Discussion:
The Quantum Activist
(too old to reply)
Tashi
2009-10-22 16:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?

A very interesting interview.
http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/
m***@gmail.com
2009-10-22 16:52:38 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
> Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?
>
> A very interesting interview.http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/

And for here to time travel is only a short leap of imagination. Way
to go groupie!
Tashi
2009-10-22 17:10:54 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 10:52 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
> > Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?
>
> > A very interesting interview.http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/
>
> And for here to time travel is only a short leap of imagination. Way
> to go groupie!

Thank you, now go away.
m***@gmail.com
2009-10-22 17:35:02 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 1:10 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 10:52 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
> > > Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?
>
> > > A very interesting interview.http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/
>
> > And for here to time travel is only a short leap of imagination. Way
> > to go groupie!
>
> Thank you, now go away.

Sorry. First you'll have to point me in the direction of a high-end
(used) time-machine... or else, better get used to this: every time
you post an OT cockamamie off--the-wall link, I will point out to the
august readership of this NG that you just found yourself a new idol
to be the groupie thereof. Believe me, to quote your above statement,
this is accentual...

And why should I go away when I am having such a good time rejoicing
in your stupidities?

MO.
Tashi
2009-10-22 18:26:14 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 11:35 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 1:10 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 22, 10:52 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
> > > > Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?
>
> > > > A very interesting interview.http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/
>
> > > And for here to time travel is only a short leap of imagination. Way
> > > to go groupie!
>
> > Thank you, now go away.
>
> Sorry. First you'll have to point me in the direction of a high-end
> (used) time-machine... or else, better get used to this: every time
> you post an OT cockamamie off--the-wall link, I will point out to the
> august readership of this NG that you just found yourself a new idol
> to be the groupie thereof. Believe me, to quote your above statement,
> this is accentual...
>
> And why should I go away when I am having such a good time rejoicing
> in your stupidities?
>
> MO.

OK !
Wollybird
2009-10-22 18:26:31 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 12:35 pm, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 1:10 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 22, 10:52 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
> > > > Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?
>
> > > > A very interesting interview.http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/
>
> > > And for here to time travel is only a short leap of imagination. Way
> > > to go groupie!
>
> > Thank you, now go away.
>
> Sorry. First you'll have to point me in the direction of a high-end
> (used) time-machine... or else, better get used to this: every time
> you post an OT cockamamie off--the-wall link, I will point out to the
> august readership of this NG that you just found yourself a new idol
> to be the groupie thereof. Believe me, to quote your above statement,
> this is accentual...
>
> And why should I go away when I am having such a good time rejoicing
> in your stupidities?
>
> MO.

addicting, isn't it?
m***@gmail.com
2009-10-22 19:20:01 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 2:26 pm, Wollybird <***@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 12:35 pm, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 1:10 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 22, 10:52 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
> > > > > Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?
>
> > > > > A very interesting interview.http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/
>
> > > > And for here to time travel is only a short leap of imagination. Way
> > > > to go groupie!
>
> > > Thank you, now go away.
>
> > Sorry. First you'll have to point me in the direction of a high-end
> > (used) time-machine... or else, better get used to this: every time
> > you post an OT cockamamie off--the-wall link, I will point out to the
> > august readership of this NG that you just found yourself a new idol
> > to be the groupie thereof. Believe me, to quote your above statement,
> > this is accentual...
>
> > And why should I go away when I am having such a good time rejoicing
> > in your stupidities?
>
> > MO.
>
> addicting, isn't it?

Not really, but somebody has to do clean up the introverted-humble
mess around here... not that I expect to actually accomplish any
behavioral changes in one who is so societally challenged, never
worked before with other similarly distempered sufferers, but at least
I get it off my chest and hope that others also appreciate the
diversion value in trying to divert the diversion from our guitar
topic.

MO.

MO.
Tashi
2009-10-22 19:56:46 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 1:20 pm, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2:26 pm, Wollybird <***@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 12:35 pm, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 22, 1:10 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 22, 10:52 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
> > > > > > Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?
>
> > > > > > A very interesting interview.http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/
>
> > > > > And for here to time travel is only a short leap of imagination. Way
> > > > > to go groupie!
>
> > > > Thank you, now go away.
>
> > > Sorry. First you'll have to point me in the direction of a high-end
> > > (used) time-machine... or else, better get used to this: every time
> > > you post an OT cockamamie off--the-wall link, I will point out to the
> > > august readership of this NG that you just found yourself a new idol
> > > to be the groupie thereof. Believe me, to quote your above statement,
> > > this is accentual...
>
> > > And why should I go away when I am having such a good time rejoicing
> > > in your stupidities?
>
> > > MO.
>
> > addicting, isn't it?
>
> Not really, but somebody has to do clean up the introverted-humble
> mess around here... not that I expect to actually accomplish any
> behavioral changes in one who is so societally challenged, never
> worked before with other similarly distempered sufferers, but at least
> I get it off my chest and hope that others also appreciate the
> diversion value in trying to divert the diversion from our guitar
> topic.
>
> MO.
>
> MO.
Tashi
2009-10-22 20:13:31 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 1:20 pm, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2:26 pm, Wollybird <***@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 12:35 pm, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 22, 1:10 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 22, 10:52 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
> > > > > > Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?
>
> > > > > > A very interesting interview.http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/
>
> > > > > And for here to time travel is only a short leap of imagination. Way
> > > > > to go groupie!
>
> > > > Thank you, now go away.
>
> > > Sorry. First you'll have to point me in the direction of a high-end
> > > (used) time-machine... or else, better get used to this: every time
> > > you post an OT cockamamie off--the-wall link, I will point out to the
> > > august readership of this NG that you just found yourself a new idol
> > > to be the groupie thereof. Believe me, to quote your above statement,
> > > this is accentual...
>
> > > And why should I go away when I am having such a good time rejoicing
> > > in your stupidities?
>
> > > MO.
>
> > addicting, isn't it?
>
> Not really, but somebody has to do clean up the introverted-humble
> mess around here... not that I expect to actually accomplish any
> behavioral changes in one who is so societally challenged, never
> worked before with other similarly distempered sufferers, but at least
> I get it off my chest and hope that others also appreciate the
> diversion value in trying to divert the diversion from our guitar
> topic.
>
> MO.
>
> MO.

MOMO, you are the only one around here who is "diverted" lately.
m***@gmail.com
2009-10-22 22:24:25 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 4:13 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 1:20 pm, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 2:26 pm, Wollybird <***@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 22, 12:35 pm, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 22, 1:10 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 22, 10:52 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
> > > > > > > Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?
>
> > > > > > > A very interesting interview.http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/
>
> > > > > > And for here to time travel is only a short leap of imagination. Way
> > > > > > to go groupie!
>
> > > > > Thank you, now go away.
>
> > > > Sorry. First you'll have to point me in the direction of a high-end
> > > > (used) time-machine... or else, better get used to this: every time
> > > > you post an OT cockamamie off--the-wall link, I will point out to the
> > > > august readership of this NG that you just found yourself a new idol
> > > > to be the groupie thereof. Believe me, to quote your above statement,
> > > > this is accentual...
>
> > > > And why should I go away when I am having such a good time rejoicing
> > > > in your stupidities?
>
> > > > MO.
>
> > > addicting, isn't it?
>
> > Not really, but somebody has to do clean up the introverted-humble
> > mess around here... not that I expect to actually accomplish any
> > behavioral changes in one who is so societally challenged, never
> > worked before with other similarly distempered sufferers, but at least
> > I get it off my chest and hope that others also appreciate the
> > diversion value in trying to divert the diversion from our guitar
> > topic.
>
> > MO.
>
> > MO.
>
> MOMO, you are the only one around here who is "diverted" lately.

it's embarrassing for a sabrah, I must admit, to try and teach a
native speaker of English the diverse intricacies of the language, but
as you say, it is accentual to do so. One day, when you grow up, you
just might figure it out. In the mean time, you really have now way of
knowing if I am the only one who who elicits diversion from poking in
your sides. That I do myself, is obvious, and as wollie asked, it must
be addicting. But I assure you that the number of people who enjoy
this is far greater that those who give a rat's ass about your private
phobias and nightmares.

MO.
Tashi
2009-10-23 00:35:49 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 4:24 pm, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 4:13 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 1:20 pm, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 22, 2:26 pm, Wollybird <***@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 22, 12:35 pm, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 22, 1:10 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 22, 10:52 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
> > > > > > > > Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?
>
> > > > > > > > A very interesting interview.http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/
>
> > > > > > > And for here to time travel is only a short leap of imagination. Way
> > > > > > > to go groupie!
>
> > > > > > Thank you, now go away.
>
> > > > > Sorry. First you'll have to point me in the direction of a high-end
> > > > > (used) time-machine... or else, better get used to this: every time
> > > > > you post an OT cockamamie off--the-wall link, I will point out to the
> > > > > august readership of this NG that you just found yourself a new idol
> > > > > to be the groupie thereof. Believe me, to quote your above statement,
> > > > > this is accentual...
>
> > > > > And why should I go away when I am having such a good time rejoicing
> > > > > in your stupidities?
>
> > > > > MO.
>
> > > > addicting, isn't it?
>
> > > Not really, but somebody has to do clean up the introverted-humble
> > > mess around here... not that I expect to actually accomplish any
> > > behavioral changes in one who is so societally challenged, never
> > > worked before with other similarly distempered sufferers, but at least
> > > I get it off my chest and hope that others also appreciate the
> > > diversion value in trying to divert the diversion from our guitar
> > > topic.
>
> > > MO.
>
> > > MO.
>
> > MOMO, you are the only one around here who is "diverted" lately.
>
> it's embarrassing for a sabrah, I must admit, to try and teach a
> native speaker of English the diverse intricacies of the language, but
> as you say, it is accentual to do so. One day, when you grow up, you
> just might figure it out. In the mean time, you really have now way of
> knowing if I am the only one who who elicits diversion from poking in
> your sides. That I do myself, is obvious, and as wollie asked, it must
> be addicting. But I assure you that the number of people who enjoy
> this is far greater that those who give a rat's ass about your private
> phobias and nightmares.
>
> MO.

Yea and I hate teaching Russians English too!

verb |ˈakˌsent; akˈsent| |ˈøkˈsɛnt| |økˈsɛnt| [ trans. ] |akˈsɛnt|
emphasize (a particular feature) : fabrics that accent the background
colors in the room.
• Music play (a note, a beat of the bar, etc.) with an accent.
m***@gmail.com
2009-10-23 01:29:07 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 8:35 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 4:24 pm, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 4:13 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 22, 1:20 pm, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 22, 2:26 pm, Wollybird <***@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 22, 12:35 pm, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 22, 1:10 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Oct 22, 10:52 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
> > > > > > > > > Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?
>
> > > > > > > > > A very interesting interview.http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/
>
> > > > > > > > And for here to time travel is only a short leap of imagination. Way
> > > > > > > > to go groupie!
>
> > > > > > > Thank you, now go away.
>
> > > > > > Sorry. First you'll have to point me in the direction of a high-end
> > > > > > (used) time-machine... or else, better get used to this: every time
> > > > > > you post an OT cockamamie off--the-wall link, I will point out to the
> > > > > > august readership of this NG that you just found yourself a new idol
> > > > > > to be the groupie thereof. Believe me, to quote your above statement,
> > > > > > this is accentual...
>
> > > > > > And why should I go away when I am having such a good time rejoicing
> > > > > > in your stupidities?
>
> > > > > > MO.
>
> > > > > addicting, isn't it?
>
> > > > Not really, but somebody has to do clean up the introverted-humble
> > > > mess around here... not that I expect to actually accomplish any
> > > > behavioral changes in one who is so societally challenged, never
> > > > worked before with other similarly distempered sufferers, but at least
> > > > I get it off my chest and hope that others also appreciate the
> > > > diversion value in trying to divert the diversion from our guitar
> > > > topic.
>
> > > > MO.
>
> > > > MO.
>
> > > MOMO, you are the only one around here who is "diverted" lately.
>
> > it's embarrassing for a sabrah, I must admit, to try and teach a
> > native speaker of English the diverse intricacies of the language, but
> > as you say, it is accentual to do so. One day, when you grow up, you
> > just might figure it out. In the mean time, you really have now way of
> > knowing if I am the only one who who elicits diversion from poking in
> > your sides. That I do myself, is obvious, and as wollie asked, it must
> > be addicting. But I assure you that the number of people who enjoy
> > this is far greater that those who give a rat's ass about your private
> > phobias and nightmares.
>
> > MO.
>
>   Yea and I hate teaching Russians English too!
>
> verb |ˈakˌsent; akˈsent| |ˈøkˈsɛnt| |økˈsɛnt| [ trans. ] |akˈsɛnt|
> emphasize (a particular feature) : fabrics that accent the background
> colors in the room.
> • Music play (a note, a beat of the bar, etc.) with an accent.

A lame excuse for your dyslexic typing, I should say.
Richard Yates
2009-10-22 18:41:52 UTC
Permalink
***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Oct 22, 1:10 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 22, 10:52 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
>>>> Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?
>>
>>>> A very interesting
>>>> interview.http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/
>>
>>> And for here to time travel is only a short leap of imagination. Way
>>> to go groupie!
>>
>> Thank you, now go away.
>
> Sorry. First you'll have to point me in the direction of a high-end
> (used) time-machine... or else, better get used to this: every time
> you post an OT cockamamie off--the-wall link, I will point out to the
> august readership of this NG that you just found yourself a new idol
> to be the groupie thereof. Believe me, to quote your above statement,
> this is accentual...
>
> And why should I go away when I am having such a good time rejoicing
> in your stupidities?
> MO.

I am developing a theory that all of these fringe theories are generated by
the same entity for the purpose of diverting the best minds - both those
that adopt the theories and those that dispute them - from the real scheme
behind the appearances. As Arthur Clarke wrote: "Not only is the universe
stranger than you imagine, It's stranger than you *can* imagine."
dsi1
2009-10-22 19:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Richard Yates wrote:
>
> I am developing a theory that all of these fringe theories are generated
> by the same entity for the purpose of diverting the best minds - both
> those that adopt the theories and those that dispute them - from the
> real scheme behind the appearances. As Arthur Clarke wrote: "Not only is
> the universe stranger than you imagine, It's stranger than you *can*
> imagine."
>

I think Clarke was right. After all, our brains were developed for its
own survival - finding food and reproducing on our planet. The ability
of our brains for the abstract is a mere by-product of evolution i.e.,
it makes finding food and reproducing more likely.

There's no reason to believe that our Terrian brains would have the
ability to understand what's really going on except on a very basic
level. Millions of years of optimization is gonna be tough to shake off.

I'd like to believe that our best minds are not so easily diverted. This
doesn't mean that you're wrong - just that I'd rather not believe it! :-)
m***@gmail.com
2009-10-22 19:26:15 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 2:41 pm, "Richard Yates" <***@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
> ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 1:10 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 22, 10:52 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
> >>>> Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?
>
> >>>> A very interesting
> >>>> interview.http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/
>
> >>> And for here to time travel is only a short leap of imagination. Way
> >>> to go groupie!
>
> >> Thank you, now go away.
>
> > Sorry. First you'll have to point me in the direction of a high-end
> > (used) time-machine... or else, better get used to this: every time
> > you post an OT cockamamie off--the-wall link, I will point out to the
> > august readership of this NG that you just found yourself a new idol
> > to be the groupie thereof. Believe me, to quote your above statement,
> > this is accentual...
>
> > And why should I go away when I am having such a good time rejoicing
> > in your stupidities?
> > MO.
>
> I am developing a theory that all of these fringe theories are generated by
> the same entity for the purpose of diverting the best minds - both those
> that adopt the theories and those that dispute them -  from the real scheme
> behind the appearances. As Arthur Clarke wrote: "Not only is the universe
> stranger than you imagine, It's stranger than you *can* imagine."

Perhaps you are right. But frankly, I am not interested in what the
"real scheme" may be. I only ask that if anyone is so much as eager to
follow these inane stupidities, they did so on their own bandwidth,
and stopped trying to proselytize around here for converts. I'd much
rather talk about scordaturas, string gauges etc, as I have some
experience in the field (Cf. my involvement with the Russian seven-
string guitar), but I find it a bit off color to do so in the company
of the humbly introverted.

MO.
Tashi
2009-10-22 19:59:21 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 1:26 pm, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2:41 pm, "Richard Yates" <***@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Oct 22, 1:10 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Oct 22, 10:52 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
> > >>>> Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?
>
> > >>>> A very interesting
> > >>>> interview.http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/
>
> > >>> And for here to time travel is only a short leap of imagination. Way
> > >>> to go groupie!
>
> > >> Thank you, now go away.
>
> > > Sorry. First you'll have to point me in the direction of a high-end
> > > (used) time-machine... or else, better get used to this: every time
> > > you post an OT cockamamie off--the-wall link, I will point out to the
> > > august readership of this NG that you just found yourself a new idol
> > > to be the groupie thereof. Believe me, to quote your above statement,
> > > this is accentual...
>
> > > And why should I go away when I am having such a good time rejoicing
> > > in your stupidities?
> > > MO.
>
> > I am developing a theory that all of these fringe theories are generated by
> > the same entity for the purpose of diverting the best minds - both those
> > that adopt the theories and those that dispute them -  from the real scheme
> > behind the appearances. As Arthur Clarke wrote: "Not only is the universe
> > stranger than you imagine, It's stranger than you *can* imagine."
>
> Perhaps you are right. But frankly, I am not interested in what the
> "real scheme" may be. I only ask that if anyone is so much as eager to
> follow these inane stupidities, they did so on their own bandwidth,
> and stopped trying to proselytize around here for converts. I'd much
> rather talk about scordaturas, string gauges etc, as I have some
> experience in the field (Cf. my involvement with the Russian seven-
> string guitar), but I find it a bit off color to do so in the company
> of the humbly introverted.
>
> MO.

OK, MO MO
Tashi
2009-10-22 20:03:42 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 12:41 pm, "Richard Yates" <***@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
> ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 1:10 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 22, 10:52 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
> >>>> Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?
>
> >>>> A very interesting
> >>>> interview.http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/
>
> >>> And for here to time travel is only a short leap of imagination. Way
> >>> to go groupie!
>
> >> Thank you, now go away.
>
> > Sorry. First you'll have to point me in the direction of a high-end
> > (used) time-machine... or else, better get used to this: every time
> > you post an OT cockamamie off--the-wall link, I will point out to the
> > august readership of this NG that you just found yourself a new idol
> > to be the groupie thereof. Believe me, to quote your above statement,
> > this is accentual...
>
> > And why should I go away when I am having such a good time rejoicing
> > in your stupidities?
> > MO.
>
> I am developing a theory that all of these fringe theories are generated by
> the same entity for the purpose of diverting the best minds - both those
> that adopt the theories and those that dispute them -  from the real scheme
> behind the appearances. As Arthur Clarke wrote: "Not only is the universe
> stranger than you imagine, It's stranger than you *can* imagine."

You must mean "fringe" theories like black matter, and string theory,
which are generally peddled in mainstream science, in which case yes I
agree.
Richard Jernigan
2009-10-24 21:19:06 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 3:03 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 12:41 pm, "Richard Yates" <***@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Oct 22, 1:10 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Oct 22, 10:52 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Oct 22, 12:37 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> Understanding the nature of reality is accentual to art and music.
> > >>>> Otherwise what is it you are trying to convey?
>
> > >>>> A very interesting
> > >>>> interview.http://www.amitgoswami.org/category/media/
>
> > >>> And for here to time travel is only a short leap of imagination. Way
> > >>> to go groupie!
>
> > >> Thank you, now go away.
>
> > > Sorry. First you'll have to point me in the direction of a high-end
> > > (used) time-machine... or else, better get used to this: every time
> > > you post an OT cockamamie off--the-wall link, I will point out to the
> > > august readership of this NG that you just found yourself a new idol
> > > to be the groupie thereof. Believe me, to quote your above statement,
> > > this is accentual...
>
> > > And why should I go away when I am having such a good time rejoicing
> > > in your stupidities?
> > > MO.
>
> > I am developing a theory that all of these fringe theories are generated by
> > the same entity for the purpose of diverting the best minds - both those
> > that adopt the theories and those that dispute them -  from the real scheme
> > behind the appearances. As Arthur Clarke wrote: "Not only is the universe
> > stranger than you imagine, It's stranger than you *can* imagine."
>
> You must mean "fringe" theories like black matter, and string theory,
> which are generally peddled in mainstream science, in which case yes I
> agree.

By "black matter" I suppose you mean what is commonly called dark
matter. Dark matter is supposed to exist because bright matter--that
visible through telescopes--does not account for all the gravitational
effects on bright matter. There is nothing mysterious or spooky about
this, dark matter is a consequence of the accepted theories of
gravity. We just don't know what it is.

String theory is a horse of another color. It is proposed as a
scientific theory. Lots of papers are published on the subject every
year. Yet string theory has yet to produce a prediction that can be
tested by experiment, and most of its practitioners admit they are a
long way from it. Some of those who insist that a scientific theory
must be testable by experiment say string theory is not science, that
it is "not even wrong" in the notorious phrase of Wolfgang Pauli.

You exhibit a hilarious combination of gullibility and ignorance
concerning science in general, not just these two subjects.

RNJ
Tashi
2009-10-24 21:43:56 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 24, 3:19 pm, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> By "black matter" I suppose you mean what is commonly called dark
> matter. Dark matter is supposed to exist because bright matter--that
> visible through telescopes--does not account for all the gravitational
> effects on bright matter. There is nothing mysterious or spooky about
> this, dark matter is a consequence of the accepted theories of
> gravity. We just don't know what it is.

Richard you haven't a Phd in quantum physics do you....... yes I
didn't think so. This explains why you are in the dark so to speak
concerning dark matter. Please read this link.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3172

Dark matter proof called into doubt
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/ns-dm090606.php


> String theory is a horse of another color. It is proposed as a
> scientific theory. Lots of papers are published on the subject every
> year. Yet string theory has yet to produce a prediction that can be
> tested by experiment, and most of its practitioners admit they are a
> long way from it. Some of those who insist that a scientific theory
> must be testable by experiment say string theory is not science, that
> it is "not even wrong" in the notorious phrase of Wolfgang Pauli.

> You exhibit a hilarious combination of gullibility and ignorance
> concerning science in general, not just these two subjects.

This said by a man with many preconceived opinions which feed into
many erroneous self deluding conclusions. I take it RG you didn't
bother or couldn't down load the video once again, but somehow you
have managed to throw your two cents into the pot. You are a classic
old timer, I love you guys.
> RNJ
Richard Jernigan
2009-10-26 00:20:23 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 24, 4:43 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 3:19 pm,RichardJernigan<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > By "black matter" I suppose you mean what is commonly called dark
> > matter. Dark matter is supposed to exist because bright matter--that
> > visible through telescopes--does not account for all the gravitational
> > effects on bright matter. There is nothing mysterious or spooky about
> > this, dark matter is a consequence of the accepted theories of
> > gravity. We just don't know what it is.
>
>    Richardyou haven't a Phd in quantum physics do you....... yes I
> didn't think so.  This explains why you are in the dark so to speak
> concerning dark matter.  Please read this link.http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3172
>
> Dark matter proof called into doubthttp://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/ns-dm090606.php
>
> > String theory is a horse of another color. It is proposed as a
> > scientific theory. Lots of papers are published on the subject every
> > year. Yet string theory has yet to produce a prediction that can be
> > tested by experiment, and most of its practitioners admit they are a
> > long way from it. Some of those who insist that a scientific theory
> > must be testable by experiment say string theory is not science, that
> > it is "not even wrong" in the notorious phrase of Wolfgang Pauli.
> > You exhibit a hilarious combination of gullibility and ignorance
> > concerning science in general, not just these two subjects.
>
>   This said by a man with many preconceived opinions which feed into
> many erroneous self deluding conclusions.  I take it RG you didn't
> bother or couldn't down load the video once again, but somehow you
> have managed to throw your two cents into the pot. You are a classic
> old timer, I love you guys.
>
> > RNJ

Your comment on dark matter is another hilarious show of ignorance. I
would have said also the inability to read. But you know so little
about physics and scientific reasoning that you should not be expected
to understand anything at all written on either subject. What I said
was that the existence of dark matter was a consequence of
measurements and the accepted theories of gravity. By "consequence" I
mean a logical consequence. Measurements and the accepted theory imply
the existence of dark matter. Neither link disputes this. The second
one proposes to dispose of dark matter by adopting a new theory of
gravity, not the accepted one.

No, I don't have a PhD in quantum physics. You don't need a PhD in
quantum physics to understand the subject. What you need is training
in the appropriate mathematics, a few courses and the ability to read
critically. You have none of these. You have no concept of elementary
calculus, invented in the late 17th century. You think that when a
board gets stiffer, its tap tone goes down in pitch. It would be
difficult to imagine someone with greater ignorance of elementary
physics than you.

Somewhere around 50 PhDs have worked for me at one time or another.
They have accepted my leadership in the technical areas we worked in.
Most have said they learned a lot from me.

> This said by a man with many preconceived opinions which feed into
> many erroneous self deluding conclusions.

Care to be specific?

RNJ
Wollybird
2009-10-26 01:15:47 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 25, 7:20 pm, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 4:43 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 3:19 pm,RichardJernigan<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > By "black matter" I suppose you mean what is commonly called dark
> > > matter. Dark matter is supposed to exist because bright matter--that
> > > visible through telescopes--does not account for all the gravitational
> > > effects on bright matter. There is nothing mysterious or spooky about
> > > this, dark matter is a consequence of the accepted theories of
> > > gravity. We just don't know what it is.
>
> >    Richardyou haven't a Phd in quantum physics do you....... yes I
> > didn't think so.  This explains why you are in the dark so to speak
> > concerning dark matter.  Please read this link.http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3172
>
> > Dark matter proof called into doubthttp://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/ns-dm090606.php
>
> > > String theory is a horse of another color. It is proposed as a
> > > scientific theory. Lots of papers are published on the subject every
> > > year. Yet string theory has yet to produce a prediction that can be
> > > tested by experiment, and most of its practitioners admit they are a
> > > long way from it. Some of those who insist that a scientific theory
> > > must be testable by experiment say string theory is not science, that
> > > it is "not even wrong" in the notorious phrase of Wolfgang Pauli.
> > > You exhibit a hilarious combination of gullibility and ignorance
> > > concerning science in general, not just these two subjects.
>
> >   This said by a man with many preconceived opinions which feed into
> > many erroneous self deluding conclusions.  I take it RG you didn't
> > bother or couldn't down load the video once again, but somehow you
> > have managed to throw your two cents into the pot. You are a classic
> > old timer, I love you guys.
>
> > > RNJ
>
> Your comment on dark matter is another hilarious show of ignorance. I
> would have said also the inability to read. But you know so little
> about physics and scientific reasoning that you should not be expected
> to understand anything at all written on either subject. What I said
> was that the existence of dark matter was a consequence of
> measurements and the accepted theories of gravity. By "consequence" I
> mean a logical consequence. Measurements and the accepted theory imply
> the existence of dark matter. Neither link disputes this. The second
> one proposes to dispose of dark matter by adopting a new theory of
> gravity, not the accepted one.
>
> No, I don't have a PhD in quantum physics. You don't need a PhD in
> quantum physics to understand the subject. What you need is training
> in the appropriate mathematics, a few courses and the ability to read
> critically. You have none of these. You have no concept of elementary
> calculus, invented in the late 17th century. You think that when a
> board gets stiffer, its tap tone goes down in pitch. It would be
> difficult to imagine someone with greater ignorance of elementary
> physics than you.
>
> Somewhere around 50 PhDs have worked for me at one time or another.
> They have accepted my leadership in the technical areas we worked in.
> Most have said they learned a lot from me.
>
> >   This said by a man with many preconceived opinions which feed into
> > many erroneous self deluding conclusions.
>
> Care to be specific?
>
> RNJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mike is referring to a branch of new age philosopy that uses a gummed
up version of quantum physics. some folks call it quantum baloney.
It's all over the internet, as you might suspect by Mike's prior
topics.
Wollybird
2009-10-26 01:18:25 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 25, 8:15 pm, Wollybird <***@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 7:20 pm, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 4:43 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 24, 3:19 pm,RichardJernigan<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > By "black matter" I suppose you mean what is commonly called dark
> > > > matter. Dark matter is supposed to exist because bright matter--that
> > > > visible through telescopes--does not account for all the gravitational
> > > > effects on bright matter. There is nothing mysterious or spooky about
> > > > this, dark matter is a consequence of the accepted theories of
> > > > gravity. We just don't know what it is.
>
> > >    Richardyou haven't a Phd in quantum physics do you....... yes I
> > > didn't think so.  This explains why you are in the dark so to speak
> > > concerning dark matter.  Please read this link.http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3172
>
> > > Dark matter proof called into doubthttp://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/ns-dm090606.php
>
> > > > String theory is a horse of another color. It is proposed as a
> > > > scientific theory. Lots of papers are published on the subject every
> > > > year. Yet string theory has yet to produce a prediction that can be
> > > > tested by experiment, and most of its practitioners admit they are a
> > > > long way from it. Some of those who insist that a scientific theory
> > > > must be testable by experiment say string theory is not science, that
> > > > it is "not even wrong" in the notorious phrase of Wolfgang Pauli.
> > > > You exhibit a hilarious combination of gullibility and ignorance
> > > > concerning science in general, not just these two subjects.
>
> > >   This said by a man with many preconceived opinions which feed into
> > > many erroneous self deluding conclusions.  I take it RG you didn't
> > > bother or couldn't down load the video once again, but somehow you
> > > have managed to throw your two cents into the pot. You are a classic
> > > old timer, I love you guys.
>
> > > > RNJ
>
> > Your comment on dark matter is another hilarious show of ignorance. I
> > would have said also the inability to read. But you know so little
> > about physics and scientific reasoning that you should not be expected
> > to understand anything at all written on either subject. What I said
> > was that the existence of dark matter was a consequence of
> > measurements and the accepted theories of gravity. By "consequence" I
> > mean a logical consequence. Measurements and the accepted theory imply
> > the existence of dark matter. Neither link disputes this. The second
> > one proposes to dispose of dark matter by adopting a new theory of
> > gravity, not the accepted one.
>
> > No, I don't have a PhD in quantum physics. You don't need a PhD in
> > quantum physics to understand the subject. What you need is training
> > in the appropriate mathematics, a few courses and the ability to read
> > critically. You have none of these. You have no concept of elementary
> > calculus, invented in the late 17th century. You think that when a
> > board gets stiffer, its tap tone goes down in pitch. It would be
> > difficult to imagine someone with greater ignorance of elementary
> > physics than you.
>
> > Somewhere around 50 PhDs have worked for me at one time or another.
> > They have accepted my leadership in the technical areas we worked in.
> > Most have said they learned a lot from me.
>
> > >   This said by a man with many preconceived opinions which feed into
> > > many erroneous self deluding conclusions.
>
> > Care to be specific?
>
> > RNJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Mike is referring to a branch of new age philosopy that uses a gummed
> up version of quantum physics. some folks call it quantum baloney.
> It's all over the internet, as you might suspect by Mike's prior
> topics.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Quantum baloney's high priest:
http://skepdic.com/chopra.html
Slogoin
2009-10-26 02:59:51 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 25, 6:18 pm, Wollybird <***@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> Quantum baloney's high priest:http://skepdic.com/chopra.html

I know one of his students. She teaches yoga on a tropical island.
I've stayed at her home and read some of the books in her library.
It's an interesting mix of facts and beliefs with mostly good
intentions. She's a beautiful and intelligent lady and yet she
believes things I find hard to believe anybody can seriously believe.
Go figure.

MT takes it to a whole new level but the tendency to piece together
all kinds of odd bits that coalesce into a wiggling jello like mass
seems to be one common trait.

There is another guy, Dr. Wayne Dyer on TV (PBS), who also makes
some serious bucks sell quantum baloney. The popularized version of
"Quantum theory" has become the "all bets off" black magic hole of
logic where people are connecting strings of nonsense to weave cocoons
around themselves so they can feel warm and fuzzy.
Tashi
2009-10-26 05:23:25 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 25, 8:59 pm, Slogoin <***@deack.net> wrote:

>   MT takes it to a whole new level but the tendency to piece together
> all kinds of odd bits that coalesce into a wiggling jello like mass
> seems to be one common trait.

Your common trait is to put words in peoples mouths. I supplied a
website by Dr. Amit Goswami Phd. in which he stated both dark matter,
and string theory, were pseudo science, Larry the clown took it from
there, in only a way Larry the clown can do.

Larry the clown hasn't finished hight school, Dr. Goswami has a
Phd.
Slogoin
2009-10-26 14:24:58 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 25, 10:23 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   Larry the clown hasn't finished hight school, Dr. Goswami has a Phd.

Yet you ignore those with science PhDs in RMCG and what they are
trying to teach you about what science actually is... amazing!
Tashi
2009-10-27 02:46:46 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 8:24 am, Slogoin <***@deack.net> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 10:23 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >   Larry the clown hasn't finished hight school, Dr. Goswami has a Phd.
>
>    Yet you ignore those with science PhDs in RMCG and what they are
> trying to teach you about what science actually is... amazing!

I don't think their trying to teach anything, they are just being
assholes.
Slogoin
2009-10-27 06:33:22 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 7:46 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think their trying to teach anything, they are just being assholes.

Why would you think they would be interested in spending time
making things up just to piss you off? Are you that important to the
world in your own mind?
Tashi
2009-10-26 01:35:52 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 25, 6:20 pm, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Your comment on dark matter is another hilarious show of ignorance. I
> would have said also the inability to read. But you know so little
> about physics and scientific reasoning that you should not be expected
> to understand anything at all written on either subject.

Richard I'm quite accustomed to a flurry of insults why should you
be any different! You just need a good excuse once and a while to
vent your frustration, good for the old ticker, despite not knowing
what you are talking about, and of course better reading and
comprehension skill are in order here.

>What I said was that the existence of dark matter was a consequence of
> measurements and the accepted theories of gravity. By "consequence" I
> mean a logical consequence. Measurements and the accepted theory imply
> the existence of dark matter.

I said dark matter is a fringe theory. Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
science.

Amit Goswami, Ph. D. is professor emeritus in the theoretical physics
department of the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon where he has
served since 1968. He is a pioneer of the new paradigm of science
called “science within consciousness”.

Goswami is the author of the highly successful textbook Quantum
Mechanics that is used in Universities throughout the world.

> No, I don't have a PhD in quantum physics. You don't need a PhD in
> quantum physics to understand the subject. What you need is training
> in the appropriate mathematics, a few courses and the ability to read
> critically. You have none of these. You have no concept of elementary
> calculus, invented in the late 17th century.

You are starting to sound like Larry pulling the Maths card...... how
pathetic is that?

>You think that when a your board gets stiffer, its tap tone goes down.

Richard, lets keep Matanya's impotence ( erectile dysfunction)
problems out of this conversation. Yours too for that matter.

>It would be difficult to imagine someone with greater ignorance of elementary
> physics than you.

It's easy if you try.


> Somewhere around 50 PhDs have worked for me at one time or another.
> They have accepted my leadership in the technical areas we worked in.
> Most have said they learned a lot from me.

I've taught a few Phd's how to make a guitar...... so there!
>
> >   This said by a man with many preconceived opinions which feed into
> > many erroneous self deluding conclusions.
>
> Care to be specific?

Yes, your heart felt _belief_ in the 911 conspiracy for starters.
William D Clinger
2009-10-26 04:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Tashi wrote:
> I said dark matter is a fringe theory. Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
> science.

Dark matter is not a fringe theory, nor is it pseudoscience.
It is an important hypothesis, with indirect support from
observations. For several decades now, scientists have
been performing experiments and making observations
designed to test the dark matter hypothesis and to give
a better idea of what dark matter may be. Alternative
hypotheses are also being proposed and tested.

That's how science works.

Will
Tashi
2009-10-26 05:16:13 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 25, 10:22 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tashi wrote:
> > I said dark matter is a fringe theory.  Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
> > science.
>
> Dark matter is not a fringe theory, nor is it pseudoscience.
> It is an important hypothesis, with indirect support from
> observations.  For several decades now, scientists have
> been performing experiments and making observations
> designed to test the dark matter hypothesis and to give
> a better idea of what dark matter may be.  Alternative
> hypotheses are also being proposed and tested.
>
> That's how science works.
>
> Will

It's unproven......
Richard Jernigan
2009-10-26 06:08:50 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 12:16 am, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 10:22 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Tashi wrote:
> > > I said dark matter is a fringe theory.  Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
> > > science.
>
> > Dark matter is not a fringe theory, nor is it pseudoscience.
> > It is an important hypothesis, with indirect support from
> > observations.  For several decades now, scientists have
> > been performing experiments and making observations
> > designed to test the dark matter hypothesis and to give
> > a better idea of what dark matter may be.  Alternative
> > hypotheses are also being proposed and tested.
>
> > That's how science works.
>
> > Will
>
>   It's unproven......

So are your beliefs about 9/11/2001, human life 3.5 million years ago,
devolution, visits from intelligent extraterrestrials---.
Note that I didn't say your beliefs were false. Nor did I say they
were proven untrue. I say I don't share your beliefs, and they are
unproven.

But at least the possibility of dark matter is a logical consequence
of a known and tested theory of gravity and repeatable measurements.

Since you have not the slightest conception of either a physical
theory or a repeatable scientific measurement, you will continue
blathering nonsense.

RNJ
Tashi
2009-10-26 13:15:07 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 12:08 am, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 12:16 am, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 10:22 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Tashi wrote:
> > > > I said dark matter is a fringe theory.  Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
> > > > science.
>
> > > Dark matter is not a fringe theory, nor is it pseudoscience.
> > > It is an important hypothesis, with indirect support from
> > > observations.  For several decades now, scientists have
> > > been performing experiments and making observations
> > > designed to test the dark matter hypothesis and to give
> > > a better idea of what dark matter may be.  Alternative
> > > hypotheses are also being proposed and tested.
>
> > > That's how science works.
>
> > > Will
>
> >   It's unproven......
>
> So are your beliefs about 9/11/2001, human life 3.5 million years ago,
> devolution, visits from intelligent extraterrestrials---.
> Note that I didn't say your beliefs were false. Nor did I say they
> were proven untrue. I say I don't share your beliefs, and they are
> unproven.
>
> But at least the possibility of dark matter is a logical consequence
> of a known and tested theory of gravity and repeatable measurements.
>
> Since you have not the slightest conception of either a physical
> theory or a repeatable scientific measurement, you will continue
> blathering nonsense.
>
> RNJ
Tashi
2009-10-26 13:19:19 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 12:08 am, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 12:16 am, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 10:22 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Tashi wrote:
> > > > I said dark matter is a fringe theory.  Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
> > > > science.
>
> > > Dark matter is not a fringe theory, nor is it pseudoscience.
> > > It is an important hypothesis, with indirect support from
> > > observations.  For several decades now, scientists have
> > > been performing experiments and making observations
> > > designed to test the dark matter hypothesis and to give
> > > a better idea of what dark matter may be.  Alternative
> > > hypotheses are also being proposed and tested.
>
> > > That's how science works.
>
> > > Will
>
> >   It's unproven......
>
> So are your beliefs about 9/11/2001, human life 3.5 million years ago,
> devolution, visits from intelligent extraterrestrials---.
> Note that I didn't say your beliefs were false. Nor did I say they
> were proven untrue. I say I don't share your beliefs, and they are
> unproven.

So is the theory of evolution totally unproven! Unless you want to
believe.
>
> But at least the possibility of dark matter is a logical consequence
> of a known and tested theory of gravity and repeatable measurements.

It is still un proven that makes it a Pseudo science.The
existence of extra terrestrials are a logic consequence of millions of
people seeing mile wide craft in our skies.
>
> Since you have not the slightest conception of either a physical
> theory or a repeatable scientific measurement, you will continue
> blathering nonsense.

One man's opinion I guess.
Richard Jernigan
2009-10-26 23:26:21 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 8:19 am, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 12:08 am, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 12:16 am, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 25, 10:22 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Tashi wrote:
> > > > > I said dark matter is a fringe theory.  Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
> > > > > science.
>
> > > > Dark matter is not a fringe theory, nor is it pseudoscience.
> > > > It is an important hypothesis, with indirect support from
> > > > observations.  For several decades now, scientists have
> > > > been performing experiments and making observations
> > > > designed to test the dark matter hypothesis and to give
> > > > a better idea of what dark matter may be.  Alternative
> > > > hypotheses are also being proposed and tested.
>
> > > > That's how science works.
>
> > > > Will
>
> > >   It's unproven......
>
> > So are your beliefs about 9/11/2001, human life 3.5 million years ago,
> > devolution, visits from intelligent extraterrestrials---.
> > Note that I didn't say your beliefs were false. Nor did I say they
> > were proven untrue. I say I don't share your beliefs, and they are
> > unproven.
>
>   So is the theory of evolution totally unproven!  Unless you want to
> believe.
>
>
"Totally unproven" is another of your heedless, blustering
exaggerations. There are thousands, probably millions of pages of
published scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution.

You fall for the debating tactic of the creationists. Just because
scientists stand ready to revise a theory in light of new evidence,
the creationists shout "Unproven!!" This seems to me to be intentional
stupidity and ignorance in support of a warped belief system.
Evolution is a well established theory with great evidentiary support,
and it makes testable predictions.

In my lifetime we have witnessed the evolution of drug-resistant
strains of malaria parasites and staphylococcus aureus bacteria. Are
you saying this didn't happen? Or are you saying you have another
explanation than evolution by natural selection for this phenomenon?

RNJ
Tashi
2009-10-27 02:36:48 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 5:26 pm, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "Totally unproven" is another of your heedless, blustering
> exaggerations. There are thousands, probably millions of pages of
> published scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution.

Ha Ha! even you call it "the theory of evolution" too funny!

> You fall for the debating tactic of the creationists.

I'm not a creationist.

> scientists stand ready to revise a theory in light of new evidence,
> the creationists shout "Unproven!!" This seems to me to be intentional
> stupidity and ignorance in support of a warped belief system.
> Evolution is a well established theory with great evidentiary support,
> and it makes testable predictions.

Richard you said it again! "Evolution is a well established theory"
I couldn't have said it any better.

> In my lifetime we have witnessed the evolution of drug-resistant
> strains of malaria parasites and staphylococcus aureus bacteria. Are
> you saying this didn't happen? Or are you saying you have another
> explanation than evolution by natural selection for this phenomenon?
>
> RNJ

There is a certain amount of adoption within a species of course.
However, be sure to keep me posted next time you observe a malaria
parasite transform into a bacteria, or an elephant grows wings. Too
funny!
Richard Jernigan
2009-10-27 08:34:25 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 9:36 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 5:26 pm, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Totally unproven" is another of your heedless, blustering
> > exaggerations. There are thousands, probably millions of pages of
> > published scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution.
>
>   Ha Ha! even you call it "the theory of evolution" too funny!
>
> > You fall for the debating tactic of the creationists.
>
>  I'm not a creationist.
>
> > scientists stand ready to revise a theory in light of new evidence,
> > the creationists shout "Unproven!!" This seems to me to be intentional
> > stupidity and ignorance in support of a warped belief system.
> > Evolution is a well established theory with great evidentiary support,
> > and it makes testable predictions.
>
>   Richard you said it again! "Evolution is a well established theory"
> I couldn't have said it any better.
>
> > In my lifetime we have witnessed the evolution of drug-resistant
> > strains of malaria parasites and staphylococcus aureus bacteria. Are
> > you saying this didn't happen? Or are you saying you have another
> > explanation than evolution by natural selection for this phenomenon?
>
> > RNJ
>
>   There is a certain amount of adoption within a species of course.
> However,  be sure to keep me posted next time you observe a malaria
> parasite transform into a bacteria, or an elephant grows wings.  Too
> funny!

Here again you are imprisoned in a medieval mind. It has been well
known since the Renaissance that all knowledge of the material world
is to some extent provisional. Some theories are more secure than
others.

For example, the theory of Newtonian mechanics took people to the moon
and back. It enables rendezvous with the International Space Station.
Do you have a car? It was designed in accordance with Newtonian
mechanics. Yet it is well known that Newtonian mechanics is inaccurate
at speeds approaching that of light, and at atomic scales or smaller.
Physical mechanics must be modified at these scales. Yet relativity,
Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics fit together seamlessly at
the boundaries of their domains.

The fact that Newtonian mechanics is a theory does not render it
somehow invalid or suspect. It will stand up in a court of law. It is
what was used to design and produce the tools you use to make guitars.
Jeering at a scientific discipline because it is called a theory is
simply a display of ignorance. All scientific knowledge is theoretical
and subject to revision upon new evidence.

If you think science provides absolute truth, you are laughably
ignorant. If you think this renders it somehow invalid, you are just
being stupid. Science provides truth, but it is provisional truth, not
absolute.

The kind of bullshit you dish out isn't even a theory. A scientific
theory must at least be logically consistent. It must be falsifiable
by tests of its predictions. Your bullshit is just a miasma of
ignorant credulity.

Elephants growing wings? Probably not. Dinosaurs evolving wings and
feathers, morphing into birds over millions of years? There's a lot of
evidence in favor of this. You will hoot and jeer. This merely exposes
your ignorance. Do you think you are related to the apes? No? Have you
ever been to the zoo and watched the chimpanzees, gorillas and
orangutangs for a while? Have you read analyses of their DNA?

RNJ
Richard Jernigan
2009-10-27 01:18:23 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 8:19 am, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 12:08 am, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 12:16 am, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 25, 10:22 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Tashi wrote:
> > > > > I said dark matter is a fringe theory.  Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
> > > > > science.
>
> > > > Dark matter is not a fringe theory, nor is it pseudoscience.
> > > > It is an important hypothesis, with indirect support from
> > > > observations.  For several decades now, scientists have
> > > > been performing experiments and making observations
> > > > designed to test the dark matter hypothesis and to give
> > > > a better idea of what dark matter may be.  Alternative
> > > > hypotheses are also being proposed and tested.
>
> > > > That's how science works.
>
> > > > Will
>
> > >   It's unproven......
>
> > So are your beliefs about 9/11/2001, human life 3.5 million years ago,
> > devolution, visits from intelligent extraterrestrials---.
> > Note that I didn't say your beliefs were false. Nor did I say they
> > were proven untrue. I say I don't share your beliefs, and they are
> > unproven.
>
>   So is the theory of evolution totally unproven!  Unless you want to
> believe.
>
>
>
> > But at least the possibility of dark matter is a logical consequence
> > of a known and tested theory of gravity and repeatable measurements.
>
>      It is still un proven that makes it a Pseudo science.The
> existence of extra terrestrials are a logic consequence of millions of
> people seeing mile wide craft in our skies.
>
>
>
> > Since you have not the slightest conception of either a physical
> > theory or a repeatable scientific measurement, you will continue
> > blathering nonsense.
>
>   One man's opinion I guess.

Wanna take a vote?

RNJ
Richard Yates
2009-10-26 12:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Tashi wrote:
> On Oct 25, 10:22 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Tashi wrote:
>>> I said dark matter is a fringe theory. Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
>>> science.
>>
>> Dark matter is not a fringe theory, nor is it pseudoscience.
>> It is an important hypothesis, with indirect support from
>> observations. For several decades now, scientists have
>> been performing experiments and making observations
>> designed to test the dark matter hypothesis and to give
>> a better idea of what dark matter may be. Alternative
>> hypotheses are also being proposed and tested.
>>
>> That's how science works.
>> Will
>
> It's unproven......

Scientific theories are never "proven." Proof is limited to math and logic.
This has been explained in short and at length to you.
dsi1
2009-10-26 20:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Richard Yates wrote:
>
> Scientific theories are never "proven." Proof is limited to math and
> logic. This has been explained in short and at length to you.

Science is a harsh mistress - you can never be sure of anything with
certainly if you choose to tango with science. Only religion can give
you the absolute truth. And dats the truth, or is it? I dunno. :-)
Richard Jernigan
2009-10-27 08:49:09 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 3:51 pm, dsi1 <***@humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote:
> Richard Yates wrote:
>
> > Scientific theories are never "proven." Proof is limited to math and
> > logic. This has been explained in short and at length to you.
>
> Science is a harsh mistress - you can never be sure of anything with
> certainly if you choose to tango with science. Only religion can give
> you the absolute truth. And dats the truth, or is it? I dunno. :-)

Religion says it gives you the absolute truth. So does Tashi.

RNJ
JPD
2009-10-27 10:51:13 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 27, 4:49 am, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 3:51 pm, dsi1 <***@humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote:
>
> > Richard Yates wrote:
>
> > > Scientific theories are never "proven." Proof is limited to math and
> > > logic. This has been explained in short and at length to you.
>
> > Science is a harsh mistress - you can never be sure of anything with
> > certainly if you choose to tango with science. Only religion can give
> > you the absolute truth. And dats the truth, or is it? I dunno. :-)
>
> Religion says it gives you the absolute truth. So does Tashi.
>
> RNJ

Science is always learning -- catching its own errors, upgrading its
view, and learning.

Religion, on the other hand, can hardly learn a damned thing --
because it already knows everything!
Tashi
2009-10-27 14:48:40 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 27, 4:51 am, JPD <***@guitarist.com> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 4:49 am, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 26, 3:51 pm, dsi1 <***@humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote:
>
> > > Richard Yates wrote:
>
> > > > Scientific theories are never "proven." Proof is limited to math and
> > > > logic. This has been explained in short and at length to you.
>
> > > Science is a harsh mistress - you can never be sure of anything with
> > > certainly if you choose to tango with science. Only religion can give
> > > you the absolute truth. And dats the truth, or is it? I dunno. :-)
>
> > Religion says it gives you the absolute truth. So does Tashi.
>
> > RNJ
>
> Science is always learning -- catching its own errors, upgrading its
> view, and learning.

300 years from now all this talk of dark matter, quantum physics
will seem quite silly.

> Religion, on the other hand, can hardly learn a damned thing --
> because it already knows everything!

Yes if you base you idea of religion on the western model......... I
seriously doubt you have invested much time in the pursuit of
knowledge concerning this. After all you are a prime example of a man
who talks a lot of science, yet has more to say about things you have
no knowledge of, typical in this age of Kali.

Science is an investigation of phenomena, not to be confused, with a
denial of the unknown and unproven, the later is scientific dogma,
verging on fanatical belief, a belief in 4% of the known universe, you
boys are taking quite a gamble with reality I'm afraid!
Slogoin
2009-10-27 14:25:47 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 27, 1:49 am, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Religion says it gives you the absolute truth. So does Tashi.

MT logic = absolute truth
Tashi
2009-10-27 14:36:21 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 27, 2:49 am, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 3:51 pm, dsi1 <***@humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote:
>
> > Richard Yates wrote:
>
> > > Scientific theories are never "proven." Proof is limited to math and
> > > logic. This has been explained in short and at length to you.
>
> > Science is a harsh mistress - you can never be sure of anything with
> > certainly if you choose to tango with science. Only religion can give
> > you the absolute truth. And dats the truth, or is it? I dunno. :-)
>
> Religion says it gives you the absolute truth. So does Tashi.
>
> RNJ

Funny, I just asked a question, and now I'm dishing out absolute
truth? Quite a jump!
William D Clinger
2009-10-27 15:18:50 UTC
Permalink
In the 21st of his 23 posts (so far) in this thread,
Tashi wrote:
> Funny, I just asked a question, and now I'm dishing out absolute
> truth?

No.

That answers Tashi's third question in this thread.
Here, for your reading convenience, are Tashi's two
previous questions, with answers:

> You are starting to sound like Larry pulling the Maths card...... how
> pathetic is that?

Nowhere near as pathetic as "talking about physics when
you think most math was developed thousands of years ago"
(as Richard Jernigan put it).

> Richard, did matter form from consciousness, or did consciousness
> form from matter?

The origins of matter/energy are unknown.

In several religious traditions, matter is thought to
have been created by some form of consciousness. There
is no scientific evidence for those traditions. (That
doesn't mean they are all wrong; it just means there is
no scientific reason to believe any of them.)

To the best of our scientific knowledge at present,
consciousness formed from matter. The only forms of
consciousness known to science are exhibited by living
creatures on earth, which is only about 4.5 billion
years old. Matter has been around for about three
times that long. So matter preceded consciousness,
which is a property of (some) living creatures, which
are formed of matter.

Hope that helps.

Will
Tashi
2009-10-30 14:24:02 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 27, 9:18 am, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In the 21st of his 23 posts (so far) in this thread,
>
> Tashi wrote:
> > Funny, I just asked a question, and now I'm dishing out absolute
> > truth?
>
> No.
>
> That answers Tashi's third question in this thread.
> Here, for your reading convenience, are Tashi's two
> previous questions, with answers:
>
> >  You are starting to sound like Larry pulling the Maths card...... how
> > pathetic is that?
>
> Nowhere near as pathetic as "talking about physics when
> you think most math was developed thousands of years ago"
> (as Richard Jernigan put it).
>
> >   Richard, did matter form from consciousness, or did consciousness
> > form from matter?
>
> The origins of matter/energy are unknown.
>
> In several religious traditions, matter is thought to
> have been created by some form of consciousness.  There
> is no scientific evidence for those traditions.  (That
> doesn't mean they are all wrong; it just means there is
> no scientific reason to believe any of them.)
>
> To the best of our scientific knowledge at present,
> consciousness formed from matter.  The only forms of
> consciousness known to science are exhibited by living
> creatures on earth, which is only about 4.5 billion
> years old.  Matter has been around for about three
> times that long.  So matter preceded consciousness,
> which is a property of (some) living creatures, which
> are formed of matter.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Will

No, I'm afraid that doesn't help. Passing this off as science is a far
stretch, but I guess it's more a matter of what you believe in, and
you subscribe to a materialist belief. Evolution has not explained
the self awareness, and consciousness, sentient beings posses, no
matter how you spin it.

More pseudo science from the man who believes buildings collapse at
free fall speeds, and 757's leave 16 foot diameter holes in things
when they crash. Now you are lecturing us on God! LOL!
dsi1
2009-10-27 19:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Richard Jernigan wrote:
> On Oct 26, 3:51 pm, dsi1 <***@humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote:
>> Richard Yates wrote:
>>
>>> Scientific theories are never "proven." Proof is limited to math and
>>> logic. This has been explained in short and at length to you.
>> Science is a harsh mistress - you can never be sure of anything with
>> certainly if you choose to tango with science. Only religion can give
>> you the absolute truth. And dats the truth, or is it? I dunno. :-)
>
> Religion says it gives you the absolute truth. So does Tashi.
>
> RNJ

Like any harsh mistress, religion demands that you comply and believe in
her. That's the way it's always been. Religion - can't live with em,
can't live without em. :-)
Richard Jernigan
2009-10-26 23:28:36 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 7:37 am, "Richard Yates" <***@yatesguitar.com> wrote:

>
> Scientific theories are never "proven." Proof is limited to math and logic.
> This has been explained in short and at length to you.

But Tashi will never understand.

RNJ
Tashi
2009-10-27 02:38:58 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 5:28 pm, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 7:37 am, "Richard Yates" <***@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Scientific theories are never "proven." Proof is limited to math and logic.
> > This has been explained in short and at length to you.
>
> But Tashi will never understand.
>
> RNJ

Well, all I can say is I wouldn't get on an airplane, if it's
ability to fly was based on theory!
Richard Jernigan
2009-10-27 08:38:54 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 9:38 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 5:28 pm, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 26, 7:37 am, "Richard Yates" <***@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>
> > > Scientific theories are never "proven." Proof is limited to math and logic.
> > > This has been explained in short and at length to you.
>
> > But Tashi will never understand.
>
> > RNJ
>
>   Well, all I can say is I wouldn't get on an airplane, if it's
> ability to fly was based on theory!

Then you're not ever going flying. At least not until you learn what
the word "theory" means.

RNJ
Richard Jernigan
2009-10-26 06:00:01 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 25, 8:35 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 6:20 pm, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Your comment on dark matter is another hilarious show of ignorance. I
> > would have said also the inability to read. But you know so little
> > about physics and scientific reasoning that you should not be expected
> > to understand anything at all written on either subject.
>
>   Richard I'm quite accustomed to a flurry of insults why should you
> be any different!  You just need a good excuse once and a while to
> vent your frustration, good for the old ticker, despite not knowing
> what you are talking about, and of course better reading and
> comprehension skill are in order here.
>
> >What I said was that the existence of dark matter was a consequence of
> > measurements and the accepted theories of gravity. By "consequence" I
> > mean a logical consequence. Measurements and the accepted theory imply
> > the existence of dark matter.
>
> I said dark matter is a fringe theory.  Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
> science.
>
>  Amit Goswami, Ph. D. is professor emeritus in the theoretical physics
> department of the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon where he has
> served since 1968. He is a pioneer of the new paradigm of science
> called “science within consciousness”.
>
> Goswami is the author of the highly successful textbook Quantum
> Mechanics that is used in Universities throughout the world.
>
> > No, I don't have a PhD in quantum physics. You don't need a PhD in
> > quantum physics to understand the subject. What you need is training
> > in the appropriate mathematics, a few courses and the ability to read
> > critically. You have none of these. You have no concept of elementary
> > calculus, invented in the late 17th century.
>
>  You are starting to sound like Larry pulling the Maths card...... how
> pathetic is that?
>
> >You think that when a your board gets stiffer, its tap tone goes down.
>
>   Richard, lets keep Matanya's impotence ( erectile dysfunction)
> problems out of this conversation.  Yours too for that matter.
>
> >It would be difficult to imagine someone with greater ignorance of elementary
> > physics than you.
>
>  It's easy if you try.
>
> > Somewhere around 50 PhDs have worked for me at one time or another.
> > They have accepted my leadership in the technical areas we worked in.
> > Most have said they learned a lot from me.
>
>    I've taught a few Phd's how to make a guitar...... so there!
>
>
>
> > >   This said by a man with many preconceived opinions which feed into
> > > many erroneous self deluding conclusions.
>
> > Care to be specific?
>
>  Yes, your heart felt _belief_ in the 911 conspiracy for starters.

I do not believe in any explanation the occurrences of 9/11/2001. I
view any "explanation" of it from a scientific perspective. That is to
say, I have a working hypothesis which is subject to revision upon
receipt of new facts. It is you who _believe_that the events of
9/11/2001 were a false flag attack conducted by a US government
conspiracy in order to provoke a war with Iraq. You have said so on
many occasions. You imagine that I believe in some other explanation
simply because you are unable to imagine the attitude of suspended
belief or disbelief that one learns in a scientific discipline.

Here's a very simple example. For the last several years I have worked
with some of the planet's most complex and powerful radars. Each one
contains tens of thousands of electronic components, dozens of
computers, tens of millions of semiconductor junctions, plus other
specialized components such as vacuum tubes that put out megawatts
(that's millions of watts) of power. In such a complex mechanism,
something malfunctions at least once a month on average.

No one knows the entire radar in detail. But there is a person
responsible for each subsystem. Part of my job is to know how the
radar works at the highest level through the interaction of the
various subsystems. Over the years I have learned considerable detail,
but that's not my job. Part of my job is to recognize faults and to
isolate them. Usually it is enough to isolate the fault to a given
subsystem and turn the job over to the person responsible. But
sometimes I have to help isolate the problem down to a given
component. This is done by an application of the scientific method.

One formulates a theory and makes measurements which can either
falsify it, or tend to confirm it. Note that I say _tend_ to confirm
it. The radar is divided into successively smaller parts that contain
the fault, until you are willing to take the step of replacing a
component or subassembly with one that is known to work. If you have
reached the right conclusion, the radar is proven to work again by a
daylong exhaustive checkout process.

You cannot proceed on belief. If you do you will end up wasting
millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money and not find the fault.
You must proceed with total skepticism toward your own theory, willing
to revise it the moment measurements prove it to be false.

You often learn the most when your theory is falsified by the
measurements. You are forced to consider things from a new
perspective. This happens quite frequently.

One of your major problems is that your beliefs are not falsifiable.
Someone posts that they forgot to turn off their cellphone, received a
call in the air and talked to the caller. Your responese:"You're
lying!" This response is not based on any actual knowledge of how
cellphones work. Do you know what Maxwell's equations are? Can you
solve electromagnetic wave propagation equations at the frequencies
where cellphones operate? By the way, what frequencies do cellphones
operate at? Can you tell us about the algorithms used to hand off
calls from cell to cell? The answer to all these questions is "no".
You have no idea how cellphones work. That is you utterly unable make
quantitative predictions that can be tested by measurement, nor can
you even understand quantitative discussions. You just believe what
sounds good to you.

The "authorities" you cite are not scientific. They are journalistic.
You believe the ones that support your foregone conclusions, and quote
them as "authorities" against those who question your beliefs. In fact
you are utterly incapable of evaluating the validity of your
"authorities". Witness your swallowing of Balsamo's idiotic mishmash
pretending to "analyze" the flight path of American Airlines Flight 77
on the day of the Pentagon attack.

You are the one who _believes_. I consider the possibilities. I do
consider it unlikely that an entire airplane, its passengers and crew
disappeared entirely from the near vicinity of the Pentagon while
something nobody saw damaged the building. I'll change my mind if
someone comes up with convincing evidence to the contrary. So far they
have not. But I don't _believe_ one way or the other. Since you have
no alternative, you will continue to believe whatever "authorities"
appeal to you for reasons unknown to the rest of us.

RNJ
Tashi
2009-10-26 13:14:28 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 12:00 am, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 8:35 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 6:20 pm, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Your comment on dark matter is another hilarious show of ignorance. I
> > > would have said also the inability to read. But you know so little
> > > about physics and scientific reasoning that you should not be expected
> > > to understand anything at all written on either subject.
>
> >   Richard I'm quite accustomed to a flurry of insults why should you
> > be any different!  You just need a good excuse once and a while to
> > vent your frustration, good for the old ticker, despite not knowing
> > what you are talking about, and of course better reading and
> > comprehension skill are in order here.
>
> > >What I said was that the existence of dark matter was a consequence of
> > > measurements and the accepted theories of gravity. By "consequence" I
> > > mean a logical consequence. Measurements and the accepted theory imply
> > > the existence of dark matter.
>
> > I said dark matter is a fringe theory.  Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
> > science.
>
> >  Amit Goswami, Ph. D. is professor emeritus in the theoretical physics
> > department of the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon where he has
> > served since 1968. He is a pioneer of the new paradigm of science
> > called “science within consciousness”.
>
> > Goswami is the author of the highly successful textbook Quantum
> > Mechanics that is used in Universities throughout the world.
>
> > > No, I don't have a PhD in quantum physics. You don't need a PhD in
> > > quantum physics to understand the subject. What you need is training
> > > in the appropriate mathematics, a few courses and the ability to read
> > > critically. You have none of these. You have no concept of elementary
> > > calculus, invented in the late 17th century.
>
> >  You are starting to sound like Larry pulling the Maths card...... how
> > pathetic is that?
>
> > >You think that when a your board gets stiffer, its tap tone goes down.
>
> >   Richard, lets keep Matanya's impotence ( erectile dysfunction)
> > problems out of this conversation.  Yours too for that matter.
>
> > >It would be difficult to imagine someone with greater ignorance of elementary
> > > physics than you.
>
> >  It's easy if you try.
>
> > > Somewhere around 50 PhDs have worked for me at one time or another.
> > > They have accepted my leadership in the technical areas we worked in.
> > > Most have said they learned a lot from me.
>
> >    I've taught a few Phd's how to make a guitar...... so there!
>
> > > >   This said by a man with many preconceived opinions which feed into
> > > > many erroneous self deluding conclusions.
>
> > > Care to be specific?
>
> >  Yes, your heart felt _belief_ in the 911 conspiracy for starters.
>
> I do not believe in any explanation the occurrences of 9/11/2001. I
> view any "explanation" of it from a scientific perspective. That is to
> say, I have a working hypothesis which is subject to revision upon
> receipt of new facts. It is you who _believe_that the events of
> 9/11/2001 were a false flag attack conducted by a US government
> conspiracy in order to provoke a war with Iraq. You have said so on
> many occasions. You imagine that I believe in some other explanation
> simply because you are unable to imagine the attitude of suspended
> belief or disbelief that one learns in a scientific discipline.
>
> Here's a very simple example. For the last several years I have worked
> with some of the planet's most complex and powerful radars. Each one
> contains tens of thousands of electronic components, dozens of
> computers, tens of millions of semiconductor junctions, plus other
> specialized components such as vacuum tubes that put out megawatts
> (that's millions of watts) of power. In such a complex mechanism,
> something malfunctions at least once a month on average.
>
> No one knows the entire radar in detail. But there is a person
> responsible for each subsystem. Part of my job is to know how the
> radar works at the highest level through the interaction of the
> various subsystems. Over the years I have learned considerable detail,
> but that's not my job. Part of my job is to recognize faults and to
> isolate them. Usually it is enough to isolate the fault to a given
> subsystem and turn the job over to the person responsible. But
> sometimes I have to help isolate the problem down to a given
> component. This is done by an application of the scientific method.
>
> One formulates a theory and makes measurements which can either
> falsify it, or tend to confirm it. Note that I say _tend_ to confirm
> it. The radar is divided into successively smaller parts that contain
> the fault, until you are willing to take the step of replacing a
> component or subassembly with one that is known to work. If you have
> reached the right conclusion, the radar is proven to work again by a
> daylong exhaustive checkout process.
>
> You cannot proceed on belief. If you do you will end up wasting
> millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money and not find the fault.
> You must proceed with total skepticism toward your own theory, willing
> to revise it the moment measurements prove it to be false.
>
> You often learn the most when your theory is falsified by the
> measurements. You are forced to consider things from a new
> perspective. This happens quite frequently.

Thanks for the lesson in radar operations. I guess this proves
without a doubt you are beyond reproach in all things known to man.
Now if only you could read and understand what you read.

> One of your major problems is that your beliefs are not falsifiable.
> Someone posts that they forgot to turn off their cellphone, received a
> call in the air and talked to the caller. Your responese:"You're
> lying!" This response is not based on any actual knowledge of how
> cellphones work. Do you know what Maxwell's equations are? Can you
> solve electromagnetic wave propagation equations at the frequencies
> where cellphones operate? By the way, what frequencies do cellphones
> operate at? Can you tell us about the algorithms used to hand off
> calls from cell to cell? The answer to all these questions is "no".
> You have no idea how cellphones work. That is you utterly unable make
> quantitative predictions that can be tested by measurement, nor can
> you even understand quantitative discussions. You just believe what
> sounds good to you.

I think your problem here Richard is you just haven't studied the
facts, not that the facts would have any effect on your _belief
system_I've seen examples of that.

Here one fact you probably didn't know about cell phones. The FBI
states Ted Olsen never received a call from Barbara Olsen on the
morning of 911 while she was allegedly on board AA77. This was
painfully clear when later on Larry King Olsen gave conflicting
accounts of his bogus story, I'd send you the video but you don't have
a good connection.
>
> The "authorities" you cite are not scientific. They are journalistic.

That is a lie once again. I've cited professionals see here before
you open your mouth again.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
I've even quoted 911 commission members. Please comprehend what you
read before openning your mouth good man.

> You believe the ones that support your foregone conclusions, and quote
> them as "authorities" against those who question your beliefs. In fact
> you are utterly incapable of evaluating the validity of your
> "authorities". Witness your swallowing of Balsamo's idiotic mishmash
> pretending to "analyze" the flight path of American Airlines Flight 77
> on the day of the Pentagon attack.

Yes, in contrast you are a card carrying member of Clinger the
clown's special comedy show, who contradicts himself on a daily
basis.

> You are the one who _believes_. I consider the possibilities. I do
> consider it unlikely that an entire airplane, its passengers and crew
> disappeared entirely from the near vicinity of the Pentagon while
> something nobody saw damaged the building. I'll change my mind if
> someone comes up with convincing evidence to the contrary. So far they
> have not. But I don't _believe_ one way or the other. Since you have
> no alternative, you will continue to believe whatever "authorities"
> appeal to you for reasons unknown to the rest of us.

Your mind is already made up no amount of evidence or information
will change that I'm afraid.
William D Clinger
2009-10-26 20:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Tashi/MT wrote:
> Here one fact you probably didn't know about cell phones. The FBI
> states Ted Olsen never received a call from Barbara Olsen on the
> morning of 911 while she was allegedly on board AA77.

Untrue [1].

> That is a lie once again. I've cited professionals see
> here before you open your mouth again.
> http://patriotsquestion911.com/

When Richard Jernigan referred to your sources as
"journalistic", he was being kind. The URL you just
cited is an advocacy site, consisting mainly of lists
of people who criticize or question the official story.

Many (if not most) of the listed individuals agree with
the main conclusions of the 9/11 Commission. Looking at
just the first four people listed on that page, General
Wesley Clark and astronaut Edgar Mitchell have both denied
any belief that the US government planned or executed the
attacks.

> Yes, in contrast you are a card carrying member of Clinger the
> clown's special comedy show, who contradicts himself on a daily
> basis.

Taking the past week as representative, please cite
the seven times you believe I have contradicted myself.

> Your mind is already made up no amount of evidence or
> information will change that I'm afraid.

Once again, you project your attitudes onto others.

Will


[1] A compilation of FBI interviews and documents relating
to phone calls from Barbara Olson and Renee May, taken from
various 9/11 Commission documents.
http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_calls.pdf
Tashi
2009-10-27 02:47:38 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 2:03 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tashi/MT wrote:
> >   Here one fact you probably didn't know about cell phones.  The FBI
> > states Ted Olsen never received a call from Barbara Olsen on the
> > morning of 911 while she was allegedly on board AA77.
>
> Untrue [1].
>
> >   That is a lie once again.  I've cited professionals see
> > here before you open your mouth again.
> >http://patriotsquestion911.com/
>
> When Richard Jernigan referred to your sources as
> "journalistic", he was being kind.  The URL you just
> cited is an advocacy site, consisting mainly of lists
> of people who criticize or question the official story.
>
> Many (if not most) of the listed individuals agree with
> the main conclusions of the 9/11 Commission.  Looking at
> just the first four people listed on that page, General
> Wesley Clark and astronaut Edgar Mitchell have both denied
> any belief that the US government planned or executed the
> attacks.
>
> >   Yes, in contrast you are a card carrying member of Clinger the
> > clown's special comedy show, who contradicts himself on a daily
> > basis.
>
> Taking the past week as representative, please cite
> the seven times you believe I have contradicted myself.
>
> >   Your mind is already made up no amount of evidence or
> > information will change that I'm afraid.
>
> Once again, you project your attitudes onto others.
>
> Will
>
> [1] A compilation of FBI interviews and documents relating
> to phone calls from Barbara Olson and Renee May, taken from
> various 9/11 Commission documents.http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_call...

Oh how I tire of you!
Richard Jernigan
2009-10-27 08:52:09 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 9:47 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2:03 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tashi/MT wrote:
> > >   Here one fact you probably didn't know about cell phones.  The FBI
> > > states Ted Olsen never received a call from Barbara Olsen on the
> > > morning of 911 while she was allegedly on board AA77.
>
> > Untrue [1].
>
> > >   That is a lie once again.  I've cited professionals see
> > > here before you open your mouth again.
> > >http://patriotsquestion911.com/
>
> > When Richard Jernigan referred to your sources as
> > "journalistic", he was being kind.  The URL you just
> > cited is an advocacy site, consisting mainly of lists
> > of people who criticize or question the official story.
>
> > Many (if not most) of the listed individuals agree with
> > the main conclusions of the 9/11 Commission.  Looking at
> > just the first four people listed on that page, General
> > Wesley Clark and astronaut Edgar Mitchell have both denied
> > any belief that the US government planned or executed the
> > attacks.
>
> > >   Yes, in contrast you are a card carrying member of Clinger the
> > > clown's special comedy show, who contradicts himself on a daily
> > > basis.
>
> > Taking the past week as representative, please cite
> > the seven times you believe I have contradicted myself.
>
> > >   Your mind is already made up no amount of evidence or
> > > information will change that I'm afraid.
>
> > Once again, you project your attitudes onto others.
>
> > Will
>
> > [1] A compilation of FBI interviews and documents relating
> > to phone calls from Barbara Olson and Renee May, taken from
> > various 9/11 Commission documents.http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_call...
>
> Oh how I tire of you!

It must be tiring to have your bullshit exposed over and over again.

RNJ
Wollybird
2009-10-27 11:29:12 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 27, 3:52 am, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 9:47 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 2:03 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Tashi/MT wrote:
> > > >   Here one fact you probably didn't know about cell phones.  The FBI
> > > > states Ted Olsen never received a call from Barbara Olsen on the
> > > > morning of 911 while she was allegedly on board AA77.
>
> > > Untrue [1].
>
> > > >   That is a lie once again.  I've cited professionals see
> > > > here before you open your mouth again.
> > > >http://patriotsquestion911.com/
>
> > > When Richard Jernigan referred to your sources as
> > > "journalistic", he was being kind.  The URL you just
> > > cited is an advocacy site, consisting mainly of lists
> > > of people who criticize or question the official story.
>
> > > Many (if not most) of the listed individuals agree with
> > > the main conclusions of the 9/11 Commission.  Looking at
> > > just the first four people listed on that page, General
> > > Wesley Clark and astronaut Edgar Mitchell have both denied
> > > any belief that the US government planned or executed the
> > > attacks.
>
> > > >   Yes, in contrast you are a card carrying member of Clinger the
> > > > clown's special comedy show, who contradicts himself on a daily
> > > > basis.
>
> > > Taking the past week as representative, please cite
> > > the seven times you believe I have contradicted myself.
>
> > > >   Your mind is already made up no amount of evidence or
> > > > information will change that I'm afraid.
>
> > > Once again, you project your attitudes onto others.
>
> > > Will
>
> > > [1] A compilation of FBI interviews and documents relating
> > > to phone calls from Barbara Olson and Renee May, taken from
> > > various 9/11 Commission documents.http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_call...
>
> > Oh how I tire of you!
>
> It must be tiring to have your bullshit exposed over and over again.
>
> RNJ

nice ass kicking.
Tashi
2009-10-27 14:36:49 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 27, 2:52 am, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 9:47 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 26, 2:03 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Tashi/MT wrote:
> > > >   Here one fact you probably didn't know about cell phones.  The FBI
> > > > states Ted Olsen never received a call from Barbara Olsen on the
> > > > morning of 911 while she was allegedly on board AA77.
>
> > > Untrue [1].
>
> > > >   That is a lie once again.  I've cited professionals see
> > > > here before you open your mouth again.
> > > >http://patriotsquestion911.com/
>
> > > When Richard Jernigan referred to your sources as
> > > "journalistic", he was being kind.  The URL you just
> > > cited is an advocacy site, consisting mainly of lists
> > > of people who criticize or question the official story.
>
> > > Many (if not most) of the listed individuals agree with
> > > the main conclusions of the 9/11 Commission.  Looking at
> > > just the first four people listed on that page, General
> > > Wesley Clark and astronaut Edgar Mitchell have both denied
> > > any belief that the US government planned or executed the
> > > attacks.
>
> > > >   Yes, in contrast you are a card carrying member of Clinger the
> > > > clown's special comedy show, who contradicts himself on a daily
> > > > basis.
>
> > > Taking the past week as representative, please cite
> > > the seven times you believe I have contradicted myself.
>
> > > >   Your mind is already made up no amount of evidence or
> > > > information will change that I'm afraid.
>
> > > Once again, you project your attitudes onto others.
>
> > > Will
>
> > > [1] A compilation of FBI interviews and documents relating
> > > to phone calls from Barbara Olson and Renee May, taken from
> > > various 9/11 Commission documents.http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_call...
>
> > Oh how I tire of you!
>
> It must be tiring to have your bullshit exposed over and over again.
>
> RNJ

We've only just begun.
ycleptor2@cs.com
2009-10-27 15:21:46 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 4:03 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tashi/MT wrote:
> > Here one fact you probably didn't know about cell phones. The FBI
> > states Ted Olsen never received a call from Barbara Olsen on the
> > morning of 911 while she was allegedly on board AA77.
>
> Untrue [1].
>

This from the news just the other day:

Minneapolis airport police say controllers tried to contact the
pilots of the wayward jetliner by radio, data message and cell phone
after it failed to land as scheduled.

The plane was on autopilot at 37000 feet.
Tashi
2009-10-27 16:31:05 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 27, 9:21 am, "***@cs.com" <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 4:03 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Tashi/MT wrote:
> > >   Here one fact you probably didn't know about cell phones.  The FBI
> > > states Ted Olsen never received a call from Barbara Olsen on the
> > > morning of 911 while she was allegedly on board AA77.
>
> > Untrue [1].
>
> This from the news just the other day:
>
>  Minneapolis airport police say controllers tried to contact the
> pilots of the wayward jetliner by radio, data message and cell phone
> after it failed to land as scheduled.
>
> The plane was on autopilot at 37000 feet.

Yes, duly noted "tried to contact pilots by cell phone"! Thank you
for making my point!
ycleptor2@cs.com
2009-10-27 23:54:13 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 27, 12:31 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Yes, duly noted "tried to contact pilots by cell phone"! Thank you
> for making my point!

And why would they try if it wasn't possible?
Tashi
2009-10-28 00:01:05 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 27, 5:54 pm, "***@cs.com" <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 12:31 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >   Yes, duly noted "tried to contact pilots by cell phone"!  Thank you
> > for making my point!
>
> And why would they try if it wasn't possible?

Because they think like you do?
Tashi
2009-10-29 23:50:18 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 2:03 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> [1] A compilation of FBI interviews and documents relating
> to phone calls from Barbara Olson and Renee May, taken from
> various 9/11 Commission documents.http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_call...

The facts came out after the the book was published!
Tashi
2009-10-30 00:14:26 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 2:03 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Many (if not most) of the listed individuals agree with
> the main conclusions of the 9/11 Commission.  Looking at
> just the first four people listed on that page, General
> Wesley Clark and astronaut Edgar Mitchell have both denied
> any belief that the US government planned or executed the
> attacks.

Edgar Mitchell: Endorser of and proposed Commissioner of a New
Investigation into 9/11 as described in the New York City Ballot
Initiative 11/08: "Petition to Create a NYC Independent Commission
with Subpoena Power to Conduct a Comprehensive and Fact-Driven
Investigation of All Relevant Aspects of the Tragic Events of
September 11, 2001 and Issue a Report.

As for your claim that (most) of the listed individuals agree with
the main conclusions of the 911 commission, well that's just plain
bullshit! Anyone can click on that link for themselves without
believing Clinger's disinformational bag of dirty tricks!

> >   Yes, in contrast you are a card carrying member of Clinger the
> > clown's special comedy show, who contradicts himself on a daily
> > basis.
>
> Taking the past week as representative, please cite
> the seven times you believe I have contradicted myself.
>
> >   Your mind is already made up no amount of evidence or
> > information will change that I'm afraid.
>
> Once again, you project your attitudes onto others.
>
> Will
>
> [1] A compilation of FBI interviews and documents relating
> to phone calls from Barbara Olson and Renee May, taken from
> various 9/11 Commission documents.http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_call...
William D Clinger
2009-10-30 01:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Tashi/MT wrote:
> Edgar Mitchell: Endorser of and proposed Commissioner of a New
> Investigation into 9/11 as described in the New York City Ballot
> Initiative 11/08...

Yes. It is also true that Dr Mitchell is fascinated
by UFOs and aliens. Neither fact contradicts what I
wrote.

Dr Mitchells' executive assistant recently responded to
an inquiry on this very subject by writing "Dr.
Mitchell
does not support any group claiming that 9/11 was a
US
government effort." [1] You see, it is possible to call
for a new investigation, as Dr Mitchell and many others
on the list you cited have done, without also endorsing
the idea that the US government was behind that attacks.

I cited Dr Mitchell and General Wesley Clark by name
because I knew they illustrated that fact.

> As for your claim that (most) of the listed individuals agree with
> the main conclusions of the 911 commission, well that's just plain
> bullshit!

You misquoted me, as is your wont. As anyone can confirm
for themselves, I wrote "Many (if not most) of the
listed
individuals...".

Will

[1] http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5224699#post5224699
Tashi
2009-10-30 14:59:27 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 2:03 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> [1] A compilation of FBI interviews and documents relating
> to phone calls from Barbara Olson and Renee May, taken from
> various 9/11 Commission documents.http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_call...

I searched through that link and found zero evidence of a phone
call made from Barbara Olsen to Ted Olsen, just a bunch of she said,
he said, testimony to the FBI, that was included in the Offical 911
report, but then later disproved at the 2006 trial of Zacarias
Moussaoui.

He later comes up with three versions of his story contradicting his
testimony to the FBI, despite the fact he is one of the best trial
lawyers in the country, and represented Bush v Gore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJA2zH1gc1Q&feature=player_embedded

Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI

The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in
2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker.
The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on
phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American
Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson
and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0
seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive
a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard
phone.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html

Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that
interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had
called him twice from Flight 77.10 And yet the FBI’s report on calls
from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls
occurred.

This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of
Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of
the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from
his wife on 9/11.

What I found strange in the whole Ted Olsen saga is the very little
reported ´fact´that in the Massaoui trial transcript on the reported
phonecalls that a secretary Lori Keyton allegedly answered these
phonecalls. The first she said was a collect call (after 6-8 attempted
collect calls) which a live operator had put through and the second
was a direct call(??) with no caller ID function.
IF he had wanted to defend his version of events why did nobody pursue
this secretary OR why did the FBI/media/ANYBODY not track this ´live
operator´.
Correct me if I´m wrong but don´t collect callers have to have an
identifiable telephone number?

American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version

A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed
that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat
phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September
11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is
correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on
flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls
during the terrorist attack.”8

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might
reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used
her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is
rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it
has also been contradicted by the FBI.
Tashi
2009-11-01 03:36:52 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 30, 8:59 am, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2:03 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > [1] A compilation of FBI interviews and documents relating
> > to phone calls from Barbara Olson and Renee May, taken from
> > various 9/11 Commission documents.http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_call...
>
>    I searched through that link and found zero evidence of a phone
> call made from Barbara Olsen to Ted Olsen, just a bunch of she said,
> he said, testimony to the FBI, that was included in the Offical 911
> report, but then later disproved at the 2006 trial of Zacarias
> Moussaoui.
>
>   He later comes up with three versions of his story contradicting his
> testimony to the FBI, despite the fact he is one of the best trial
> lawyers in the country, and represented Bush v Gore.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJA2zH1gc1Q&feature=player_embedded
>
> Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI
>
> The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in
> 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker.
> The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on
> phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American
> Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson
> and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0
> seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive
> a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard
> phone.http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/calldetail.html
>
> Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that
> interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had
> called him twice from Flight 77.10 And yet the FBI’s report on calls
> from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls
> occurred.
>
> This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of
> Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of
> the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from
> his wife on 9/11.
>
> What I found strange in the whole Ted Olsen saga is the very little
> reported ´fact´that in the Massaoui trial transcript on the reported
> phonecalls that a secretary Lori Keyton allegedly answered these
> phonecalls. The first she said was a collect call (after 6-8 attempted
> collect calls) which a live operator had put through and the second
> was a direct call(??) with no caller ID function.
> IF he had wanted to defend his version of events why did nobody pursue
> this secretary OR why did the FBI/media/ANYBODY not track this ´live
> operator´.
> Correct me if I´m wrong but don´t collect callers have to have an
> identifiable telephone number?
>
> American Airlines Contradicts Olson’s Second Version
>
> A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed
> that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat
> phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September
> 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is
> correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on
> flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls
> during the terrorist attack.”8
>
> In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might
> reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used
> her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is
> rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it
> has also been contradicted by the FBI.

Clinger, cat got your tongue?
Richard Jernigan
2009-10-26 21:29:32 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 8:14 am, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 12:00 am, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 8:35 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 25, 6:20 pm, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Your comment on dark matter is another hilarious show of ignorance. I
> > > > would have said also the inability to read. But you know so little
> > > > about physics and scientific reasoning that you should not be expected
> > > > to understand anything at all written on either subject.
>
> > >   Richard I'm quite accustomed to a flurry of insults why should you
> > > be any different!  You just need a good excuse once and a while to
> > > vent your frustration, good for the old ticker, despite not knowing
> > > what you are talking about, and of course better reading and
> > > comprehension skill are in order here.
>
> > > >What I said was that the existence of dark matter was a consequence of
> > > > measurements and the accepted theories of gravity. By "consequence" I
> > > > mean a logical consequence. Measurements and the accepted theory imply
> > > > the existence of dark matter.
>
> > > I said dark matter is a fringe theory.  Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
> > > science.
>
> > >  Amit Goswami, Ph. D. is professor emeritus in the theoretical physics
> > > department of the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon where he has
> > > served since 1968. He is a pioneer of the new paradigm of science
> > > called “science within consciousness”.
>
> > > Goswami is the author of the highly successful textbook Quantum
> > > Mechanics that is used in Universities throughout the world.
>
> > > > No, I don't have a PhD in quantum physics. You don't need a PhD in
> > > > quantum physics to understand the subject. What you need is training
> > > > in the appropriate mathematics, a few courses and the ability to read
> > > > critically. You have none of these. You have no concept of elementary
> > > > calculus, invented in the late 17th century.
>
> > >  You are starting to sound like Larry pulling the Maths card...... how
> > > pathetic is that?
>
> > > >You think that when a your board gets stiffer, its tap tone goes down.
>
> > >   Richard, lets keep Matanya's impotence ( erectile dysfunction)
> > > problems out of this conversation.  Yours too for that matter.
>
> > > >It would be difficult to imagine someone with greater ignorance of elementary
> > > > physics than you.
>
> > >  It's easy if you try.
>
> > > > Somewhere around 50 PhDs have worked for me at one time or another.
> > > > They have accepted my leadership in the technical areas we worked in.
> > > > Most have said they learned a lot from me.
>
> > >    I've taught a few Phd's how to make a guitar...... so there!
>
> > > > >   This said by a man with many preconceived opinions which feed into
> > > > > many erroneous self deluding conclusions.
>
> > > > Care to be specific?
>
> > >  Yes, your heart felt _belief_ in the 911 conspiracy for starters.
>
> > I do not believe in any explanation the occurrences of 9/11/2001. I
> > view any "explanation" of it from a scientific perspective. That is to
> > say, I have a working hypothesis which is subject to revision upon
> > receipt of new facts. It is you who _believe_that the events of
> > 9/11/2001 were a false flag attack conducted by a US government
> > conspiracy in order to provoke a war with Iraq. You have said so on
> > many occasions. You imagine that I believe in some other explanation
> > simply because you are unable to imagine the attitude of suspended
> > belief or disbelief that one learns in a scientific discipline.
>
> > Here's a very simple example. For the last several years I have worked
> > with some of the planet's most complex and powerful radars. Each one
> > contains tens of thousands of electronic components, dozens of
> > computers, tens of millions of semiconductor junctions, plus other
> > specialized components such as vacuum tubes that put out megawatts
> > (that's millions of watts) of power. In such a complex mechanism,
> > something malfunctions at least once a month on average.
>
> > No one knows the entire radar in detail. But there is a person
> > responsible for each subsystem. Part of my job is to know how the
> > radar works at the highest level through the interaction of the
> > various subsystems. Over the years I have learned considerable detail,
> > but that's not my job. Part of my job is to recognize faults and to
> > isolate them. Usually it is enough to isolate the fault to a given
> > subsystem and turn the job over to the person responsible. But
> > sometimes I have to help isolate the problem down to a given
> > component. This is done by an application of the scientific method.
>
> > One formulates a theory and makes measurements which can either
> > falsify it, or tend to confirm it. Note that I say _tend_ to confirm
> > it. The radar is divided into successively smaller parts that contain
> > the fault, until you are willing to take the step of replacing a
> > component or subassembly with one that is known to work. If you have
> > reached the right conclusion, the radar is proven to work again by a
> > daylong exhaustive checkout process.
>
> > You cannot proceed on belief. If you do you will end up wasting
> > millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money and not find the fault.
> > You must proceed with total skepticism toward your own theory, willing
> > to revise it the moment measurements prove it to be false.
>
> > You often learn the most when your theory is falsified by the
> > measurements. You are forced to consider things from a new
> > perspective. This happens quite frequently.
>
>   Thanks for the lesson in radar operations.  I guess this proves
> without a doubt you are beyond reproach in all things known to man.
> Now if only you could read and understand what you read.
>
> > One of your major problems is that your beliefs are not falsifiable.
> > Someone posts that they forgot to turn off their cellphone, received a
> > call in the air and talked to the caller. Your responese:"You're
> > lying!" This response is not based on any actual knowledge of how
> > cellphones work. Do you know what Maxwell's equations are? Can you
> > solve electromagnetic wave propagation equations at the frequencies
> > where cellphones operate? By the way, what frequencies do cellphones
> > operate at? Can you tell us about the algorithms used to hand off
> > calls from cell to cell? The answer to all these questions is "no".
> > You have no idea how cellphones work. That is you utterly unable make
> > quantitative predictions that can be tested by measurement, nor can
> > you even understand quantitative discussions. You just believe what
> > sounds good to you.
>
>     I think your problem here Richard is you just haven't studied the
> facts, not that the facts would have any effect on your _belief
> system_I've seen examples of that.
>
>   Here one fact you probably didn't know about cell phones.  The FBI
> states Ted Olsen never received a call from Barbara Olsen on the
> morning of 911 while she was allegedly on board AA77.  This was
> painfully clear when later on Larry King Olsen gave conflicting
> accounts of his bogus story, I'd send you the video but you don't have
> a good connection.
>
>
>
> > The "authorities" you cite are not scientific. They are journalistic.
>
>   That is a lie once again.  I've cited professionals see here before
> you open your mouth again.http://patriotsquestion911.com/
>   I've even quoted 911 commission members.  Please comprehend what you
> read before openning your mouth good man.
>
> > You believe the ones that support your foregone conclusions, and quote
> > them as "authorities" against those who question your beliefs. In fact
> > you are utterly incapable of evaluating the validity of your
> > "authorities". Witness your swallowing of Balsamo's idiotic mishmash
> > pretending to "analyze" the flight path of American Airlines Flight 77
> > on the day of the Pentagon attack.
>
>   Yes, in contrast you are a card carrying member of Clinger the
> clown's special comedy show, who contradicts himself on a daily
> basis.
>
> > You are the one who _believes_. I consider the possibilities. I do
> > consider it unlikely that an entire airplane, its passengers and crew
> > disappeared entirely from the near vicinity of the Pentagon while
> > something nobody saw damaged the building. I'll change my mind if
> > someone comes up with convincing evidence to the contrary. So far they
> > have not. But I don't _believe_ one way or the other. Since you have
> > no alternative, you will continue to believe whatever "authorities"
> > appeal to you for reasons unknown to the rest of us.
>
>   Your mind is already made up no amount of evidence or information
> will change that I'm afraid.

The brief account of radar troubleshooting was not to establish my
credentials. It was to give a short concrete account of an application
of the scientific method. You misconstrued it as usual, having missed
the words "here's a very simple example". This is typical. You misread
something, then start shooting from the hip at some imagined target.
You argue ad hominem or from authority.

When I reflect upon the years of education and experience it takes to
train someone in the scientific method, I realize that it is useless
to discuss the subject with you. Your idea of debate is, "My Daddy can
whip your Daddy." In scientific debate authority has nothing to do
with it. Facts and logic are the determining factors.

Science describes experimental results, or deductions from existing
theories or proposes new theories. The articles you cite are
journalistic accounts, or the opinions of people who may or may not be
scientists. They do not analyze the logical development of scientific
ideas, nor give details of data and analyses, nor describe scientific
theories in enough detail to be scientific. You don't know the
difference because you can't read scientific papers.

My mind is not made up about the events of 9/11/2001. I have
opinions, but they are not beliefs. I have questioned obvious idiocies
and misstatements of fact. But I am quite aware that the picture I
hold of the events is falsifiable. You don't know what falsifiable
means since you do not admit any facts at odds with your beliefs.

As I said, you cannot conceive of someone not having cobbled together
a belief system. You don't understand the idea of a scientific theory,
whose validity may range from "supported by some evidence" to "as
close as we ever get to truth in the physical world".

So you project your own mental state upon others. You are imprisoned
in a medieval mind.

RNJ
Richard Jernigan
2009-10-26 23:48:54 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 25, 8:35 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I said dark matter is a fringe theory.  Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
> science.
>
>  Amit Goswami, Ph. D. is professor emeritus in the theoretical physics
> department of the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon where he has
> served since 1968. He is a pioneer of the new paradigm of science
> called “science within consciousness”.
>
> Goswami is the author of the highly successful textbook Quantum
> Mechanics that is used in Universities throughout the world.
>

Goswami is indeed an expert in pseudoscience, having published at
least five books of pseudoscience, judging from the favorable reviews.
Note carefully that I said "favorable reviews":

1)The Quantum Doctor: a Physicist's Guide to Health and Healing

2)Physics of the Soul: The Quantum Book of Living, Dying,
Reincarnation and Immortality

3)The Self-Aware Universe

4)Creative Evolution: A Physicist's Resolution Between Darwinism and
Intelligent Design

5)The Visionary Window: A Quantum Physicist's Guide to Enlightenment

Goswami abandons the basis of science since the Renaissance. He claims
that the world does not consist of material objects, but has its basis
in consciousness. Then, he says, the paradoxes of quantum mechanics
are explicable. The so-called paradoxes are not paradoxes, as in self-
contradictory statements. They just reflect the strangeness of the
behavior of matter on submicroscopic scales to our brains and senses
evolved to deal with the macroscopic scale.

Goswami falls prey to the logical rule that once you assume a
falsehood, anything follows logically.

Although Goswami has been quite active in the field of pseudoscience,
he is by that very fact disqualified to judge what is and what is not
pseudoscience.

RNJ
Tashi
2009-10-27 02:45:14 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 5:48 pm, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 8:35 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I said dark matter is a fringe theory.  Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
> > science.
>
> >  Amit Goswami, Ph. D. is professor emeritus in the theoretical physics
> > department of the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon where he has
> > served since 1968. He is a pioneer of the new paradigm of science
> > called “science within consciousness”.
>
> > Goswami is the author of the highly successful textbook Quantum
> > Mechanics that is used in Universities throughout the world.
>
> Goswami is indeed an expert in pseudoscience, having published at
> least five books of pseudoscience, judging from the favorable reviews.
> Note carefully that I said "favorable reviews":
>
> 1)The Quantum Doctor: a Physicist's Guide to Health and Healing
>
> 2)Physics of the Soul: The Quantum Book of Living, Dying,
> Reincarnation and Immortality
>
> 3)The Self-Aware Universe
>
> 4)Creative Evolution: A Physicist's Resolution Between Darwinism and
> Intelligent Design
>
> 5)The Visionary Window: A Quantum Physicist's Guide to Enlightenment
>
> Goswami abandons the basis of science since the Renaissance. He claims
> that the world does not consist of material objects, but has its basis
> in consciousness. Then, he says, the paradoxes of quantum mechanics
> are explicable. The so-called paradoxes are not paradoxes, as in self-
> contradictory statements. They just reflect the strangeness of the
> behavior of matter on submicroscopic scales to our brains and senses
> evolved to deal with the macroscopic scale.
>
> Goswami falls prey to the logical rule that once you assume a
> falsehood, anything follows logically.
>
> Although Goswami has been quite active in the field of pseudoscience,
> he is by that very fact disqualified to judge what is and what is not
> pseudoscience.
>
> RNJ

Richard, did matter form from consciousness, or did consciousness
form from matter?
Richard Jernigan
2009-10-27 08:42:45 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 26, 9:45 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 5:48 pm, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 8:35 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I said dark matter is a fringe theory.  Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
> > > science.
>
> > >  Amit Goswami, Ph. D. is professor emeritus in the theoretical physics
> > > department of the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon where he has
> > > served since 1968. He is a pioneer of the new paradigm of science
> > > called “science within consciousness”.
>
> > > Goswami is the author of the highly successful textbook Quantum
> > > Mechanics that is used in Universities throughout the world.
>
> > Goswami is indeed an expert in pseudoscience, having published at
> > least five books of pseudoscience, judging from the favorable reviews.
> > Note carefully that I said "favorable reviews":
>
> > 1)The Quantum Doctor: a Physicist's Guide to Health and Healing
>
> > 2)Physics of the Soul: The Quantum Book of Living, Dying,
> > Reincarnation and Immortality
>
> > 3)The Self-Aware Universe
>
> > 4)Creative Evolution: A Physicist's Resolution Between Darwinism and
> > Intelligent Design
>
> > 5)The Visionary Window: A Quantum Physicist's Guide to Enlightenment
>
> > Goswami abandons the basis of science since the Renaissance. He claims
> > that the world does not consist of material objects, but has its basis
> > in consciousness. Then, he says, the paradoxes of quantum mechanics
> > are explicable. The so-called paradoxes are not paradoxes, as in self-
> > contradictory statements. They just reflect the strangeness of the
> > behavior of matter on submicroscopic scales to our brains and senses
> > evolved to deal with the macroscopic scale.
>
> > Goswami falls prey to the logical rule that once you assume a
> > falsehood, anything follows logically.
>
> > Although Goswami has been quite active in the field of pseudoscience,
> > he is by that very fact disqualified to judge what is and what is not
> > pseudoscience.
>
> > RNJ
>
>   Richard, did matter form from consciousness, or did consciousness
> form from matter?

Is consciousness a natural phenomenon, or is it supernatural?

From the point of view of science, natural phenomena arise from
matter. Science does not deal with supernatural phenomena.

RNJ
Richard Jernigan
2009-10-27 01:10:15 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 25, 8:35 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 6:20 pm, Richard Jernigan <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Your comment on dark matter is another hilarious show of ignorance. I
> > would have said also the inability to read. But you know so little
> > about physics and scientific reasoning that you should not be expected
> > to understand anything at all written on either subject.
>
>   Richard I'm quite accustomed to a flurry of insults why should you
> be any different!  You just need a good excuse once and a while to
> vent your frustration, good for the old ticker, despite not knowing
> what you are talking about, and of course better reading and
> comprehension skill are in order here.
>
> >What I said was that the existence of dark matter was a consequence of
> > measurements and the accepted theories of gravity. By "consequence" I
> > mean a logical consequence. Measurements and the accepted theory imply
> > the existence of dark matter.
>
> I said dark matter is a fringe theory.  Dr. Goswami calls it pseudo
> science.
>
>  Amit Goswami, Ph. D. is professor emeritus in the theoretical physics
> department of the University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon where he has
> served since 1968. He is a pioneer of the new paradigm of science
> called “science within consciousness”.
>
> Goswami is the author of the highly successful textbook Quantum
> Mechanics that is used in Universities throughout the world.
>
> > No, I don't have a PhD in quantum physics. You don't need a PhD in
> > quantum physics to understand the subject. What you need is training
> > in the appropriate mathematics, a few courses and the ability to read
> > critically. You have none of these. You have no concept of elementary
> > calculus, invented in the late 17th century.
>
>  You are starting to sound like Larry pulling the Maths card...... how
> pathetic is that?
>
> >You think that when a your board gets stiffer, its tap tone goes down.
>
>   Richard, lets keep Matanya's impotence ( erectile dysfunction)
> problems out of this conversation.  Yours too for that matter.
>
> >It would be difficult to imagine someone with greater ignorance of elementary
> > physics than you.
>
>  It's easy if you try.
>
> > Somewhere around 50 PhDs have worked for me at one time or another.
> > They have accepted my leadership in the technical areas we worked in.
> > Most have said they learned a lot from me.
>
>    I've taught a few Phd's how to make a guitar...... so there!
>
>
>
> > >   This said by a man with many preconceived opinions which feed into
> > > many erroneous self deluding conclusions.
>
> > Care to be specific?
>
>  Yes, your heart felt _belief_ in the 911 conspiracy for starters.

Intentional misquotation is another of your nasty, childish and
underhanded debate tactics. I wrote "a board" not "your board." The
fact stands that your ignorance is nearly inconceivable in a guitar
maker.

RNJ
Richard Jernigan
2009-10-27 01:15:54 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 25, 8:35 pm, Tashi <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>  You are starting to sound like Larry pulling the Maths card...... how
> pathetic is that?
>

Talking about physics without knowing the appropriate math is like
claiming to be a guitar maker without having seen a piece of wood. The
entire substance of physics is mathematics and experiment.

What's pathetic is talking about physics when you think most math was
developed thousands of years ago.

RNJ
ycleptor2@cs.com
2009-10-23 16:36:23 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 2:41 pm, "Richard Yates" <***@yatesguitar.com> wrote:

> I am developing a theory that all of these fringe theories are generated by
> the same entity for the purpose of diverting the best minds - both those
> that adopt the theories and those that dispute them - from the real scheme
> behind the appearances. As Arthur Clarke wrote: "Not only is the universe
> stranger than you imagine, It's stranger than you *can* imagine."

e.g. Boltzman Brains
Tashi
2009-10-30 05:43:29 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 29, 7:09 pm, William D Clinger <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tashi/MT wrote:
> >   Edgar Mitchell: Endorser of and proposed Commissioner of a New
> > Investigation into 9/11 as described in the New York City Ballot
> > Initiative 11/08...
>
> Yes.  It is also true that Dr Mitchell is fascinated
> by UFOs and aliens.  Neither fact contradicts what I
> wrote.

Is that a bad thing?

> Dr Mitchells' executive assistant recently responded to
> an inquiry on this very subject by writing "Dr.
> Mitchell
> does not support any group claiming that 9/11 was a
> US
> government effort." [1]  

Support being the key word here. That's much different than offering
his opinion. Personally, I've never "supported" a group claiming 911
was an inside job either. The very fact he is calling for a new
investigation is very telling. Nobody, in there right mind would go
around declaring 911 was an inside job if they held public office, or
you would end up like, Van Jones.

>You see, it is possible to call for a new investigation, as Dr Mitchell and many others
> on the list you cited have done, without also endorsing
> the idea that the US government was behind that attacks.

Oh gee, thanks for straightening me out on that.

> I cited Dr Mitchell and General Wesley Clark by name
> because I knew they illustrated that fact.

> >   As for your claim that (most) of the listed individuals agree with
> > the main conclusions of the 911 commission, well that's just plain
> > bullshit!
>
> You misquoted me, as is your wont.  As anyone can confirm
> for themselves, I wrote "Many (if not most) of the
> listed
> individuals...".
>
Out of the first 66 people sited on, "Patriots Question 911", 200+
Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government
Officials, I found 4 people who didn't sign the petition, but none the
less had significant criticism of the 911 report.

Far from your disingenuous statement that "many if not
most" ............

However you have constructed another "straw man" as the website you
criticize is about those that question 911, not those who think it was
an inside job, although again it's probably a safe guess that 95% of
those on the site believe it was an inside job.

However out of the first 66 people on there, it is safe to say that
all but 5 people say it was a cover up, or an inside job. Keep in
mind that an inside job could simply mean looking the other way.
>
> [1]http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5224699#post5224699
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...