|
American interpretation
Many on this newsgroup are aware of my views on radiation which I then
took to the QRZ antenna page because of the fraustration created by lack of knowledge of equilibrium by the average american. I have now run into another interpretation by americans which differ from the european aspect and that is Newtons third law with respect to reaction . Definitions on the net view this law as an equal and diametrically opposite force where Newton never used the word "diametrically". English law is based on the intention provided by the words of the law such that it becomes unchanged thru time. American law does not define "intention" thus the law can and does change over time creating appeals against the intent of words. One definition of Newton's law on the net shows two skaters pushing against each other as an illustration of the law. But Newton's "intent" was in the olde english where "opposite" was viewed in a different way. If you view a helicopter the front rotor is in a horizontal plane and rotating clockwise thus per Newton the resulting action is a rotator at the rear that is rotating in a "vertical " plane and rotating counter clockwise to maintain equilibrium. Another example is a caramel bar that is placed under tension which produces a force at right angles that narrows the cross section and the sample fails in shear at 45 degrees ( vector resultant of the two forces) I bring this up because of what I have stated earlier about radiation on this newsgroup, where the applied force is electrical on a radiator and per Newton the reaction is at right angle to that force which is called the displacement current ( capacitive magnetic field). No wonder Einstein gave up on the pursuit of radiation because as a german had no understanding of olde english and thus was looking for a equal and diametrically opposite force in his search for the "weak force." He was correct in his prediction of it's presence with respect to radiation but, unfortunately, was looking in the wrong place and thus relativity was born! Regards Art KB9MZ....XG (uk) |
American interpretation
"Art Unwin" wrote in message ... Many on this newsgroup are aware of my views on radiation which I then took to the QRZ antenna page because of the fraustration created by GREAT! now i know where to go to catch up on your balmy theories! wx is bad, could use a good laugh right now! |
American interpretation
Art Unwin wrote:
Many on this newsgroup are aware of my views on radiation which I then took to the QRZ antenna page because of the fraustration created by (Snippage) Art KB9MZ....XG (uk) Day late for April Fools |
American interpretation
Art Unwin wrote:
Many on this newsgroup are aware of my views on radiation which I then took to the QRZ antenna page because of the fraustration created by (Snippage) Art KB9MZ....XG (uk) One day late for April Fools |
American interpretation
"Wheatshucker" wrote in message ... Art Unwin wrote: Many on this newsgroup are aware of my views on radiation which I then took to the QRZ antenna page because of the fraustration created by (Snippage) Art KB9MZ....XG (uk) One day late for April Fools he is just an every day fool. |
American interpretation
Art Unwin wrote:
Many on this newsgroup are aware of my views on radiation which I then took to the QRZ antenna page because of the fraustration created by lack of knowledge of equilibrium by the average american. I have now run into another interpretation by americans which differ from the european aspect and that is Newtons third law with respect to reaction . Definitions on the net view this law as an equal and diametrically opposite force where Newton never used the word "diametrically". English law is based on the intention provided by the words of the law such that it becomes unchanged thru time. American law does not define "intention" thus the law can and does change over time creating appeals against the intent of words. One definition of Newton's law on the net shows two skaters pushing against each other as an illustration of the law. But Newton's "intent" was in the olde english where "opposite" was viewed in a different way. If you view a helicopter the front rotor is in a horizontal plane and rotating clockwise thus per Newton the resulting action is a rotator at the rear that is rotating in a "vertical " plane and rotating counter clockwise to maintain equilibrium. Another example is a caramel bar that is placed under tension which produces a force at right angles that narrows the cross section and the sample fails in shear at 45 degrees ( vector resultant of the two forces) I bring this up because of what I have stated earlier about radiation on this newsgroup, where the applied force is electrical on a radiator and per Newton the reaction is at right angle to that force which is called the displacement current ( capacitive magnetic field). No wonder Einstein gave up on the pursuit of radiation because as a german had no understanding of olde english and thus was looking for a equal and diametrically opposite force in his search for the "weak force." He was correct in his prediction of it's presence with respect to radiation but, unfortunately, was looking in the wrong place and thus relativity was born! Regards Art KB9MZ....XG (uk) Apparently when he couldn't unify Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism he just gave up. You'll have to forgive the inadequacy of my American education. I guess they must know all about Newtonian electromagnetism wherever it is that you hail from. 73, ac6xg |
American interpretation
Jim Kelley wrote:
Art Unwin wrote: Many on this newsgroup are aware of my views on radiation which I then took to the QRZ antenna page because of the fraustration created by lack of knowledge of equilibrium by the average american. I have now run into another interpretation by americans which differ from the european aspect and that is Newtons third law with respect to reaction . Definitions on the net view this law as an equal and diametrically opposite force where Newton never used the word "diametrically". English law is based on the intention provided by the words of the law such that it becomes unchanged thru time. American law does not define "intention" thus the law can and does change over time creating appeals against the intent of words. One definition of Newton's law on the net shows two skaters pushing against each other as an illustration of the law. But Newton's "intent" was in the olde english where "opposite" was viewed in a different way. If you view a helicopter the front rotor is in a horizontal plane and rotating clockwise thus per Newton the resulting action is a rotator at the rear that is rotating in a "vertical " plane and rotating counter clockwise to maintain equilibrium. Another example is a caramel bar that is placed under tension which produces a force at right angles that narrows the cross section and the sample fails in shear at 45 degrees ( vector resultant of the two forces) I bring this up because of what I have stated earlier about radiation on this newsgroup, where the applied force is electrical on a radiator and per Newton the reaction is at right angle to that force which is called the displacement current ( capacitive magnetic field). No wonder Einstein gave up on the pursuit of radiation because as a german had no understanding of olde english and thus was looking for a equal and diametrically opposite force in his search for the "weak force." He was correct in his prediction of it's presence with respect to radiation but, unfortunately, was looking in the wrong place and thus relativity was born! Regards Art KB9MZ....XG (uk) Apparently when he couldn't unify Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism he just gave up. You'll have to forgive the inadequacy of my American education. I guess they must know all about Newtonian electromagnetism wherever it is that you hail from. 73, ac6xg Not to mention the fact that Newton wrote his laws of motion in Latin, and not in "olde english" (whatever that is). Art is fantasizing again. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
American interpretation
Not to mention the fact that Newton wrote his laws of motion in Latin, and
not in "olde english" (whatever that is). Art is fantasizing again. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH It is highly unlikely that Newton would have known Old English which went out of use in the 12th Century, he probably would not have even known Middle English, unless he was a avid reader of Chaucer. Modern English had been in use and developing since the 1500's, and by the time that Newton was postulating his theories in the late 1600's Modern English was that language of the day. However, scientific papers were written in Latin as this gave them a universal coverage amongst the scientific population. Regards Jeff |
American interpretation
"Jim Kelley" wrote in message ... Art Unwin wrote: Many on this newsgroup are aware of my views on radiation which I then took to the QRZ antenna page because of the fraustration created by lack of knowledge of equilibrium by the average american. I have now run into another interpretation by americans which differ from the european aspect and that is Newtons third law with respect to reaction . Definitions on the net view this law as an equal and diametrically opposite force where Newton never used the word "diametrically". English law is based on the intention provided by the words of the law such that it becomes unchanged thru time. American law does not define "intention" thus the law can and does change over time creating appeals against the intent of words. One definition of Newton's law on the net shows two skaters pushing against each other as an illustration of the law. But Newton's "intent" was in the olde english where "opposite" was viewed in a different way. If you view a helicopter the front rotor is in a horizontal plane and rotating clockwise thus per Newton the resulting action is a rotator at the rear that is rotating in a "vertical " plane and rotating counter clockwise to maintain equilibrium. Another example is a caramel bar that is placed under tension which produces a force at right angles that narrows the cross section and the sample fails in shear at 45 degrees ( vector resultant of the two forces) I bring this up because of what I have stated earlier about radiation on this newsgroup, where the applied force is electrical on a radiator and per Newton the reaction is at right angle to that force which is called the displacement current ( capacitive magnetic field). No wonder Einstein gave up on the pursuit of radiation because as a german had no understanding of olde english and thus was looking for a equal and diametrically opposite force in his search for the "weak force." He was correct in his prediction of it's presence with respect to radiation but, unfortunately, was looking in the wrong place and thus relativity was born! Regards Art KB9MZ....XG (uk) Apparently when he couldn't unify Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism he just gave up. You'll have to forgive the inadequacy of my American education. I guess they must know all about Newtonian electromagnetism wherever it is that you hail from. 73, ac6xg no, he didn't give up, he moved to another forum to see how many other suckers he could get to agree with him. check out: http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php...ighlight=kb9mz but you have to be a 'member' to be able to reply on there. |
American interpretation
Jeff wrote:
It is highly unlikely that Newton would have known Old English which went out of use in the 12th Century, he probably would not have even known Middle English, unless he was a avid reader of Chaucer. In what English is the King James version of the Bible written? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
American interpretation
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jeff wrote: It is highly unlikely that Newton would have known Old English which went out of use in the 12th Century, he probably would not have even known Middle English, unless he was a avid reader of Chaucer. In what English is the King James version of the Bible written? If you can understand it, it's Modern English. Here's an example of Anglo Saxon English (Olde English for Art): "Se halige Andreas him to cwaeth: 'Thine stefne ic gehiere, ac ic ne wat hwaer thu art.'" Since Art knows "Olde English" he can translate it for you. Here's an example of Middle English from Robert Manning of Brunne's, _Handlyng Synne_: "Ther were twey men of holy wyl That levyd togedyr withouten yl, Alone in an ermytage, And as meke as bryd in kage; The toon men call Eutycyus, The touther hyght Florentius." (In both examples I substituted 'th' for the old thorn character.) Hope this helps. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
American interpretation
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
... Jeff wrote: It is highly unlikely that Newton would have known Old English which went out of use in the 12th Century, he probably would not have even known Middle English, unless he was a avid reader of Chaucer. In what English is the King James version of the Bible written? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com Early Modern (or Renaissance) English, just like Shakespear. Jeff |
American interpretation
Tom Donaly wrote:
If you can understand it, it's Modern English. Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible" so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard that particular English called the "King's English". Is that an accurate description? I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out: "In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which caused time to stand relatively still because all particles were moving at nearly the speed of light." Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or not? :-) -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
American interpretation
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:43:23 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote: I have re-translated "The Bible". Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or not? :-) If you write like you are stoned, does that make you an adulterer? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
American interpretation
Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible"
so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard that particular English called the "King's English". Is that an accurate description? No! King's (Queen's) English is used to describe 'correct' English, as opposed to slang or poor grammar etc.. The English in the King James Bible is correctly described as Early Modern (or Renaissance) English. 73 Jeff I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out: "In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which caused time to stand relatively still because all particles were moving at nearly the speed of light." Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or not? :-) -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
American interpretation
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote: If you can understand it, it's Modern English. Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible" so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard that particular English called the "King's English". Is that an accurate description? I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out: "In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which caused time to stand relatively still because all particles were moving at nearly the speed of light." Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or not? :-) Many adulterers are stoned already... Of course it is a little difficult to figure out just what an adulterer is anyhow. If you raid a neighboring village, you can take the women as slaves and wives, somehow it was okay for Job's daughters to get him drunk and boink him. Go figure... - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
American interpretation
On Apr 11, 6:28*am, "Dave" wrote:
Apparently when he couldn't unify Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism he just gave up. *You'll have to forgive the inadequacy of my American education. *I guess they must know all about Newtonian electromagnetism wherever it is that you hail from. 73, ac6xg no, he didn't give up, he moved to another forum to see how many other suckers he could get to agree with him. *check out:http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php...ighlight=kb9mz but you have to be a 'member' to be able to reply on there. Good grief.. :/ I read through about 75% of that.. You can't debate a subject with Art. Tom asks him to simply show one device he has designed using this new fangled Gaussian theory, then Art claims Tom is "dissing" him, kicking sand in his face, or whatever other assault Art conjures up in his mind. :/ But he also alters facts to suit his whim, conjures non events out of the thin air, and other feats of internet skill. He whines because we ask him to define how he uses the term equilibrium in respect to antennas. But then he runs off to web page Q and whines that everyone asks him the definition of the word itself.. This is an oft used tactic of many that wish to confuse the audience at hand. He runs off to web page Q and tells all that some great wizard from MIT laid out a bunch of math to prove his theory. This is an outright deception, because I was there, I saw the exchange and the wizard from MIT never gave any real math at all. In fact, when questioned about a few points by Richard Clark, the great wizard from MIT took off, never to be heard from again. And he never gave any math at all as far as Art's design. So this event can be labeled as "the big lie" as far as I'm concerned. I'm all for antenna experimentation, but after several years of tinkering I have learned a couple of things. And so far they have never been proved wrong. Even by Art, or even the great wizard from MIT. #`1 There is no free lunch. #2 You can't polish a turd and make it a diamond. Art claims to do both, but as always, refuses to provide a working model that can be tested against known benchmark antennas, or he provides a design which does not work as claimed. Like the short "contra wound" contraption I've seen a picture of. He claims it is a viable antenna for 160m, and will be quite efficient. Heck, I don't even have to test it. I can just look at it and tell you it will be a dud compared to any decent antenna. But this is OK. It's not my design, and it's not my job to prove the design actually works. That is Art's job, but Art refuses to do it. If I had a design, I would want to test it against antennas with known properties. Art refuses. This is why he thinks many of these off the wall theories and designs work. He will never actually do the tests to confirm the performance. I bet he doesn't even have any reference antennas on his property, like say a 160m dipole, or a 1/4 wave monopole. How can one advocate a design or theory without even testing it? To sum, Art is like a dog that chases it's tail all day long. :/ That's my interpretation, and I'm sticking with it. |
American interpretation
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
... Tom Donaly wrote: If you can understand it, it's Modern English. Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible" so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard that particular English called the "King's English". Is that an accurate description? I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out: "In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which caused time to stand relatively still because all particles were moving at nearly the speed of light." Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or not? :-) -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com You can't translate something you don't read or understand. The media often does something like that, it is called "commentary" or roughly translated: "subterfuge", "lying" or "manipulation" depending on the intent. BTW look to John Chapter 8. Seemingly the law is clear but condemnation isn't required. |
American interpretation
|
American interpretation
JB wrote:
BTW look to John Chapter 8. Seemingly the law is clear but condemnation isn't required. That contradicts the Old Testament. Which is true? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
American interpretation
On Apr 13, 5:54*pm, Richard Clark wrote:
We have since seen this word salad Art's offered garnished with particals seasoned with a weekend farce. I fear there has been a disturbance in the week farce. Woe is Art... :/ |
American interpretation
|
American interpretation
On Apr 13, 5:32*pm, wrote:
On Apr 11, 6:28*am, "Dave" wrote: Apparently when he couldn't unify Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism he just gave up. *You'll have to forgive the inadequacy of my American education. *I guess they must know all about Newtonian electromagnetism wherever it is that you hail from. 73, ac6xg no, he didn't give up, he moved to another forum to see how many other suckers he could get to agree with him. *check out:http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php...ighlight=kb9mz but you have to be a 'member' to be able to reply on there. Good grief.. *:/ *I read through about 75% of that.. You can't debate a subject with Art. Tom asks him to simply show one device he has designed using this new fangled Gaussian theory, then Art claims Tom is "dissing" him, kicking sand in his face, or whatever other assault Art conjures up in his mind. *:/ But he also alters facts to suit his whim, conjures non events out of the thin air, and other feats of internet skill. He whines because we ask him to define how he uses the term equilibrium in respect to antennas. But then he runs off to web page Q and whines that everyone asks him the definition of the word itself.. This is an oft used tactic of many that wish to confuse the audience at hand. He runs off to web page Q and tells all that some great wizard from MIT laid out a bunch of math to prove his theory. This is an outright deception, because I was there, I saw the exchange and the wizard from MIT never gave any real math at all. In fact, when questioned about a few points by Richard Clark, the great wizard from MIT took off, never to be heard from again. And he never gave any math at all as far as Art's design. So this event can be labeled as "the big lie" as far as I'm concerned. I'm all for antenna experimentation, but after several years of tinkering I have learned a couple of things. And so far they have never been proved wrong. Even by Art, or even the great wizard from MIT. #`1 There is no free lunch. #2 *You can't polish a turd and make it a diamond. Art claims to do both, but as always, refuses to provide a working model that can be tested against known benchmark antennas, or he provides a design which does not work as claimed. Like the short "contra wound" contraption I've seen a picture of. He claims it is a viable antenna for 160m, and will be quite efficient. Heck, I don't even have to test it. I can just look at it and tell you it will be a dud compared to any decent antenna. But this is OK. It's not my design, and it's not my job to prove the design actually works. That is Art's job, but Art refuses to do it. If I had a design, I would want to test it against antennas with known properties. Art refuses. This is why he thinks many of these off the wall theories and designs work. He will never actually do the tests to confirm the performance. I bet he doesn't even have any reference antennas on his property, like say a 160m dipole, or a 1/4 wave monopole. How can one advocate a design or theory without even testing it? To sum, Art is like a dog that chases it's tail all day long. * :/ That's my interpretation, and I'm sticking with it. Arts design is not origonal, it was around in the 60s and 70s as a CB radio joke. It rated up there along with burying a dipole a 1/4 wl deep in the ground.. Unlike the buried antenna this joke was especially good because sometimes it wold work just well enough to work some skip and then you would hear the guy talking about this great antenna he had Jimmie |
American interpretation
On Apr 14, 11:39*am, JIMMIE wrote:
advocate a design or theory without even testing it? To sum, Art is like a dog that chases it's tail all day long. * :/ That's my interpretation, and I'm sticking with it. Arts design is not origonal, it was around in the 60s and 70s as a CB radio joke. It rated up there along with burying a dipole a 1/4 wl deep in the ground.. Unlike the buried antenna this joke was especially good because sometimes it wold work just well enough to work some skip and then you would hear the guy talking about this great antenna he had Jimmie Normally I wouldn't care less if someone wanted to design an RF load with inferior qualities. It's a semi-free country.. But Art insists on making up new theory to promote these wonders of mutt UK/Ill. technology. That's the rub.. But I imagine your testing scenario could apply to him. IE: He hears a station using his wonder stick as a receiving antenna, so he decides it surely must be as efficient as a dipole. Course, on those low frequencies almost anything can be used for a receiving antenna. I've come to the conclusion that calling Art an antenna designer would be akin to calling Festus Hagen a speech therapist. :/ |
American interpretation
On Apr 14, 8:29*am, Michael Coslo wrote:
wrote: #2 *You can't polish a turd and make it a diamond. But you can roll it in kitty litter and call it a Zagnut! * * * * - 73 de Mike N3LI - Didn't Carl Spackler dig one of those out of a swimming pool and eat it? :/ |
American interpretation
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Cecil Moore wrote: Tom Donaly wrote: If you can understand it, it's Modern English. Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible" so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard that particular English called the "King's English". Is that an accurate description? I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out: "In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which caused time to stand relatively still because all particles were moving at nearly the speed of light." Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or not? :-) Many adulterers are stoned already... Of course it is a little difficult to figure out just what an adulterer is anyhow. If you raid a neighboring village, you can take the women as slaves and wives, somehow it was okay for Job's daughters to get him drunk and boink him. Go figure... - 73 de Mike N3LI - Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok? B |
American interpretation
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... JB wrote: BTW look to John Chapter 8. Seemingly the law is clear but condemnation isn't required. That contradicts the Old Testament. Which is true? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com As Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, his choice to forgive is what is true. The penalty was paid. There was a death for the adultery. B |
American interpretation
Brian Oakley wrote:
As Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, his choice to forgive is what is true. The penalty was paid. There was a death for the adultery. So why is the Old Testament included in The Bible if Jesus rendered it meaningless and irrelevant? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
American interpretation
|
American interpretation
Brian Oakley wrote:
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Many adulterers are stoned already... Of course it is a little difficult to figure out just what an adulterer is anyhow. If you raid a neighboring village, you can take the women as slaves and wives, somehow it was okay for Job's daughters to get him drunk and boink him. Go figure... - 73 de Mike N3LI - Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok? It wasn't exactly condemned now was it? - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
American interpretation
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Brian Oakley wrote: As Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, his choice to forgive is what is true. The penalty was paid. There was a death for the adultery. So why is the Old Testament included in The Bible if Jesus rendered it meaningless and irrelevant? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com Not meaningless and irrelevant. The law is to be considered and respected, but is not the main point. The Jews asked for the law because they were too afraid of the voice of God. Obedience to his voice would have been more pleasing. God seems to be in tune with what we need but there is no way we are going to get in the way of His plans. Jesus was the right hand of God reaching out to us. If that doesn't strike you with awe, and it is all meaningless to you, then you have no heart and morality is what you make up just like the animals. Essentially a "heathen". And you wonder why children who have been taught they are no more than "evolved primordial soup" go to school with "Natural Selection" T-shirts and kill as many as they can for sport. And why abortion is being promoted as a painless way to make genocide acceptable. I pray America and its people finds their way back to God before He sends his blessing elsewhere. As far as Newton's theory... I thought he dealt primarily with forces. Works well with things like magnetism, gravity and mechanics, but when you introduce AC and antenna theory, it becomes very complex and the pages start to fill with Math. Not easy to explain in a news post. I have yet to see any of the Math in these posts, which speaks to the fact that everyone is too lazy to do more than talk about it. |
American interpretation
JB wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Brian Oakley wrote: As Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, his choice to forgive is what is true. The penalty was paid. There was a death for the adultery. So why is the Old Testament included in The Bible if Jesus rendered it meaningless and irrelevant? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com Not meaningless and irrelevant. The law is to be considered and respected, but is not the main point. The Jews asked for the law because they were too afraid of the voice of God. Obedience to his voice would have been more pleasing. God seems to be in tune with what we need but there is no way we are going to get in the way of His plans. Jesus was the right hand of God reaching out to us. If that doesn't strike you with awe, and it is all meaningless to you, then you have no heart and morality is what you make up just like the animals. Essentially a "heathen". And you wonder why children who have been taught they are no more than "evolved primordial soup" go to school with "Natural Selection" T-shirts and kill as many as they can for sport. And why abortion is being promoted as a painless way to make genocide acceptable. I pray America and its people finds their way back to God before He sends his blessing elsewhere. As far as Newton's theory... I thought he dealt primarily with forces. Works well with things like magnetism, gravity and mechanics, but when you introduce AC and antenna theory, it becomes very complex and the pages start to fill with Math. Not easy to explain in a news post. I have yet to see any of the Math in these posts, which speaks to the fact that everyone is too lazy to do more than talk about it. To Cecil; Quit baiting the fundamentalists. This is an antenna newsgroup, not a t.v. evangelist God-is-agonna-gitcha newsgroup. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
American interpretation
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Brian Oakley wrote: As Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, his choice to forgive is what is true. The penalty was paid. There was a death for the adultery. So why is the Old Testament included in The Bible if Jesus rendered it meaningless and irrelevant? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com Because its not meaningless and irrelavent. Its there to show you why Jesus had to come. He is the fulfillment of the Law. If He is the fullfillment, then you have to understand what is in the Law and why He had to fulfill it. The OT is there to point to Jesus in every book. B |
American interpretation
"Tom Donaly" wrote in message ... JB wrote: "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Brian Oakley wrote: As Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, his choice to forgive is what is true. The penalty was paid. There was a death for the adultery. So why is the Old Testament included in The Bible if Jesus rendered it meaningless and irrelevant? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com Not meaningless and irrelevant. The law is to be considered and respected, but is not the main point. The Jews asked for the law because they were too afraid of the voice of God. Obedience to his voice would have been more pleasing. God seems to be in tune with what we need but there is no way we are going to get in the way of His plans. Jesus was the right hand of God reaching out to us. If that doesn't strike you with awe, and it is all meaningless to you, then you have no heart and morality is what you make up just like the animals. Essentially a "heathen". And you wonder why children who have been taught they are no more than "evolved primordial soup" go to school with "Natural Selection" T-shirts and kill as many as they can for sport. And why abortion is being promoted as a painless way to make genocide acceptable. I pray America and its people finds their way back to God before He sends his blessing elsewhere. As far as Newton's theory... I thought he dealt primarily with forces. Works well with things like magnetism, gravity and mechanics, but when you introduce AC and antenna theory, it becomes very complex and the pages start to fill with Math. Not easy to explain in a news post. I have yet to see any of the Math in these posts, which speaks to the fact that everyone is too lazy to do more than talk about it. To Cecil; Quit baiting the fundamentalists. This is an antenna newsgroup, not a t.v. evangelist God-is-agonna-gitcha newsgroup. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH Youre right. God isnt out to gitcha. B |
American interpretation
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Brian Oakley wrote: "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Many adulterers are stoned already... Of course it is a little difficult to figure out just what an adulterer is anyhow. If you raid a neighboring village, you can take the women as slaves and wives, somehow it was okay for Job's daughters to get him drunk and boink him. Go figure... - 73 de Mike N3LI - Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok? It wasn't exactly condemned now was it? - 73 de Mike N3LI - Uh, if you read closely, thats a narrative of what took place. Life happens, good and bad. This is what the Bible is about, the good, the bad, and the ugly. It has nothing to hide about people and they wrong they do. If God doesnt jump in and throw down a thunderbolt or two, you think that means He thinks its ok? Im sorry, but you really dont understand much about God or the Bible by showing that kind of thinking. Surely youre not that naive. I think youre just biased, which is ok, but at least admit it. B |
American interpretation
Brian Oakley wrote:
Youre right. God isnt out to gitcha. You're wrong about that. If God knows what I am going to do tomorrow then I have no choice and do not possess free will. If God doesn't know what I am going to do tomorrow, then He is not omniscient. QED. -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
American interpretation
Brian Oakley wrote:
Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok? It wasn't exactly condemned now was it? - 73 de Mike N3LI - Uh, if you read closely, thats a narrative of what took place. Life happens, good and bad. This is what the Bible is about, the good, the bad, and the ugly. It has nothing to hide about people and they wrong they do. If God doesnt jump in and throw down a thunderbolt or two, you think that means He thinks its ok? Im sorry, but you really dont understand much about God or the Bible by showing that kind of thinking. Surely youre not that naive. I think youre just biased, which is ok, but at least admit it. We have a lot of things declared as abominations in the bible, we have a lot of things on the OT that condemn people to death also. Considering how some of these things are latched onto by those who would promote themselves as the holy these days, I find it a little amusing. I also see those folks more as Pharisees. If you want to know my bias, read the Sermon on the Mount. Most of the rest is dross. - 73 de Mike N3LI - |
American interpretation
Brian Oakley wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... Brian Oakley wrote: As Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law, his choice to forgive is what is true. The penalty was paid. There was a death for the adultery. So why is the Old Testament included in The Bible if Jesus rendered it meaningless and irrelevant? -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com Because its not meaningless and irrelavent. Its there to show you why Jesus had to come. He is the fulfillment of the Law. If He is the fullfillment, then you have to understand what is in the Law and why He had to fulfill it. The OT is there to point to Jesus in every book. B Pure heresy! There's no way for you to know whether that is true or not. You're wasting your time trying to find purpose in religious scripture. As Alexander Pope wrote in his An Essay on Man: Epistle II: "Know then thyself, presume not God to scan, The proper study of mankind is man" 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
American interpretation
Cecil Moore wrote:
Brian Oakley wrote: Youre right. God isnt out to gitcha. You're wrong about that. If God knows what I am going to do tomorrow then I have no choice and do not possess free will. If God doesn't know what I am going to do tomorrow, then He is not omniscient. QED. Dangit, Cecil! You managed to scare another one out from under his rock. You know you aren't going to do anything but start an argument when you use logic and reason on a true believer. Christians have been fighting and arguing with each other, and killing each other since before the time of Arius over such things as whether non-Jewish Christians should be circumcised, and whether or not Christ was created by God or eternally co-existent with Him. If you're going to start an eternal religious thread, you can at least discuss why Nature is explainable using differential equations, or why evolution has produced so many religious nuts. 73, Tom Donaly, KA6RUH |
American interpretation
Tom Donaly wrote:
Dangit, Cecil! You managed to scare another one out from under his rock. You know you aren't going to do anything but start an argument when you use logic and reason on a true believer. I'm sorry, Tom. From the beginning of creation, God knew I was eventually going to make that posting so I didn't have any choice. I hope God knows that I am now going to stop doing that. :-) -- 73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com