On 6/4/2011 11:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

...
NO, it isn't, because it is FULL of ether ... space, if possible, by
itself is nothing.

What you are referring to IS ether, you simply name it space

Actually, that's what nearly every scientist names it;
"ether" was shown to be nonexistent (or to have zero effect
on anything measurable, which is the same thing) over a
century ago,

... yes,
there is precedent for calling "ether", "space", an error which has been
repeated countless times, and you supply absolute evidence of.

Regards,
JS

EINSTEIN SAID:
"Therefore, instead of speaking of an ether, one could equally well
speak of physical qualities of space. Now one could take the position
that all physical objects fall under this category, because in the final
analysis in a theory of fields the ponderable matter, or the elementary
particles that constitute matter, also have to be considered as ‘fields’
of a particular kind, or as particular ‘states’ of the space."

So, now, what is up? Is there a particular school which is mandatory
where you people come from? Something like, "The University of Morons?"

In Einsteins words, above, you must first move ether into the area of
"ponderable" ... as now we have no frame of reference to even begin to
study or understand it. We need to secure our first sample in some sort
of "bottle", with equipment which can detect it.

Einstein already acknowledges it, indeed, he acknowledges his theory of
relativity is not valid without "gravitational ether."

Because we cannot "see" ether at this time is nowhere near proof of its'
non-existence ... you are much like the "old doctors" who refused to
believe in germs because they could not be seen nor detected.

Or, the state of science before x-rays were discovered, we simply lived
in ignorance of them.

Only morons state the "non-discovery, to date" of something as "proof it
doesn't exist!"

And, yet, you seem to have no problem that all that looks "logical" to you?

ROFLOL

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 12:34:15 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith :

On 6/4/2011 11:39 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

[JS said...]

What you are referring to IS ether, you simply name it space

Actually, that's what nearly every scientist names it;
"ether" was shown to be nonexistent (or to have zero effect
on anything measurable, which is the same thing) over a
century ago,

EINSTEIN SAID:
"Therefore, instead of speaking of an ether, one could equally well
speak of physical qualities of space. Now one could take the position
that all physical objects fall under this category, because in the final
analysis in a theory of fields the ponderable matter, or the elementary
particles that constitute matter, also have to be considered as ‘fields’
of a particular kind, or as particular ‘states’ of the space."

So, now, what is up? Is there a particular school which is mandatory
where you people come from?

Yeah; it's called "college". Maybe if you'd attended and
taken a few physics classes you'd know what your quote
meant. Einstein also said (regarding QM) "God doesn't play
dice"; do you imagine that means he believed in an actual
deity?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

On 6/5/2011 9:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

...
Yeah; it's called "college". Maybe if you'd attended and
taken a few physics classes you'd know what your quote
meant. Einstein also said (regarding QM) "God doesn't play
dice"; do you imagine that means he believed in an actual
deity?

Yes, I have noticed you use the same "Baffle With Bull****" tactics as
the children you associate with ... your thinking being, "I'll take the
topic away from hard physics into religion. Then, using strawman
arguments, I will attempt to use a persons personal beliefs to attack
their credibility. Now, once succeeding in that, I will "transfer" the
fact I appear correct over to the hard science -- effectively winning
the argument in hard science with less than truthful arguments."

Gee, where have we seen that before?

God doesn't play dice, obviously the rules and laws over our portion of
the universe are very fixed and rigid ... although in some far flung
corner they may differ ... only God would know, at this time.

But, as to Einstein, we have watched quacks hunt and attempt to
interpret, expand, etc. his words to allow various "fudge factors" which
he never intended ... usually with attempts to move discussions into
religious areas and begin debate on such books as the bible ... most
always the sign of the unethical and immature.

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 09:58:31 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John Smith :

On 6/5/2011 9:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

...
Yeah; it's called "college". Maybe if you'd attended and
taken a few physics classes you'd know what your quote
meant. Einstein also said (regarding QM) "God doesn't play
dice"; do you imagine that means he believed in an actual
deity?

Yes, I have noticed you use the same "Baffle With Bull****" tactics as
the children you associate with ... your thinking being, "I'll take the
topic away from hard physics into religion. Then, using strawman
arguments, I will attempt to use a persons personal beliefs to attack
their credibility. Now, once succeeding in that, I will "transfer" the
fact I appear correct over to the hard science -- effectively winning
the argument in hard science with less than truthful arguments."

Gee, where have we seen that before?

Below, in your avoidance of the question.

God doesn't play dice, obviously the rules and laws over our portion of
the universe are very fixed and rigid ... although in some far flung
corner they may differ ... only God would know, at this time.

But, as to Einstein, we have watched quacks hunt and attempt to
interpret, expand, etc. his words to allow various "fudge factors" which
he never intended ... usually with attempts to move discussions into
religious areas and begin debate on such books as the bible ... most
always the sign of the unethical and immature.

Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the
context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an
actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the
term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to
something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by
Michaelson and Morley, or not?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

On 6/6/2011 9:48 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 09:58:31 -0700, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by John :

On 6/5/2011 9:43 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

...
Yeah; it's called "college". Maybe if you'd attended and
taken a few physics classes you'd know what your quote
meant. Einstein also said (regarding QM) "God doesn't play
dice"; do you imagine that means he believed in an actual
deity?

Yes, I have noticed you use the same "Baffle With Bull****" tactics as
the children you associate with ... your thinking being, "I'll take the
topic away from hard physics into religion. Then, using strawman
arguments, I will attempt to use a persons personal beliefs to attack
their credibility. Now, once succeeding in that, I will "transfer" the
fact I appear correct over to the hard science -- effectively winning
the argument in hard science with less than truthful arguments."

Gee, where have we seen that before?

Below, in your avoidance of the question.

God doesn't play dice, obviously the rules and laws over our portion of
the universe are very fixed and rigid ... although in some far flung
corner they may differ ... only God would know, at this time.

But, as to Einstein, we have watched quacks hunt and attempt to
interpret, expand, etc. his words to allow various "fudge factors" which
he never intended ... usually with attempts to move discussions into
religious areas and begin debate on such books as the bible ... most
always the sign of the unethical and immature.

Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the
context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an
actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the
term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to
something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by
Michaelson and Morley, or not?

I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent
creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but,
everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion of
"thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ...

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

On 6/6/2011 1:02 PM, John Smith wrote:


Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the
context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an
actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the
term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to
something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by
Michaelson and Morley, or not?

I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent
creator a strong possibility!



Even if I concede that is what Einstein meant, (I don't)
all that does is move the goalpost...Who created the creator?

To me, anyone who is capable of free thought and is intellectually
honest will admit that they just don't know the answer to the question
of what started everything.

To say 'god did it', is just giving up.









--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

On 6/6/2011 10:40 AM, HVAC wrote:

...
I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent
creator a strong possibility!



Even if I concede that is what Einstein meant, (I don't)
all that does is move the goalpost...Who created the creator?

To me, anyone who is capable of free thought and is intellectually
honest will admit that they just don't know the answer to the question
of what started everything.

To say 'god did it', is just giving up.


Your constant attempts to work the edges, to peel up the logic and
reason is dishonest.

Einstein simply, in looking at the structure(s), laws and principals
which he sees, and is overwhelmed at the mind and intelligence it would
take to create such, and that such is the only reason conceivable for
its' existence ... I know of no comments or text of his which ventures
to understand "the creation of the creator", or claim he has a theory on
where the creators mind comes from, of from what it is formed.

He is simply forced into accepting things as they are, appear, and what
proofs exist in these observations ... and why he was brought to allow
for intelligent design.

The religion of atheism, and a specific definition of "atheism"
encompasses the denial of a creator, an intelligence which designed and
constructed all which we see, keeps those who have found a religious
belief in atheism of allowing for anything, other than accident, chance,
luck and spontaneous generation ... obviously, Einstein refused to make
the leap of faith into that/those principle(s.)

To make any progress in any direction, one must first see the reality
and truths of what lie before their senses, to refuse simply because
"you can't believe what your eyes and senses tell you, is a religious
belief in and of itself!

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry

On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 13:40:24 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by HVAC :

On 6/6/2011 1:02 PM, John Smith wrote:


Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the
context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an
actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the
term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to
something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by
Michaelson and Morley, or not?

I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent
creator a strong possibility!



Even if I concede that is what Einstein meant, (I don't)
all that does is move the goalpost...Who created the creator?

To me, anyone who is capable of free thought and is intellectually
honest will admit that they just don't know the answer to the question
of what started everything.

To say 'god did it', is just giving up.

Correct. And unlike organized religion, science has no
problem with admitting lack of knowledge, or with research
to discover reality.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

John Smith wrote:
Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the
context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an
actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the
term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to
something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by
Michaelson and Morley, or not?

I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent
creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but,
everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion of
"thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ...

I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are.

In 1927

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the
actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of
his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic
causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.
My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior
spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and
transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the
highest importance-but for us, not for God. "


In 1945
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been
an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a
personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not
share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is
mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature
and of our being."

In 1954
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something
is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration
for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "

Shortly before he died
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of
human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive
legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Keith

On 6/6/2011 10:44 AM, Keith Willshaw wrote:
John Smith wrote:
Nice attempt to waffle (plus interesting snippage of the
context). Do you agree that Einstein wasn't referring to an
actual deity, or not? And do you agree that his use of the
term "ether" (which was the context you snipped) referred to
something other than the sort of physical "ether" refuted by
Michaelson and Morley, or not?

I think Einstein, absolutely, considered a unbelievably intelligent
creator a strong possibility! His very words define this ... but,
everyone should read them, his words, for themselves, as the notion of
"thinking for someone else" is hazardous, at best ...

I agree everyone should read his words. Here they are.

In 1927

"I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the
actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of
his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic
causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.
My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior
spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and
transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the
highest importance-but for us, not for God. "


In 1945
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been
an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a
personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not
share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is
mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature
and of our being."

In 1954
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal
God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something
is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration
for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. "

Shortly before he died
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of
human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive
legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

Keith



Yes, here you come with your religious obfuscations, beliefs, denials,
acceptances, etc., again!

I don't remember anyone mentioning such things as Jesus, church, mormon,
catholic, jehovah witnesses, protestants, miracles, doctorine, the great
flood, angels, jews, etc.

In our discussion, God = Creator = Intelligent Design = structure =
logic = etc.

For some reason, your hatred or wish to attack religion makes it central
to your life and beliefs, and you attempt to inject it into any
discussion that exists here and have us participate with you ...

You start off on tangents of primitive legends and childish persuasions,
and wish to start discussing biblical beliefs!

Since you have injected these things and claim to have a knowledge of
them and that your ideas on them have bearing on what we discuss, you
develop them, you explain how, you develop text around them ...

To me, your moronic blathering is nothing more than an insane background
noise which is annoying ... if others wish to engage you in this, have
at it ... I have no time for whatever you think you are doing. I simply
have no interest ... you do, or you wouldn't not maintain such central
focus to it ...

--

Regards,
JS
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it’s an instrument for the people to restrain the
government.” -- Patrick Henry