"PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com" wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

"PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com" wrote:

Roy Jose Lorr wrote:

"PatrickDHarrington@hotmail.com" wrote:

What caused the energy to expand?

Sheer force of geometry. If you take all the energy that there is
and force it through a hole the size of the Planck Constant, it has
little choice but to expand on the other(our) isde of it. My view of
the general shape of space-time is that of a hyper-sphere where the
outer most reaches are contiguous hyperspatially with a point somewhere
in its midst. This would account for the "appearance" and occurance of
successive Big Bangs, each one "creating" a effectively "new" universe
from the energy of the previous.

Like I said: you haven't clue one as to how energy came
to be or was made to move about. What you have is
one fantasy in many, extrapolated backward after the fact.

The process of induction is a perfectly legitimate means of
intelligent inference. Just because YOU call it fantasy, doesn't make
it so. It DOES account perfectly for the Universe as it exists. Your
"extrapolation" does not. I've thrown away clues better than you'll
ever get.

I don't think I'd bruit about the idea that science has 'accounted
perfectly for the universe as it exists', among scientists. Most
of them would likely think you a bit wacko.

Yes, however I was saying "to the extent of our knowledge" plus my
own bit. Several scientist's, who were absolutely correct in their
thinking, were thought to be wackos by a few. If you and your fellow
cultists are the ones who think I've lost the plot, it's a pretty good
indication of the opposite.

What you're saying is that all that you've presented to me as fact is
in reality what I concluded was speculative science fiction from
the beginning.

Answered elsewhere.

Hardly credible.

I have no problem with the science game as a form
of entertaining mental masturbation.

The fact that it's not, though, stands as no barrier to your belief
either.

Perhaps you'll explain how its not 'entertaining
mental masturbation'..

Occasionally, if the
masturbator has taken his viagra and can keep it up long enough he
stands a chance that his ejaculation mght serendipitously land on an
egg bearing wall resulting in the birth of a toy.

This could only come from a lot of practice. How long have been
perfecting it?

I am not gay.

motion IS kinetic energy and occurs by
transference of energy

"Kinetic" means produced by motion.
How is energy transferred without motion?

Via heat for one.

What causes the heat to move from here to there?

Heat moves via radiant energy through space, it can be conducted
through solids and it convects through fluids. Again, 7th grade
physics.

Like I said: dung heaved against a wall.

Whatever. You asked a question and I answered it correctly. If
there's a problem, it's in your mind.

You answered with ought instead of is.

Heat is transmitted in three different ways. I listed them. There
is no "ought". There was no remez in it for you to drash about.

You argued how it out bring about your fictional premise.

Where?

Which thread have you been following?

or by an actuation of potential energy.

What is potential energy and how do you quantify it?

The energy an object has because of its position, rather than its
motion. An object held in a person's hand has potential energy, which
turns to kinetic energy - the energy of motion - when the person
lets it go, and it drops to the ground.

How do you measure "potential energy" before the fact of motion?

If you're trying to get at the heart of "what was the potential
before Creation", then you have to assume that the potential energy
prior to Creation would be equal to that throughout Creation.

Nah, that's something you [assume]. BAGL

Beg all you like. All of your questions are rhetorical because you
disregard the truth of the answers. That seems to be your blinkered
JL. Thank God it doesn't apply outside of your cult.

When you supply truth my questions won't seem rhetorical.

I have supplied truth. Your questions do seem rhetorical because you
disregard the truth.

Nope. You supplied some "physics" to imaginatively support a
completely speculative science fiction.

One that stands intuitively miles ahead of any other geometric
conformation because of its solution to the EPR effect.

Irrelevant.

Gravitational potential energy
This energy is stored as a result of the elevated position of an object
such as a rock on top of a hill or water behind a dam. It is written as

Ug = mgh

where m is the mass of the object, g the acceleration due to gravity
and h the height above a chosen reference level (typical units would be
kilograms for m, metres/second2 for g, and metres for h).

Chemical energy is a form of potential energy related to the breaking
and forming of chemical bonds.

Again, this is covered in 7th grade.

"Potential" is an abstract that cannot be measured. The best we
can do is draw the target around the arrow.

I gave you a formula for the measurement of gravitational potential
energy. Take it or prove it wrong.

Don't try to worm your way around
it; if you don't have the capability to disprove established facts;
that's OK, nobody expected you would.

Nah, science needs to prove. I don't have to prove anything. You
certainly have the ludicrous habit of putting the cart before the horse
and proclaiming it radish.

I gave you the answer, which is established fact, and you disregard
it. I HAVE proven it. If you can't accept truth, the problem is in
YOUR mind.

I'm pretty good at knowing truth when I see it. So far you haven't offered any.

Oh, please. You very poor at knowing the truth or you wouldn't have
so rashly thrown away so much of your own heritage. I've offered
plenty of truth, some testable, other not currently testable. You
disregard it all. Your loss. I don't think either of us will lose any
sleep over it, though.

I'm not in the habit of taking 10% truth, mixing it with 90% fiction
and calling it reality. That's merely exploiting the little truth that is.

No, that's true. You're in the habit of taking 100% of truth and
throwing away 90% of it and claiming the remainder as the totality.

I am not gay.

Seventh grade physics is throwing a pile of dung against a wall
and recording the results. The problem is that no two throws
are precisely the same. Before determining true form the
macroscopic view must first be perceived and that is something
beyond our capabilities.

So all you've done to the calculation was to add acceleration to it.
So you've changed the formula to [Ug = mag(h1-h2)], i.e., Potential
Gravitational Energy(Ug) equals the mass(m) times the
acceleration(a)--which would actually yield force--times the
gravitational constant(g) times the height(h) from which the dung was
thrown(h1) to the height to which the dung fell(h2). Perhaps we've
come to ninth grade where we have to derive formulae based on previous
understanding. I see you didn't fare well.

You can change or add to formulas to your little atheist heart's content
but until you see the whole picture your stuck at throwing dung against
the well and counting the droplets that fall against those that don't.

I see the whole picture.

I wouldn't advertise that arrogant vainglorious statement unless
you feel that ridicule is your due.

If you and your fellow cultists want to ridicule me, fine. You'll
just expose yourself to 1000 times as much ridicule.

No need for us "cultists" to ridicule you, that will come
from your peers

Time will tell.

Time has already told. I've read some of your prior chats
with your peers and ridicule was the 'normative' :)
response to your imaginings.

AND I've presented it to you.

You've presented speculation that you want accepted at face
value. and when you're challenged you whine and pule that
your challenger is unwashed, uneducated and beneath your
exalted position.

Unwashed? Is this an admission? I never claimed that of you. In
fact, I would have bet on quite the opposite. I would love for my
theory to be tested properly, but mankind hasn't created the tools yet
to do it. When they do, we'll see.

Why have you been presenting your "theory" as fact?

Answered elsewhere.

Hardly credible.

All I can ask is: how does it feel to be
bested by a lowly street urchin, one so far beneath your
opinion of yourself?

Street urchins don't usually own computers. Unless you sit in an
internet cafe all day.

Ah, now you know all about street urchins and
their accumulated goods.

Are you a street urchin? I bet you start the Friday afternoon fire
with a pile of wooden nickels.

Wooden nickels, two of them to be exact is what
I pay yo momma to start my fire.

I wouldn't know how it felt to be bested by a
street urchin, nor do I know what it's like to be bested by you.

Denial is good.

It's one of those things you do better than most so I expect you'd
know.

I am not gay.

You
disregard it and cry like a spoilt little boy who just found out Santa
is his parents.

Above.

I'm not an atheist.

Of course you are.

And, of course, you know FAR more about my beliefs than I ever will,
right? Talk about arrogance.

You advertise your beliefs right here.

I have never claimed to be an atheist on these newsgroups.

You're not going to escape the beliefs you posted here.

There
was a time when I felt that way, though.

You still do.

Being an atheist is no crime,
anyway.

It is a crime against themselves.

You say we're all out building our Tower of Babel but your
still painting your cave wall.

Give me a wall to paint rather than a Tower of Babel
to build, any day.

It's you that doesn't seem to
accept reality as God created it and THAT is more tantamount to
idolatry than any belief of mine.

Which God?

A pantheist looks at a tree and says, "That
tree is God".
A panentheist looks at a tree and says, "God
is in that tree".

Both are idolatry.

But I wouldn't say EITHER of those things. I would say that the
tree is made of the stuff of God because there is nothing else. If
having nothing OTHER than the One God is idolatry in your book, fine.
There's nothing inherently dangerous about not having coincidental
beliefs with a cult.

A believer in the ONE God of Moses says, "The
world is like a clock that God wound up and it
is now winding down".

I don't think most people who believe themselves to be followers of
the One God of Moses would say they agree to that.

Shows how much you know. Every last one of the followers
of the God of Moses believes that.

But Moses was a follower of the God of Abraham.

So?

Who are you to
change his God?

Who says I have?

Modern Jews worship the God of Abraham.

Modern Jews worship the same gods you do.

You would probably
agree to THAT statement.

I most certainly do.

Due solely to your arrogance and, thus, idolatry.

Tell me you know what the hell you're talking about.

Nor do I think Moses would agree with that
statement of yours if he had access to today's understanding of the
world.

Tools change, men don't.

Men do change. So do women. Did you not enter puberty?

Play acting at dense is beginning to suit you.

Dearheart, about all you took away from seventh grade physics
aside from the indoctrination is vanity and arrogance.

Spoken like one who has a doctorate in those subjects. At least I
took something from 7th grade with me. It's your petty jealousy that
makes you remark thusly.

No, its your envy of God that makes you worship yourself.

I don't envy God in ANY way. I can't quite relate to God at a level
that would allow envy. Envy is felt by peers who "feel" that
relativity missed them out. I know perfectly well that my place is to
do my part and that I WILL do it. You mistake my perfect trust in God
for arrogance.

If you trusted the ONE God you could not possibly
have that much faith in yourself.

Because you don't understand the depth of that faith and its
implications you believe falsely.

I understand you all right.

Nor
does energy decrease; it just transfers around from one form to
another. This is basic 7th grade physics, where were you?

"Physics" produces many fantasies.

Prove it!

Ah, the faithful idolater's screech of defeat.

LOL. You really have only fooled yourself. It's your assertion.
Prove it.

No, dearheart, the assertion is science's.

You've asked me the same and I've given you formulae, i.e.,
NOT defeated. You know all about "the faithful screech of defeat"; I
won't stoop to name-calling, you chalk your own cue, here.

Dearheart, you stooped/bowed/grovelled to science fiction
long before our encounter.

The laws of physics are God's laws, set forth for creation to occur
the way it does. It takes neither science nor fiction to arrive at
that conclusion; only a belief that there is an intelligence behind the
universe.

Do the laws of physics claim intelligence in energy?

No, but that is their mistake. It's one whoppingly huge oversight and
one I hope to eradicate before I'm gone.

Yes, hope is a staple.

I hope it satisfies you.

Thanks for your concern.

Does energy
prescribe morality for us to live by?

I would say, yes. And to each his own. Sometimes, energy as a whole,
God, makes His feelings known in different ways to different
sub-collections of intelligently communicating beings for reasons known
solely to Himself.

Just how does He do this?

Ask Him. If He tells you, give me a jingle. If He doesn't, you must
trust that His reasons for not communicating with you are valid.

God tells all that we can comprehend in His Written Torah.

Everything else is man made Bull.

There is no ghost in the
machine.

The machine IS ghost and the ghost IS machine. Energy IS the
ghost-machine continuum.

Do you have any idea how old and how pervasive that
religious proclamation is? And you szy you're neither
pantheist nor panentheist. Do you ever venture
beyond that theater seat in your head? I knw, you
paid for the tickets and you're going to get your
money's worth come hell or high water.

How Noachide of you to say.

What do you imagine you know of the Noahide laws.

Some fundamental beliefs are actually
founded on believable fundamentals. Just because the theatre seat in
your head doesn't face the screen of reality, don't complain to me.

There is no screen of reality outside the Five Books of Moses.

That's why they were given, to show reality where there is the
desire to avoid it.

How about "BIG BANG", steady state, worm
holes, space-time continuum, string theory,
chaos theory, etc., etc., etc..

Relevance? Context?

"Physics" debasing itself with wild dogmatic speculation.

As opposed to your view, which is just the wild dogmatic
speculation. Sounds like it's grounded in reality, then.

Stick to physics, dearheart, you're not intellectually
equipped to 'play the dozens' (a street game).

I'm fully aware of what "the dozens" is. We called it a cut fight.
I'm afraid it was you who brought the verbal knife to the verbal
gunfight. You lost at the first Big Bang.

Yo momma.

OK, man, you win! I can't take any more. LOL!! I suppose you
mother had a C-section because, already, she knew she couldn't bear
you. See what I mean.

C-section is the size of yo momma's mouth. See what I mean.

As
I said: 'When science can show where dispersed, dissipated, run
down energy is hiding, just waiting to spring into renewed vigor,
I'll believe energy does not degenerate like everything else.'

Empirically, everything runs down, most especially, energy. If not,
you've got a steady state world where stasis, necessarily
inimical to motion is mandatory. Where, in our universe, motion is
the necessary author of energy, stasis means non existence of our
world. That shouldn't matter to someone who believes the world
is an illusion but on the ground, in reality, that is a dire paradigm..
--

You obviously misunderstood the passage. Your assertion that
everything runs down is simply not a part of observed natural
phenomena, whereas transfer of one form of energy to another IS.

Name something that doesn't run down beside the energy fiction..

Not my problem. This is your quest. At first glance, I would say
that your concept of "run down" is a misunderstanding of basic physics.

In other words, you can't do it.

I never claimed that things "run down", nor would I. It's a
fallacious remark. I can't demonstrate it because it doesn't happen.
This is where physics is real and your fantasy is elsewhere.

I see, death is not a process of running down, its just a form
of transference of energy. BAGL

Yep! That "intelligence that designed you" designed you to accord
with the laws of biophysics. Your aging is primarily a function of a
lack of telemerase in your cells. Each time your cells divide, the
chromosomes have to be unwound, copied and rewound.

Where does all this energy for winding and unwinding come from
and when its over where does the energy go.

I assume you eat and *****. Are you really that blind to the world?

I see, the energy I consume is transformed into feces
that harbors the force until its ready to leap once
again into the fray. BAGL

Some of the energy you consume is useless, the rest is used.

Useless but infinite... eh?

How do you get from my use of the word "some" to infinite? You
might think you're a dab hand at word play but evidence like this does
NOT help your argument.

Cut the crap. You said some of the energy is useless. against
your claim that all energy is infinite. Reconcile that
inconsistency.

Did you
go to high school?

Yep, I learned the same crap you did.

Somehow I doubt that.

Are you saying that my high school was inferior to yours?

You're
out of the stadium by at least seven stops on the IRT.

Its a good thing I did
some learning on my own, else I'd be in the same sinking
boat as you.

At least you admit your boat is sinking. Mine has just moved on; it
only appears to be sinking because it's so far from yours that the
curvature of the Earth makes it look that way.

Is that why your out of contact?

Oh yes, it goes into
hiding, just waiting to spring back into vigor for its next client.
Dearheart, energy is not infinite, it did not preexist its existence
nor will it outlive its death. To your discomfort, only the
ONE God does that.

This is your assertion. Prove it. I say that it is because the One
God IS this Creation that energy's existence IS infinite, thus the
dichotomy is solved.

If the universe is infinite it wouldn't be rushing to extinction.

Which it isn't.

Where is it going?

You'd have to ask the intelligence behind it.

No problem.

Without that rushing motion there is no universe.

False conclusion from a false premiss.

Explain?

Molecular motion stops at absolute zero but items at absolute zero
do not disappear.

Describe absolute zero.

Everything dies.

even that which is not alive?

You betcha. What do you think "black holes" are for if not to
return the detritus to the nothing from whence it came?...
vacuum cleaners in space... a little borrowing from Mel
Brooks here.

Perhaps you should read more Hawking and less Brooks for your science
lessons. What's your explanation for white holes?

You mean dwarfking? He's got enough problems with his peers.

If God is the world, He too must die.

Not in my scenario.

What a poor God that would be.

Yes, that's true. But that's NOT what I purport.

I know, I know.

However, they are
tied at the ends by a strand of DNA known as the telomere. This
telomere has to be chewed off by an enzyme in order for the unwinding
process to occur. Each bite shortens the telomere and after so many
bites, the telomere is gone and "live" DNA code is bitten into.

Each bite takes an expenditure of energy that is diminished
by the expenditure. If not the body would not find itself short
of enzymes or telomeres or liver loving spinach quiche.

So you eat and *****.

Yes.

This isn't rocket science.

The way you explain it it is.

Sorry! Facts are facts.

Which "facts"?

That theer's a lot more to ***** than that which usually meets your
eye.

Like I said... 'rocket science'. Try to pay attention, will ya?

You take in the
caloric energy and raw materials you require for the continued demands
of the body and you excrete waste products and walk around and think
and do many other things with that energy. The amount of radiant heat
from the top of your bekippahed head should tell you I speak the truth.

When you say energy is infinite, I question you're speaking the truth.

I said the existence of energy is infinite. Subtle difference.

How so?

As Cary pointed out: finite but boundless. Like going around in a
circle. The circle has a known radius of a finite length but, when you
travel the extent of the line that forms it, you never reach an end.
It's the power of geometry.

I see, the universe is just a model after the padooky bird which flies
around in ever diminishing circles until it flies up its own ***** and
disappears, only to once more burst asunder from indigestion. BAGL
Hell, the ancients were telling various versions of this hilarious myth
millennia ago.

This
has untold effects depending on what code was chopped. Telomerase is
another enzyme that rebuilds these telomeres, but telomerase is only
present in human germ cells, i.e., eggs and sperm. One would assume
that it is there to protect the next generation. If every cell had
telomerase, aging would be a thing of the past. Don't think genetic
engineers don't know this; I certainly do.

There you go with another 'assumption'.

Which assumption is that? That genetic engineers know about
telomerase.

Nah, you assumed genetic engineers agree with your assumption
regarding protection for the next generation'.

Can you think of another reason? The code is present in every cell
in the body, but telomerase production is only switched ON in germ
cells. Germ cells are produced to prepare for the next generation.
Try reading Edward deBono's "Water Logic".

How do you think I know about it. I've studied
bioinformatics and, once I have my Masters in it, I plan to work in the
field. I'm a computer programmer with fairly in-depth knowledge of
cellular biochemistry, but I'm not the only one with a CV like that.

Who gives a rats ***** which priests you genuflect to?

Funnily enough, the only "priests" I WOULD genuflect to, in any
respect, would be cohanim. Funny ol' world, innit?

Ironic, Within Judaism, I'm a Kohane.

I know; that's why I said, "funnily enough".

I doubt you knew I was a Kohane.

Although, death can occur
by being run down by a car.

Snuffing out the energy that ran it.

The world is a circle and life is a cycle.

Which cycle are you in presently. It wouldn't by any chance be
the Kali Yuga, would it? BAGL

Wouldn't that be BAHL? Call time what you like, it still just
carries on. Although, technically, there are many series of all four
Yuga to a Universal cycle.

What goes around comes
around.

Everything's everything. Wonder of wonders, I can do it to.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose
under heaven.

Now you're quoting lyrics to songs. I'm almost certain you didn't
get it from the original source What conceptual irrelevance will
you come up with next?

I took it from Ecclesiastes 3:1. I didn't type "turn, turn, turn".

Yeah, can't trust the bible to get it right.

If you think drawing the target around the arrow is
good practice, be my guest.

That's exactly what you are trying to do and, you see, it doesn't
work. An internal cumbustion engine has potential energy, if you put
it in that cart of yours and start it, it WILL drag the horses.

How many horses? BAGL

Depends on the horsepower of engine, don't you think? BAJL!!

When you can precisely predict the horsepower of a
given engine before running it, give me a jingle.

You would need to see the transmission as well and know the
efficiency of the engine to be exact; however, basically the horsepower
can be roughly calculated from the following equation: h.p.= D^2(n/2.5)
where D is the diameter of the bore of the cylinder and n is the number
of cylinders.

Your equations don't predict the precise horsepower.

I never said it did. Give me the precise efficiency of the engine
and all facts about the transmission.

You get stuck on words like "precise".

And if I don't, you'll be the first to point it out.

You betcha.

Your getting into mechanical engineering now, which isn't my strong
point, but I know enough to be able to read.

Let's hope so.

Science won't show what you want it to show because it is a false
premiss.

Dreaming is good.

Perhaps, but that is irrelevant.

You must allow observed nature to dictate rather than trying
to force nature to conform with what you would prefer. Your
preferences are irrelevant.

Good advice for you to take.
--

Done many years ago. Which is why the real world imposes itself on
my understanding rather than trying to force my misunderstanding on
reality.

Dearheart, most of all that we do as humans is to force
our misunderstanding on reality. "Science" is the exception?
--

Do you really need that answered?

Can't you do it?

Yes!.......Yes! Science struggles toward truth. It may eventually
succeed in demonstrating it all; however, I won't be holding my breath.
There is so much in the realm of consciousness and things spiritual
that science will have a hard time finding the proper tools and then
learning how to use them. It's come a long way, but my educated guess
would say we're not quite halfway there.

Answer the question?

I did.

Here, let me repeat if for you: "Dearheart, most of all that we do as humans
is to force our misunderstanding on reality. "Science" is the exception?"

When I typed "Yes!.......Yes!", the first Yes was in reply to your
"Can't you do it?" The second Yes was the answer. I did answer it and
you disregarded it. My proof is above.

Ok, then according to you, science is exempt from the human
characteristic that insists we force our misunderstanding on
reality. Are you sure that's what you want to say?

Yes, because the story isn't over yet. The book is still being
written. When it is finished, we can discuss it again.

I gotta hand it to ya, that is a dodge supreme.

In the language of angels: Ken!

?
--

Ibri!

I see. But, you haven't answered the question.
--

Yes, I did.

Here, let me repeat if for you: "Dearheart, most of all that we do as humans
is to force our misunderstanding on reality. "Science" is the exception?"
--

I even answered the question in Hebrew and you still disregarded it.
Feigning ignorance of the language of angels.

Hardly.

Well, I said, "In the language of angels: Ken!" And your reply was
"?"