Expand Your Mind Virtually--Free!

On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:03:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:

> mimus wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:33:17 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>
>>>mimus wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the full-sized
>>>>>>>>>>one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very nice desktop
>>>>>>>>>>background.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the universe
>>>>>>>>>seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is slowing down.
>>>>>>>>>An interesting read.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitime118.xml
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve of
>>>>>>>>this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the particle and
>>>>>>>>wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the other, seem to be
>>>>>>>>stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but
>>>>>>>>absolutely true that the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics or
>>>>>>>>cosmology will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in the
>>>>>>>>"Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I compare
>>>>>>>>to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that the Earth is
>>>>>>>>roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"? heh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>>>>>>>>shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>>>>>>>>apparent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to
>>>>>>>>the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility
>>>>>>>>with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>>>>
>>>>>><with dignity>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big Bang"
>>>>>>theory has . . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
>>>>>(there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given the
>>>>>state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global desire for
>>>>>compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of observation
>>>>>often do not fit neatly into existing models but this does not mean
>>>>>that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved a precise minimum
>>>>>energy solution in real time on a scale that cannot be contained in any
>>>>>earthbound laboratory or computer. We have no timely way to
>>>>>distinguish whether or not we inderstand what's going on.
>>>>>
>>>>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can be
>>>>>used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
>>>>>observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people wave
>>>>>their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so that
>>>>>others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get depressed
>>>>>and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>>>>
>>>>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>>>>
>>>>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>>>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>>>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
>>>>>'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as patched.
>>>>>
>>>>><burp>
>>>>
>>>>Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed at higher
>>>>red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other heavy elements that
>>>>ought to be rarer and rarer at higher red-shifts but aren't . . . .
>>>>
>>>>HA
>>>
>>>Except for the likely situation where the earliest stars were very
>>>massive and supernovaed in a few million years leaving heavy elements
>>>and the occasional black hole for the next generation to form and rally
>>>around. The small stuff may not be luminous enough, and may be occluded
>>>by gas and dust such that population spastictics are skewed to favor big
>>>and mature 2nd generation objects.
>>
>> Patch 17.D.1.a.(2) . . . .
>>
>>>There are some low mass iron depleted stars in our own galaxy -
>>>where'd they come from?
>>>
>>>HAHA!
>>
>> There are heavy-element-lacking globular clusters running around all over
>> the place.
>>
>> Where do _they_ come from?
>>
>> *Ah*hahahahahahahahaha!
>
> Clusters and escapees from clusters. And
>> possibly a loner here and
> there what never had much opportunity to accrete supernova dust. Old
> bastards. Left over from when there wasn't anything heavier than 8Be
> around. From 13 billion years ago. More or less.

I vote they're new . . . .

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

You display a hole: admitted, and a fine hole it is.
But how does this hole differ from any other?

< _Cugel the Clever_ aka _Cugel's Saga_

 

mimus wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:03:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>
>>mimus wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:33:17 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>
>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the full-sized
>>>>>>>>>>>one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very nice desktop
>>>>>>>>>>>background.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the universe
>>>>>>>>>>seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is slowing down.
>>>>>>>>>>An interesting read.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitime118.xml
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve of
>>>>>>>>>this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the particle and
>>>>>>>>>wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the other, seem to be
>>>>>>>>>stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but
>>>>>>>>>absolutely true that the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics or
>>>>>>>>>cosmology will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in the
>>>>>>>>>"Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I compare
>>>>>>>>>to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that the Earth is
>>>>>>>>>roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"? heh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>>>>>>>>>shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>>>>>>>>>apparent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to
>>>>>>>>>the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility
>>>>>>>>>with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><with dignity>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big Bang"
>>>>>>>theory has . . . .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
>>>>>>(there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given the
>>>>>>state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global desire for
>>>>>>compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of observation
>>>>>>often do not fit neatly into existing models but this does not mean
>>>>>>that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved a precise minimum
>>>>>>energy solution in real time on a scale that cannot be contained in any
>>>>>>earthbound laboratory or computer. We have no timely way to
>>>>>>distinguish whether or not we inderstand what's going on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can be
>>>>>>used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
>>>>>>observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people wave
>>>>>>their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so that
>>>>>>others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get depressed
>>>>>>and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>>>>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>>>>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
>>>>>>'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as patched.
>>>>>>
>>>>>><burp>
>>>>>
>>>>>Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed at higher
>>>>>red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other heavy elements that
>>>>>ought to be rarer and rarer at higher red-shifts but aren't . . . .
>>>>>
>>>>>HA
>>>>
>>>>Except for the likely situation where the earliest stars were very
>>>>massive and supernovaed in a few million years leaving heavy elements
>>>>and the occasional black hole for the next generation to form and rally
>>>>around. The small stuff may not be luminous enough, and may be occluded
>>>>by gas and dust such that population spastictics are skewed to favor big
>>>>and mature 2nd generation objects.
>>>
>>>Patch 17.D.1.a.(2) . . . .
>>>
>>>>There are some low mass iron depleted stars in our own galaxy -
>>>>where'd they come from?
>>>>
>>>>HAHA!
>>>
>>>There are heavy-element-lacking globular clusters running around all over
>>>the place.
>>>
>>>Where do _they_ come from?
>>>
>>>*Ah*hahahahahahahahaha!
>>
>>Clusters and escapees from clusters. And
>>
>>>possibly a loner here and
>>
>>there what never had much opportunity to accrete supernova dust. Old
>>bastards. Left over from when there wasn't anything heavier than 8Be
>>around. From 13 billion years ago. More or less.
>
> I vote they're new . . . .
>
You were on wunnathem star mining ships weren't you? Ran off with all
the rusty gritty hulks after the great flood put out the fires but left
enough helium and hydrogen around to regrow new Pop. II stars? Where'd
you guys dump all the radioactive stuff? I hope it wasn't 30 miles off
the New Jersey coast or in the middle of the North Sea with all the
other junk.

--
nuts

 

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:36:38 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:

> mimus wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:03:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>
>>>mimus wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:33:17 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the full-sized
>>>>>>>>>>>>one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a very nice desktop
>>>>>>>>>>>>background.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why the universe
>>>>>>>>>>>seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose time is slowing down.
>>>>>>>>>>>An interesting read.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/scitime118.xml
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly approve of
>>>>>>>>>>this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since the particle and
>>>>>>>>>>wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists on the other, seem to be
>>>>>>>>>>stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but
>>>>>>>>>>absolutely true that the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics or
>>>>>>>>>>cosmology will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe in the
>>>>>>>>>>"Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of which I compare
>>>>>>>>>>to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without knowing that the Earth is
>>>>>>>>>>roughly spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"? heh.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that "red
>>>>>>>>>>shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion real or
>>>>>>>>>>apparent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion to
>>>>>>>>>>the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its compatibility
>>>>>>>>>>with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><with dignity>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big Bang"
>>>>>>>>theory has . . . .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
>>>>>>>(there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given the
>>>>>>>state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global desire for
>>>>>>>compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of observation
>>>>>>>often do not fit neatly into existing models but this does not mean
>>>>>>>that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved a precise minimum
>>>>>>>energy solution in real time on a scale that cannot be contained in any
>>>>>>>earthbound laboratory or computer. We have no timely way to
>>>>>>>distinguish whether or not we inderstand what's going on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can be
>>>>>>>used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
>>>>>>>observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people wave
>>>>>>>their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so that
>>>>>>>others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get depressed
>>>>>>>and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>>>>>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>>>>>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
>>>>>>>'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as patched.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><burp>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed at higher
>>>>>>red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other heavy elements that
>>>>>>ought to be rarer and rarer at higher red-shifts but aren't . . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>HA
>>>>>
>>>>>Except for the likely situation where the earliest stars were very
>>>>>massive and supernovaed in a few million years leaving heavy elements
>>>>>and the occasional black hole for the next generation to form and rally
>>>>>around. The small stuff may not be luminous enough, and may be occluded
>>>>>by gas and dust such that population spastictics are skewed to favor big
>>>>>and mature 2nd generation objects.
>>>>
>>>>Patch 17.D.1.a.(2) . . . .
>>>>
>>>>>There are some low mass iron depleted stars in our own galaxy -
>>>>>where'd they come from?
>>>>>
>>>>>HAHA!
>>>>
>>>>There are heavy-element-lacking globular clusters running around all over
>>>>the place.
>>>>
>>>>Where do _they_ come from?
>>>>
>>>>*Ah*hahahahahahahahaha!
>>>
>>>Clusters and escapees from clusters. And
>>>
>>>>possibly a loner here and
>>>
>>>there what never had much opportunity to accrete supernova dust. Old
>>>bastards. Left over from when there wasn't anything heavier than 8Be
>>>around. From 13 billion years ago. More or less.
>>
>> I vote they're new . . . .
>>
> You were on wunnathem star mining ships weren't you? Ran off with all
> the rusty gritty hulks after the great flood put out the fires but left
> enough helium and hydrogen around to regrow new Pop. II stars? Where'd
> you guys dump all the radioactive stuff? I hope it wasn't 30 miles off
> the New Jersey coast or in the middle of the North Sea with all the
> other junk.

Naw, it was that place-- it's moved now-- you call it the Congo.

That stuff brings good prices now, apparently.

Even mixed down as much as it is by now.

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

You want a job and a lizard to ride?

< _The Einstein Intersection_

 

Tim Weaver wrote:
> mixed nuts wrote:
>
>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>
>>>mixed nuts wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>full-sized one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>very nice desktop background.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why
>>>>>>>>>>>the universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose
>>>>>>>>>>>time is slowing down. An interesting read.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18
>>>>>>>>>>>/sci time118.xml
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly
>>>>>>>>>>approve of this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation,
>>>>>>>>>>since the particle and wave boys on the one hand, and the
>>>>>>>>>>cosmologists on the other, seem to be stymied as far as the Grand
>>>>>>>>>>Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but absolutely true that
>>>>>>>>>>the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics or cosmology
>>>>>>>>>>will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe
>>>>>>>>>>in the "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of
>>>>>>>>>>which I compare to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without
>>>>>>>>>>knowing that the Earth is roughly spheroidal and
>>>>>>>>>>rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"?
>>>>>>>>heh.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that
>>>>>>>>>>"red shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic
>>>>>>>>>>expansion real or apparent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows
>>>>>>>>>that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion
>>>>>>>>>>to the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its
>>>>>>>>>>compatibility with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><with dignity>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big
>>>>>>>>Bang" theory has . . . .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
>>>>>>>(there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given
>>>>>>>the state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global
>>>>>>>desire for compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of
>>>>>>>observation often do not fit neatly into existing models but this
>>>>>>>does not mean that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved
>>>>>>>a precise minimum energy solution in real time on a scale that
>>>>>>>cannot be contained in any earthbound laboratory or computer. We
>>>>>>>have no timely way to distinguish whether or not we inderstand
>>>>>>>what's going on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can
>>>>>>>be used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
>>>>>>>observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people
>>>>>>>wave their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so
>>>>>>>that others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get
>>>>>>>depressed and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>>>>>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>>>>>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
>>>>>>>'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as
>>>>>>>patched.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><burp>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed at
>>>>>>higher red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other heavy
>>>>>>elements that ought to be rarer and rarer at higher red-shifts but
>>>>>>aren't . . . .
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll go with the pros on this one. If Dr. Mitchu Kaku says it, I
>>>>>believe it.
>>>>
>>>>He ain't nothin' if he doesn't have a mother ship and ride in a
>>>>chauffered Bentley.
>>>
>>>What happened to your mother ship?
>>
>>Mot 'rapture ready' and have no large population of gullible loonies
>>over which I hold dominion. Don't need one.
>
> Will you ever? Do you have a plan in place?

Naw. There's an adequate supply of light pillars, glowing staircases
and mother ships already, and more being created as we speak.

Plan? TIG weld the doors, cut off the gangways, and turn on the dark
emitting diodes to neutralize the glowing pillars and such so the
rapturees can't back out.

--
nuts

 

mixed nuts wrote:

> Tim Weaver wrote:
>> mixed nuts wrote:
>>
>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>
>>>>mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-
scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>full-sized one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>very nice desktop background.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why
>>>>>>>>>>>>the universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose
>>>>>>>>>>>>time is slowing down. An interesting read.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/1
8
>>>>>>>>>>>>/sci time118.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly
>>>>>>>>>>>approve of this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation,
since
>>>>>>>>>>>the particle and wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists
>>>>>>>>>>>on the other, seem to be stymied as far as the Grand Unified
>>>>>>>>>>>Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but absolutely true that
>>>>>>>>>>>the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics or cosmology
>>>>>>>>>>>will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe
>>>>>>>>>>>in the "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of
>>>>>>>>>>>which I compare to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without
>>>>>>>>>>>knowing that the Earth is roughly spheroidal and
>>>>>>>>>>>rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"?
>>>>>>>>>heh.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that
>>>>>>>>>>>"red shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic
expansion
>>>>>>>>>>>real or apparent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows
>>>>>>>>>>that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion
>>>>>>>>>>>to the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its
>>>>>>>>>>>compatibility with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><with dignity>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big
>>>>>>>>>Bang" theory has . . . .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
>>>>>>>>(there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given
>>>>>>>>the state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global
>>>>>>>>desire for compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of
>>>>>>>>observation often do not fit neatly into existing models but this
>>>>>>>>does not mean that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved
>>>>>>>>a precise minimum energy solution in real time on a scale that
>>>>>>>>cannot be contained in any earthbound laboratory or computer. We
>>>>>>>>have no timely way to distinguish whether or not we inderstand
>>>>>>>>what's going on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can
>>>>>>>>be used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
>>>>>>>>observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people
>>>>>>>>wave their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so
>>>>>>>>that others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get
>>>>>>>>depressed and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>>>>>>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>>>>>>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
>>>>>>>>'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as
>>>>>>>>patched.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>><burp>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed at
>>>>>>>higher red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other heavy
>>>>>>>elements that ought to be rarer and rarer at higher red-shifts but
>>>>>>>aren't . . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'll go with the pros on this one. If Dr. Mitchu Kaku says it, I
>>>>>>believe it.
>>>>>
>>>>>He ain't nothin' if he doesn't have a mother ship and ride in a
>>>>>chauffered Bentley.
>>>>
>>>>What happened to your mother ship?
>>>
>>>Mot 'rapture ready' and have no large population of gullible loonies over
>>>which I hold dominion. Don't need one.
>>
>> Will you ever? Do you have a plan in place?
>
> Naw. There's an adequate supply of light pillars, glowing staircases
> and mother ships already, and more being created as we speak.

Would you sell me one, cheap?

> Plan? TIG weld the doors, cut off the gangways, and turn on the dark
> emitting diodes to neutralize the glowing pillars and such so the
> rapturees can't back out.

What are your plans for them?
--
Tim Weaver

"We each owe a death, there are no exceptions, I know that,
but sometimes, oh God, the Green Mile seems so long."
-Dabbs Greer as Old Paul Edgecomb from "The Green Mile"

 

Tim Weaver wrote:
> mixed nuts wrote:
>
>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>
>>>mixed nuts wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-
>
> scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>full-sized one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>very nice desktop background.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>time is slowing down. An interesting read.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/sci time118.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly
>>>>>>>>>>>>approve of this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since
>>>>>>>>>>>>the particle and wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists
>>>>>>>>>>>>on the other, seem to be stymied as far as the Grand Unified
>>>>>>>>>>>>Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but absolutely true that
>>>>>>>>>>>>the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics or cosmology
>>>>>>>>>>>>will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>in the "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of
>>>>>>>>>>>>which I compare to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without
>>>>>>>>>>>>knowing that the Earth is roughly spheroidal and
>>>>>>>>>>>>rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"?
>>>>>>>>>>heh.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that
>>>>>>>>>>>>"red shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion
>>>>>>>>>>>>real or apparent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows
>>>>>>>>>>>that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion
>>>>>>>>>>>>to the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its
>>>>>>>>>>>>compatibility with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><with dignity>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big
>>>>>>>>>>Bang" theory has . . . .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
>>>>>>>>>(there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given
>>>>>>>>>the state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global
>>>>>>>>>desire for compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of
>>>>>>>>>observation often do not fit neatly into existing models but this
>>>>>>>>>does not mean that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved
>>>>>>>>>a precise minimum energy solution in real time on a scale that
>>>>>>>>>cannot be contained in any earthbound laboratory or computer. We
>>>>>>>>>have no timely way to distinguish whether or not we inderstand
>>>>>>>>>what's going on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can
>>>>>>>>>be used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
>>>>>>>>>observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people
>>>>>>>>>wave their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so
>>>>>>>>>that others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get
>>>>>>>>>depressed and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>>>>>>>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
>>>>>>>>>'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as
>>>>>>>>>patched.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>><burp>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed at
>>>>>>>>higher red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other heavy
>>>>>>>>elements that ought to be rarer and rarer at higher red-shifts but
>>>>>>>>aren't . . . .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'll go with the pros on this one. If Dr. Mitchu Kaku says it, I
>>>>>>>believe it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He ain't nothin' if he doesn't have a mother ship and ride in a
>>>>>>chauffered Bentley.
>>>>>
>>>>>What happened to your mother ship?
>>>>
>>>>Mot 'rapture ready' and have no large population of gullible loonies over
>>>>which I hold dominion. Don't need one.
>>>
>>>Will you ever? Do you have a plan in place?
>>
>>Naw. There's an adequate supply of light pillars, glowing staircases
>>and mother ships already, and more being created as we speak.
>
> Would you sell me one, cheap?
>
You have to create your own or buy into someone else's myth. I've never
done this, nor have I considered designing a proof-of-concept. Perhaps
you should watch some CBN shows - buy some protein supplements, possibly
a velvet painting of Pat Robertson leg pressing an aircraft carrier,
order some DVDs about the apocalypse to get the hang of it...
>
>>Plan? TIG weld the doors, cut off the gangways, and turn on the dark
>>emitting diodes to neutralize the glowing pillars and such so the
>>rapturees can't back out.
>
> What are your plans for them?

It's their story, not mine. I just don't want them rewriting it on the
fly so as to interfere with my earthly joy.

--
nuts

 

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:44:53 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:

> Tim Weaver wrote:
>> mixed nuts wrote:
>>
>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>
>>>>mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-
>>
>> scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>full-sized one), with the colors inverted, and scaled, makes a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>very nice desktop background.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They propose
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>time is slowing down. An interesting read.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/18/sci time118.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I thoroughly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>approve of this sort of attempt at radical reinterpretation, since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the particle and wave boys on the one hand, and the cosmologists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>on the other, seem to be stymied as far as the Grand Unified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Theory (GUT) goes (it's peculiar but absolutely true that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the mature Final Theory of either nuclear physics or cosmology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>will be or directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy" (all three of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>which I compare to attempts to explain "coriolis force" without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>knowing that the Earth is roughly spheroidal and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark vacuum"?
>>>>>>>>>>>heh.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"red shift" in fact is correlated with any actual cosmic expansion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>real or apparent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone knows
>>>>>>>>>>>>that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute devotion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>to the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers to its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>compatibility with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>><with dignity>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the "Big
>>>>>>>>>>>Bang" theory has . . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking cosmologists
>>>>>>>>>>(there are those who claim to be such but do not think well) given
>>>>>>>>>>the state of observed phenomena. This doesn't imply any global
>>>>>>>>>>desire for compatibility with canonical creation myths. Details of
>>>>>>>>>>observation often do not fit neatly into existing models but this
>>>>>>>>>>does not mean that the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved
>>>>>>>>>>a precise minimum energy solution in real time on a scale that
>>>>>>>>>>cannot be contained in any earthbound laboratory or computer. We
>>>>>>>>>>have no timely way to distinguish whether or not we inderstand
>>>>>>>>>>what's going on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that can
>>>>>>>>>>be used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to resolve
>>>>>>>>>>observational puzzles at the far end of a very long lever, people
>>>>>>>>>>wave their hands a lot and invent words to reify a ball of fuzz so
>>>>>>>>>>that others know waht it is that is being discussed (they don't get
>>>>>>>>>>depressed and go crazy trying to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>>>>>>>>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh universe. The
>>>>>>>>>>'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough to be nearly as
>>>>>>>>>>patched.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><burp>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed at
>>>>>>>>>higher red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other heavy
>>>>>>>>>elements that ought to be rarer and rarer at higher red-shifts but
>>>>>>>>>aren't . . . .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'll go with the pros on this one. If Dr. Mitchu Kaku says it, I
>>>>>>>>believe it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He ain't nothin' if he doesn't have a mother ship and ride in a
>>>>>>>chauffered Bentley.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What happened to your mother ship?
>>>>>
>>>>>Mot 'rapture ready' and have no large population of gullible loonies over
>>>>>which I hold dominion. Don't need one.
>>>>
>>>>Will you ever? Do you have a plan in place?
>>>
>>>Naw. There's an adequate supply of light pillars, glowing staircases
>>>and mother ships already, and more being created as we speak.
>>
>> Would you sell me one, cheap?
>>
> You have to create your own or buy into someone else's myth. I've never
> done this, nor have I considered designing a proof-of-concept. Perhaps
> you should watch some CBN shows - buy some protein supplements, possibly
> a velvet painting of Pat Robertson leg pressing an aircraft carrier,
> order some DVDs about the apocalypse to get the hang of it...
>>
>>>Plan? TIG weld the doors, cut off the gangways, and turn on the dark
>>>emitting diodes to neutralize the glowing pillars and such so the
>>>rapturees can't back out.
>>
>> What are your plans for them?
>
> It's their story, not mine. I just don't want them rewriting it on the
> fly so as to interfere with my earthly joy.

I hope this is nondenominational, and even somewhat disappointing to the
more rational of the faithful . . . .

("Why am I still here?" "Shut up and have a beer.")

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

Let there be another leaf.

< _Small Gods_

 

mimus wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:44:53 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>
>> Tim Weaver wrote:
>>> mixed nuts wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-
>>>
>>> scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the full-sized one), with the colors inverted, and scaled,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>makes a very nice desktop background.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>why the universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>propose time is slowing down. An interesting read.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>12/18/sci time118.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>thoroughly approve of this sort of attempt at radical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reinterpretation, since the particle and wave boys on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>one hand, and the cosmologists on the other, seem to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>peculiar but absolutely true that the mature Final Theory of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>either nuclear physics or cosmology will be or directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe in the "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(all three of which I compare to attempts to explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"coriolis force" without knowing that the Earth is roughly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark
>>>>>>>>>>>>vacuum"? heh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that "red shift" in fact is correlated with any actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cosmic expansion real or apparent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>knows that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>devotion to the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to its compatibility with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>><with dignity>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Big Bang" theory has . . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>cosmologists (there are those who claim to be such but do not
>>>>>>>>>>>think well) given the state of observed phenomena. This doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>imply any global desire for compatibility with canonical
>>>>>>>>>>>creation myths. Details of observation often do not fit neatly
>>>>>>>>>>>into existing models but this does not mean that the models are
>>>>>>>>>>>wrong, rather nature has achieved a precise minimum energy
>>>>>>>>>>>solution in real time on a scale that cannot be contained in
>>>>>>>>>>>any earthbound laboratory or computer. We have no timely way
>>>>>>>>>>>to distinguish whether or not we inderstand what's going on.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that
>>>>>>>>>>>can be used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to
>>>>>>>>>>>resolve observational puzzles at the far end of a very long
>>>>>>>>>>>lever, people wave their hands a lot and invent words to reify
>>>>>>>>>>>a ball of fuzz so that others know waht it is that is being
>>>>>>>>>>>discussed (they don't get depressed and go crazy trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>>>>>>>>>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh
>>>>>>>>>>>universe. The 'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough
>>>>>>>>>>>to be nearly as patched.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>><burp>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed
>>>>>>>>>>at higher red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other
>>>>>>>>>>heavy elements that ought to be rarer and rarer at higher
>>>>>>>>>>red-shifts but aren't . . . .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'll go with the pros on this one. If Dr. Mitchu Kaku says it, I
>>>>>>>>>believe it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He ain't nothin' if he doesn't have a mother ship and ride in a
>>>>>>>>chauffered Bentley.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What happened to your mother ship?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mot 'rapture ready' and have no large population of gullible loonies
>>>>>>over which I hold dominion. Don't need one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Will you ever? Do you have a plan in place?
>>>>
>>>>Naw. There's an adequate supply of light pillars, glowing staircases
>>>>and mother ships already, and more being created as we speak.
>>>
>>> Would you sell me one, cheap?
>>>
>> You have to create your own or buy into someone else's myth. I've never
>> done this, nor have I considered designing a proof-of-concept. Perhaps
>> you should watch some CBN shows - buy some protein supplements,
>> possibly a velvet painting of Pat Robertson leg pressing an aircraft
>> carrier, order some DVDs about the apocalypse to get the hang of it...
>>>
>>>>Plan? TIG weld the doors, cut off the gangways, and turn on the dark
>>>>emitting diodes to neutralize the glowing pillars and such so the
>>>>rapturees can't back out.
>>>
>>> What are your plans for them?
>>
>> It's their story, not mine. I just don't want them rewriting it on the
>> fly so as to interfere with my earthly joy.
>
> I hope this is nondenominational, and even somewhat disappointing to the
> more rational of the faithful . . . .
>
> ("Why am I still here?" "Shut up and have a beer.")

I think I shall commit myself to Scientology. Yes. Yes, that's it. That's
the answer to all of my earthly problems. I shall do my part to ensure Xemu
remains forever locked away in his remote mountain prison forever!
--
Tim Weaver

I know you believe you understand what you think I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not
what I meant.

 

Tim Weaver wrote:
> mimus wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:44:53 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>
>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>
>>>>mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the_cosmos
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the full-sized one), with the colors inverted, and scaled,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>makes a very nice desktop background.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>why the universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>propose time is slowing down. An interesting read.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>12/18/sci time118.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>thoroughly approve of this sort of attempt at radical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reinterpretation, since the particle and wave boys on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>one hand, and the cosmologists on the other, seem to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) goes (it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>peculiar but absolutely true that the mature Final Theory of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>either nuclear physics or cosmology will be or directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe in the "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(all three of which I compare to attempts to explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"coriolis force" without knowing that the Earth is roughly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>vacuum"? heh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to assume
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that "red shift" in fact is correlated with any actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cosmic expansion real or apparent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red. Everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>knows that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>devotion to the "Big Bang" theory on the part of astronomers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to its compatibility with Genesis' "Let there be light":
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>><with dignity>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Big Bang" theory has . . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>cosmologists (there are those who claim to be such but do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>think well) given the state of observed phenomena. This doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>imply any global desire for compatibility with canonical
>>>>>>>>>>>>creation myths. Details of observation often do not fit neatly
>>>>>>>>>>>>into existing models but this does not mean that the models are
>>>>>>>>>>>>wrong, rather nature has achieved a precise minimum energy
>>>>>>>>>>>>solution in real time on a scale that cannot be contained in
>>>>>>>>>>>>any earthbound laboratory or computer. We have no timely way
>>>>>>>>>>>>to distinguish whether or not we inderstand what's going on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model that
>>>>>>>>>>>>can be used to compute at a level of detail sufficient to
>>>>>>>>>>>>resolve observational puzzles at the far end of a very long
>>>>>>>>>>>>lever, people wave their hands a lot and invent words to reify
>>>>>>>>>>>>a ball of fuzz so that others know waht it is that is being
>>>>>>>>>>>>discussed (they don't get depressed and go crazy trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>>>>>>>>>>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh
>>>>>>>>>>>>universe. The 'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>to be nearly as patched.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>><burp>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more densely-packed
>>>>>>>>>>>at higher red-shifts but aren't, and also the iron and other
>>>>>>>>>>>heavy elements that ought to be rarer and rarer at higher
>>>>>>>>>>>red-shifts but aren't . . . .
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I'll go with the pros on this one. If Dr. Mitchu Kaku says it, I
>>>>>>>>>>believe it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>He ain't nothin' if he doesn't have a mother ship and ride in a
>>>>>>>>>chauffered Bentley.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What happened to your mother ship?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mot 'rapture ready' and have no large population of gullible loonies
>>>>>>>over which I hold dominion. Don't need one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Will you ever? Do you have a plan in place?
>>>>>
>>>>>Naw. There's an adequate supply of light pillars, glowing staircases
>>>>>and mother ships already, and more being created as we speak.
>>>>
>>>>Would you sell me one, cheap?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You have to create your own or buy into someone else's myth. I've never
>>>done this, nor have I considered designing a proof-of-concept. Perhaps
>>>you should watch some CBN shows - buy some protein supplements,
>>>possibly a velvet painting of Pat Robertson leg pressing an aircraft
>>>carrier, order some DVDs about the apocalypse to get the hang of it...
>>>
>>>>>Plan? TIG weld the doors, cut off the gangways, and turn on the dark
>>>>>emitting diodes to neutralize the glowing pillars and such so the
>>>>>rapturees can't back out.
>>>>
>>>>What are your plans for them?
>>>
>>>It's their story, not mine. I just don't want them rewriting it on the
>>>fly so as to interfere with my earthly joy.
>>
>>I hope this is nondenominational, and even somewhat disappointing to the
>>more rational of the faithful . . . .
>>
>>("Why am I still here?" "Shut up and have a beer.")
>
> I think I shall commit myself to Scientology. Yes. Yes, that's it. That's
> the answer to all of my earthly problems. I shall do my part to ensure Xemu
> remains forever locked away in his remote mountain prison forever!

You need like millions of dollars and private jets and fast cars to
progress through the stages to enlightenment (or whatever it's
called). Are you famous enough and financially prepared?

--
nuts

 

mixed nuts wrote:

> Tim Weaver wrote:
>> mimus wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:44:53 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 02:00:19 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:06:35 -0500, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:57 -0600, Tim Weaver wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mimus wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-scale_structure_of_the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>_cosmos
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That DTFE image (click on the article version to get to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the full-sized one), with the colors inverted, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>scaled, makes a very nice desktop background.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Heh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I believe I found this one on DIGG. An alternate view on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>why the universe seems to be expanding ever faster. They
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>propose time is slowing down. An interesting read.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/200
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>7/ 12/18/sci time118.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>While I don't buy that, on first glance, anyway, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>thoroughly approve of this sort of attempt at radical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reinterpretation, since the particle and wave boys on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>one hand, and the cosmologists on the other, seem to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>stymied as far as the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) goes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(it's peculiar but absolutely true that the mature Final
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Theory of either nuclear physics or cosmology will be or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>directly imply the mature Final Theory of the other).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I might as well wrap up my heresy here by stating I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe in the "Big Bang", "dark matter" or "dark energy"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(all three of which I compare to attempts to explain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"coriolis force" without knowing that the Earth is roughly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>spheroidal and rotates)(phlogiston, anyone?).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What about "dark pressure", "dark atmosphere" or "dark
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>vacuum"? heh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And for that matter I don't think we really ought to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>assume that "red shift" in fact is correlated with any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>actual cosmic expansion real or apparent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah. The light just gets tired and fades to red.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Everyone knows that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Um . . . another memo misdirected . . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And in fact I attribute the rapid spread of and absolute
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>devotion to the "Big Bang" theory on the part of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>astronomers to its compatibility with Genesis' "Let there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>be light":
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In short, it's nothing but "creationism" in astronomy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Were you there? Really. WERE YOU THERE??? Hmmmm?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><with dignity>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I am here, and so is It.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And neither of us has needed nearly the number of patches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the "Big Bang" theory has . . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The big bang extrapolation makes sense to many thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>cosmologists (there are those who claim to be such but do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>think well) given the state of observed phenomena. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>doesn't imply any global desire for compatibility with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>canonical creation myths. Details of observation often do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>fit neatly into existing models but this does not mean that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the models are wrong, rather nature has achieved a precise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>minimum energy solution in real time on a scale that cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>be contained in any earthbound laboratory or computer. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>have no timely way to distinguish whether or not we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>inderstand what's going on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Until somebody comes up with a physically meaningful model
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that can be used to compute at a level of detail sufficient
>>>>>>>>>>>>>to resolve observational puzzles at the far end of a very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>long lever, people wave their hands a lot and invent words to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>reify a ball of fuzz so that others know waht it is that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>being discussed (they don't get depressed and go crazy trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>to grasp unspeakable mysteries).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Corrective patches don't mean that we should burn the quilt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The human race comes from 500+ million years of evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>'adjustments'. You exist because your ancestor's patches were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>functional for their, and eventually your niche in teh
>>>>>>>>>>>>>universe. The 'big bang' concept hasn't be around long enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>to be nearly as patched.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>><burp>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Tell it to the galaxies that oughta be a lot more
>>>>>>>>>>>>densely-packed at higher red-shifts but aren't, and also the
>>>>>>>>>>>>iron and other heavy elements that ought to be rarer and rarer
>>>>>>>>>>>>at higher red-shifts but aren't . . . .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I'll go with the pros on this one. If Dr. Mitchu Kaku says it,
>>>>>>>>>>>I believe it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>He ain't nothin' if he doesn't have a mother ship and ride in a
>>>>>>>>>>chauffered Bentley.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What happened to your mother ship?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Mot 'rapture ready' and have no large population of gullible
>>>>>>>>loonies over which I hold dominion. Don't need one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Will you ever? Do you have a plan in place?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Naw. There's an adequate supply of light pillars, glowing staircases
>>>>>>and mother ships already, and more being created as we speak.
>>>>>
>>>>>Would you sell me one, cheap?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You have to create your own or buy into someone else's myth. I've
>>>>never done this, nor have I considered designing a proof-of-concept.
>>>>Perhaps you should watch some CBN shows - buy some protein
>>>>supplements, possibly a velvet painting of Pat Robertson leg pressing
>>>>an aircraft carrier, order some DVDs about the apocalypse to get the
>>>>hang of it...
>>>>
>>>>>>Plan? TIG weld the doors, cut off the gangways, and turn on the dark
>>>>>>emitting diodes to neutralize the glowing pillars and such so the
>>>>>>rapturees can't back out.
>>>>>
>>>>>What are your plans for them?
>>>>
>>>>It's their story, not mine. I just don't want them rewriting it on the
>>>>fly so as to interfere with my earthly joy.
>>>
>>>I hope this is nondenominational, and even somewhat disappointing to
>>>the more rational of the faithful . . . .
>>>
>>>("Why am I still here?" "Shut up and have a beer.")
>>
>> I think I shall commit myself to Scientology. Yes. Yes, that's it.
>> That's the answer to all of my earthly problems. I shall do my part to
>> ensure Xemu remains forever locked away in his remote mountain prison
>> forever!
>
> You need like millions of dollars and private jets and fast cars to
> progress through the stages to enlightenment (or whatever it's
> called). Are you famous enough and financially prepared?

But, but, but... They will fix me so that I can make alotso' money and pay
to learn more programs so I can make more money.
--
Tim Weaver

I know you believe you understand what you think I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not
what I meant.