "away" from Earth.

---
Yes, that's why it's called a 'red' shift.
---

They are also moving away from each other in all directions. The term
"heading in the same direction" only has loose meaning in this context. By
carrying out this measurement the "wall" would always be approximately
1.5x10^10 ly from where ever Earth is at any given time.

---
I don't think so, since that 1.5x10^10 ly is, I believe the diameter
of the observable universe, which would then put us on the wall.

How'd you come up with that number?
---

We know from
observing the gravitational interactions on very distant structures that
there are more structures beyond the "light horizon." We also know that the
recession between distant objects is also based on their separation - not
their distance from us - which supports the idea that recession is not a
constant velocity.

---
Which further supports my hypothesis. Thanks!
---

Not at all. We're merely somewhere on this side of the bubble
seeing blue shifts in our local group as we're being attracted to
each other while hurtling toward the wall. The red shifts we see
will be matter being pulled away from us by the wall.

But the red shift is dependant on distance from the observer not proximity
to the light horizon. An object 1x10^9 ly from Earth will see less of a
blueshift from an object 2x10^9ly from Earth than it will from the Earth.

---
So what? You missed the point, I think, which was that if we measure
the shifts in our local group we'll find that some are blue because
the local gravitation is drawing those members of the group
together, even though the group, as a whole, is moving toward
something else. The wall of the bubble, say.

Now, assume for a moment that you were in some other system in a
group far from mine, measuring shifts and that you also measured
some blue shifts in you4r local group. The reason would be the same,
that being that some of the galaxies in your local group would be
attracting each other, while that group would also be hurtling
toward the wall.

Now let's say you pointed your telescope telescope over to my group
and made a measurement. You'd measure a red shift because my group
would be flying away from yours, and the farther apart we were the
greater the shift would be.

This two-tiered gravitational attraction is a fact, and the data's
somewhere in here:

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/index.html

I found it a year or two ago, but don't have the stomach to go
ferreting it out again.

---

We know that from "here" the further things are away from us, the faster
they are recessing. Studies have shown this is true where ever "here" is
(and apart from anything else, "here" is moving at some speed).

All large scale structures are moving away from each other, at a rate
which
increases as the separation increases.

---
Exactly.

The rate is not dependant on the proximity to the wall but the distance from
the observer - in all directions.

---
Since proximity to the wall will result in increasing acceleration,
the rate _will_ increase as the acceleration increases, therefore
proximity to the wall matters and will drive the rate of change of
distance and, therefore, cause the instantaneous distance between
the observers to change.
---

Taking your model as an example, an object 1.5*10^10 ly away from Earth
would be closer to the "wall" than Earth

---
Only if we assume a spherical bubble and isotropic gravitation being
exerted by the mass behind the wall. As a matter of fact, under
those conditions my hypothesis breaks down since the attraction of
gravity inside the sphere would be everywhere the same.

The bubble can be any shape and this is the case. Unless the bubble is
shaped so that every object is the centre and equally distant from the edge
this happens. If the bubble is shaped like that, well, I wouldn't call it a
bubble.

I am not sure what you mean about the gravity inside the bubble being the
same - we assume it is.

---
If the bubble is spherical and the external gravitational field is
isotropic, then the gravitational force, due to the external field,
exerted on the objects in the bubble will vanish and what will be
left is the attraction between the objects themselves on each other.

A conventional big-bang universe.
---

so is being pulled faster and
harder than Earth, but an observer on that Object would see our Local
Group
moving at a massive red shift and may well conclude we were indeed closer
to
the wall.

---
Well, all we'd really know is that we'd both see the same shift, so
it would be difficult, without knowing exactly where we were, to say
where the other object was, I think.

Yes, yet both are being pulled to the wall with equal force.

---
Maybe. That's going to depend on the distribution of mass in the
bubble as well external to the bubble. However, neither object
would know which was going faster, since all the shift would
indicate to both parties would be their separation velocity.
---

This happens pretty much all over the universe making the edge of the
bubble
hard to locate.

---
See above, about extrapolation.


Can you explain what topology your bubble has?

---
No, just that it's not spherical if the external gravitational field
is isotropic. Or that the external field not be isotropic. I like
that one better.
---

Accelerated expansion does not contradict anything the "big bang theory"
(what theory there is) predicts or claims. Expansion of the universe was the
basis behind the Big Bang ideas, and accelerated expansion is easily a
property of how that expansion takes place. (Rubber band analogy applies
here)

---
Not really. The expansion can be accounted for by looking backwards
in time, but the accelerated expansion cannot, since it needs a
continuous driving force to overcome the gravitational attraction
and slowdown of all the matter in the universe, if it were a closed
universe, or the same driving force to accelerate the matter in the
universe if it were a static or open universe. Without an external
gravitational field to continue to accelerate the matter after the
singularity, how would you explain the acceleration?
---

Gravity does not have to be repulsive to expansion to take place.

---
No, but for _accelerated_ expansion to take place, it does.

No it doesn't. The acceleration is a function of distance from observer not
an intrinsic property of the expansion.

---
You don't understand. Distance is merely the yardstick that's
telling us that the farther away something is from us the faster
it's going. The real question is what's driving the accelerated
expansion. So far it can only be two things, either repulsive
gravity from the matter in a universe expanding into a void, or an
external attractive gravitational field attracting the matter. We
know that gravity isn't repulsive, so we're left with one choice.
---

The expansion is not dependant on repulsive gravity either - all it needs is
a stronger force pushing out.

---
That's funny! What would you call that force, anti-gravity?
---

Either that or an external gravitational field which follows an
inverse square law has to be in place, as would be the case in a
bubble universe such as I hypothesize.

One of many options. It has good and bad points. That objects distant from
Earth are not _actually_ moving away faster is a big bad point.

---
As would be the case had I said that. However, I did not.

For your edification, let's start over with a new example, OK?

Assume that we're in a perfectly spherical bubble universe
surrounded by a huge mass (so that we can have an external
gravitational field) and that you're located somewhere on a galaxy
smack-dab in the middle of the universe. Further assume that I'm on
a galaxy located halfway between you and the wall and that my galaxy
is being attracted to the wall by a gravitational anomaly in the
wall or on the other side of the wall.

So, you train your telescope on my galaxy and you find that the
light coming from it has been red shifted to the point where our
systems are receding from each other at 0.1C.

I do the same and come to the same conclusion.

Now, ten million years goes by and (being long-lived) we make the
same measurement again, but this time the results show that our
recessional velocites are 0.2C. OK, the universe is expanding.

Another ten million years go by, we do the same thing again, but now
we find that our recessional velocities are 0.4C. Interesting... we
thought they would be 0.3C. But... let's wait a while and make
another measurement before we start getting too excited.

Another ten million years go by, we make the measurement again, and
this time we get 0.8C, which throws the scientific wirld into a
tizzy!

Not only is the universe expanding, but its expansion is
accelerating!!!

---

Redshift is caused by the distance increasing.

---
Yes, but at a constant velocity. The increase of redshift with
distance is caused by the increase in velocity with distance, which
is acceleration.
---

Between
structures in which gravity is dominant, expansion does not take place.

---
That's not true. In structures in which gravity is dominant,
expansion occurs initially, but as the gravitational force between
the objects slows them down, eventually a point will be reached
where the expansion will stop and the force of attraction between
them will cause them to coalesce. The big-bang "closed universe"
theory.

No, sorry.

---
Yes, sorry.

Notice that I was making specific reference to a big-bang closed
universe where gravity was dominant. Under such conditions the
singularity would occur, followed by expansion, followed by slowing,
stop, and eventual collapse of the structure.
---

"Within" cosmological structures like our local group, Gravity is dominant
an objects are "pulled" towards the centre - within a given meaning of the
term pulled. There is still movement in all directions, but it is very
different than cosmological expansion.

---
Yes, I think we've already gone over that.
---

Expansion only occurs "between" large scale structures. Expansion is not the
structures "moving in space" it is more that space between structures
increases.

---
Conveniently, so that matter can move about at v>C...
---

Where gravitational forces are weak the universe expands.

---
Where gravitational forces are weak and the initial velocity of
expansion was high, an "open" big bang universe could exist which
would expand forever, but without an external gravitational field
attracting the objects in the universe, accelerating expansion would
be impossible without repulsive gravity.

You are talking about universal models here.

---
No kidding? The subject is "Big Bubble". Did you think I was
talking about laundry detergent?
---

The open universe model does
not need an "external" gravitational field.

---
True. All it needs is for the velocity of the ejecta from the
singularity, and its mass, to be less than the gravitational
attraction between the particles of the ejecta.
---

Accelerating expansion does not
need repulsive gravity.

---
Well, something's got to drive it, and I can only think of three
things:

1. Local repulsive gravitation.

2. External attractive gravitation

3. A source of energy to drive the acceleration which is still
active and has persisted from the singularity.
---

Gravity itself is the weakest "fundamental force," there is no reason why
"something" else couldn't be driving the expansion.

---
Like what?

Like anything.

---
Toe jam?
God?
---

We have to come to assume that the four fundamental forces
are _all_ there is, but there is no evidence that is the case.

---
Well, until you can come up with a fifth...
---

Likewise we assume that the equivalence principle is true, but until we can visit a
distant structure we do not "know" this. Maybe the force of cheese is indeed
accelerating cosmological expansion, we just haven't discovered it yet.

---
Well, we visited Luna in person, Mars, and lots of planets, and a
couple of asteroids by proxy, and it all seems to work OK, so far.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:32:17 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message

If somebody
says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up."

That would be based on observational evidence, not anecdotal evidence. An
assumption based on anecdotal evidence would be "it rained the past two
Tuesdays, so therefore I conclude that it always rains on Tuesday."

An absence of clouds would make the assertion look pretty flaky anyway !

Graham

How about "it rained for the last 39 days, so it will probably rain
today"? Anecdotal too, I suppose.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 25 Oct 06 16:23:50 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <j9vuj25679i7d4bp38km98lii0acq1ajai@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:55:01 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:



It is still valid. I honestly believe in Newtonian Gravity being the best
description of gravity in the domain in which it applies.

I don't believe it. I demonstrated it when I did my labs.

You still believe it is the _best_ description of gravity. Tomorrow some one

Einstein

may overhaul Newtonian gravity and explain that it is actually incorrect
because of [insert reason here].

General relativity, as demonstrated in the orbit of Mercury.


But even that cannot be entirely correct, as it is incompatible with quantum
mechanics.

But it certainly makes Newton's formulation not-the-best.

John

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:42:22 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:56:33 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Isn't that how Hitler got started?

Yes. However Germany is not suffering a massive economic depression and
smarting from a recent, unfair, peace treaty. In the 1930s Germany still had
the capability of becoming a world power in military terms. This is no
longer the case.

Especially so as the Brits and French and Russians have nukes.

Nearly irrelevant in the European context.

The way things are going we ( the above ) need to target the USA.

---
Are you advocating a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US?

Pre-emptive strikes are the idea of your lot.

---
Ever heard of the Crusades?

Plus, stop trying to dodge the issue. Answer the question:

Are you advocating a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:00:23 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jamie wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
T Wake wrote:

Islamic Extremism does not pose a greater threat than other threats people
live with on a daily basis.

Indeed.

Oddly, the threat from Islamic Extremism has markedly _increased_ since
2003. The plan is not working.

The 'plan' if there ever really was one was critically flawed from the very
beginning.

Graham

Oh, and you have all the answers! typical./

Not invading Iraq would have been a good place to start.

---
Not doing anything is always the answer for pussies like you.

Geez, a _live_ polio vaccine? Oh no, it's just too scary!

A canal across the isthmus of Panama?, Oh no, it's just too scary!

And so your pitiful life goes on, with you living in the shadows of
what you might have done had you not been such a goddam coward.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message

If somebody
says "looks like rain" I bet you say "prove it or shut up."

That would be based on observational evidence, not anecdotal evidence. An
assumption based on anecdotal evidence would be "it rained the past two
Tuesdays, so therefore I conclude that it always rains on Tuesday."

An absence of clouds would make the assertion look pretty flaky anyway !

Graham

How about "it rained for the last 39 days, so it will probably rain
today"? Anecdotal too, I suppose.

No doubt.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jamie wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
T Wake wrote:

Islamic Extremism does not pose a greater threat than other threats people
live with on a daily basis.

Indeed.

Oddly, the threat from Islamic Extremism has markedly _increased_ since
2003. The plan is not working.

The 'plan' if there ever really was one was critically flawed from the very
beginning.

Graham

Oh, and you have all the answers! typical./

Not invading Iraq would have been a good place to start.

---
Not doing anything is always the answer for pussies like you.

And doing something because you can't think of anything more intelligent to do is
plain dumb.

Graham