|
|
Up |
|
|
  |
Author: dedanoededanoe
Date: Dec 24, 2008 23:56
the first law says: "subjected to zero outer force the weight tends to
preserve its uniform none accelerated motion i.e. travel with constant
velocity or rest". the second law says: "when subjected to OUTER force
the weight accelerates proportionally to that force and reciprocally
to its INNER mass". the gravity law says: "massive objects exert
gravity forces on each other proportional with the product of the
masses and reciprocal with the square distance between them". let me
go backwards: F1 R1 R1 / M1 = g M = F2 R2 R2 / M2 that is the gravity
shit. it splits on two equations: [(F1/F2=R2/R1) and (M2/M1=R2/R1)]
which can be unified in one double equation: F1/F2=M2/M1=R2/R1. so the
second flaw defends that: F1 = a2 M2 and F2 = a1 M1 cause it is the
OUTER force that makes the INNER mass accelerate...
|
| Show full article (1.17Kb) |
|
| |
7 Comments |
|
  |
Author: Eigendeeg66Eigendeeg66
Date: Dec 24, 2008 21:22
On 23 dec, 22:11, dorayme optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article ,
>
> "Jack" yahoo.com> wrote:
>> God's Chewtoy wrote:
>>> All you guys do is exchange personal insults.
>
>>> GC
>
>> Not really. This is one of the less contentious ngs.
>
> It one with a lack of discipline. It is populated by people who use
> Google Groups a lot and have no idea of how to trim their quotes to the
> relevant bits to which they are replying.
>
> The problem is that even some people who you would not want to killfile
> have been infected with this mayhem and so to even read them, you have
> to scroll though tons of garbage. There is one thread going on at the
> moment between two people and they simply quote the history of the world
> in their every short reply. Pity, because they are not otherwise stupid ...
|
| Show full article (1.36Kb) |
|
| |
1 Comment |
|
  |
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick
Date: Dec 24, 2008 21:07
New sig file quote :
--
******************************************
"Life is like arriving late for a movie, having
to figure out what was going on without bothering
everybody with a lot of questions, and then being
unexpectedly called away before you find out how
it ends."- Joseph Campbell
******************************************
(Comments requested.)
--
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcneill@ fuzzysys.com
|
| |
|
12 Comments |
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: Sir FrederickSir Frederick
Date: Dec 24, 2008 20:29
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20081224/sc_livescience/spiritualityspotfoun...
Spirituality Spot Found in Brain
LiveScience.com
robin Nixon
Wed Dec 24, 9:19 am
What makes us feel spiritual? It could be the quieting of a small area in our
brains, a new study suggests.
The area in question - the right parietal lobe - is responsible for defining
"Me," said researcher Brick Johnstone of Missouri University. It generates
self-criticism, he said, and guides us through physical and social terrains by
constantly updating our self-knowledge: my hand, my cocktail, my witty
conversation skills, my new love interest ...
People with less active Me-Definers are more likely to lead spiritual lives,
reports the study in the current issue of the journal Zygon.
Most previous research on neuro-spirituality has been based on brain scans of
actively practicing adherents (i.e. meditating monks, praying nuns) and has
resulted in broad and inconclusive findings. (Is the brain area lighting up in
response to verse or spiritual experience?)
|
| Show full article (3.73Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: araharah
Date: Dec 24, 2008 19:57
Jesus the Messenger
In the Qur'an, stories about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ
(called 'Isa in Arabic) are abundant. The Qur'an recalls his
miraculous birth, his teachings, the miracles he performed by God's
permission, and his life as a respected prophet of God. The Qur'an
also repeatedly reminds that Jesus was a human prophet sent by God,
not part of God Himself. For more detailed information about what
Muslims believe about Jesus, please visit the FAQ index page. Below
are some direct quotations from the Qur'an regarding his life and
teachings.
"Behold! the angels said, 'Oh Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a
Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in
honour in this world and the Hereafter, and in (the company of) those
nearest to God. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in
maturity. He shall be (in the company) of the righteous... And God
will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the
Gospel'" (3:45-48).
|
| Show full article (3.03Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: PubliusPublius
Date: Dec 24, 2008 19:32
>> There are public goods which have no rational argument against them.
>> Maybe these comprise the common good. Systems of law enforcement,
>> medical care*, public health all would seem to qualify. These would
>> be very generally of high utility, and the cost of defectors would
>> also be very high. And the standard "no rational argument against
>> them" would have to be very rigorously applied.
>>
>> *I mean the existence of medical care at all, not necessarily
>> a National Health Service.
> Yeah, there are obvious common goods, obvious common bads, and if
> there a some inbetween where no definite conclusion can be reached I'm
> not going to worry about it.
"Public goods" and "the common good" do not mean the same thing.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: PubliusPublius
Date: Dec 24, 2008 19:30
>> "The good" is only defined and can only be quantified for
>> individuals. It is relative to individuals and differs greatly from
>> individual to individual. That means that the task of social theory
>> cannot be maximization of a "common good" --- there is no such thing.
>> It is instead a concurrent maximization problem: devising a set of
>> rules which will allow each individual to maximize the good *as he
>> defines it*.
> There are public goods which have no rational argument against them.
> Maybe these comprise the common good. Systems of law enforcement,
> medical care*, public health all would seem to qualify. These would be
> very generally of high utility, and the cost of defectors would
> also be very high. And the standard "no rational argument against
> them" would have to be very rigorously applied.
>
> *I mean the existence of medical care at all, not necessarily
> a National Health Service.
|
| Show full article (1.22Kb) |
|
2 Comments |
|
  |
Author: Michael CoburnMichael Coburn
Date: Dec 24, 2008 18:20
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 01:56:32 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
> Michael Coburn wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:59:45 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
>>
>>>> On Dec 23, 12:54 am, Publius nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> patpowerss...
|
| Show full article (3.60Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
  |
|
|
  |
Author: Michael CoburnMichael Coburn
Date: Dec 24, 2008 18:10
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 01:58:09 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 1:59 am, Les Cargill cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 23, 12:54 am, Publius nospam.comcast.net> wrote:...
|
| Show full article (2.64Kb) |
|
3 Comments |
|
|
|
|