| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Gary Eickmeier" |
| Date: |
27 Jun 2005 11:58:47 PM |
| Object: |
Hammond Still Unable; Eickmeier Anti-SPOG re-post |
This is posted in case Mr. Hammond has missed my posts in his
newsreader, although it would be hard to imagine that he has not seen
it. I have posted these questions four times in the How to Avoid
Homicide thread, and then formally in a new thread called The Eickmeier
Anti-SPOG. George Hammond has simply ignored it, because he apparently
has no answers to it. So let's all focus our attention on his response
to this new thread, which I promised him I would keep posting until he
does answer. It should be very interesting.
The Eickmeier Anti-SPOG
Bernhard Schornak has posted an excellent Anti-SPOG on his website
http://schornak.de/aspog/0003.htm.
This is my humble attempt to add to that voluminous work, but in a
simpler manner, something that Hammond can understand.
Why an Anti-SPOG? If you are new to these groups, you may not have
endured the constant harrassment of a fellow named George Hammond, who
has hatched a theory about proving the existence of God. We try to ask
him pointed questions to show him the errors in the paper, but he
responds with more nonsense and/or insults. He is relentless, mouthy,
disrespectful, and very frustrating. When one thread ends or
deteriorates into a pissing contest, he will start another one, hoping
to catch a few innocents gullible enough to believe that there is some
science to it, but all you need is a high school education to see
through a description of God as caused by our brain growth deficit, or
equating him to a quantity in an equation.
In the last couple of weeks, I have posted some questions to George that
he hasn't been able to answer. I posted them four times in the "God =
Guv HOW TO AVOID HOMICIDE" thread, and still no response. He is
apparently hoping it will all go away and he won't have to answer. So
let's post them one more time, in this new thread, and see what happens.
The questions result from boiling down his paper to its essentials and
discovering the gaps that he fails to fill in with his assertions, and
pointing out the circular reasoning involved in his mathematics.
His paper is a triumph of assumption, assertion, and circular reasoning.
In Figure 1 he states an assumption that BGD = God. In his mathematical
section which attempts to "prove" his statements, he says that
"However, since time, the 44-element of Einstein's equation correlates
negatively with speed (speed=time-1), we see that F is actually an
increase in the brain growth deficit (1-M) thus identifying F with "God"
as shown in Figure 1. Thus we have formally established that God is
identified with the gravitational potential."
So he uses his own assumption in part 1 to prove that a quantity is
identified with God. Any idiot can see that as circular reasoning, and
invalid.
Then there is the PFF, or Picture Fusion Frequency. Here is an example
of his reasoning from a previous post:
[Hammond]
You're a scientific incompetent. Any competent scientist knows
that if a 7 year old can only see 10 frames/sec while an 18 yr
old can see 15 frames/sec as individual still pictures... then
OBVIOUSLY 5 frames/sec are INVISIBLE to the 7 year
old.
You don't even have a grade school qualification in
Science.
I don't think it takes a genius to see that a higher or lower PFF does
not mean that you are missing "seeing" part of the world around you. I
have asked him for examples of what an adult can see that a seven year
old cannot, but he has not responded to that either.
(Eickmeier)
"Can you direct us to your experiments in which you show something to a
7 year old and to an adult, and the 7 year old cannot see it? I can't
think of any case or instance of such a phenomenon. I don't even know
what you are talking about. What are you saying, exactly, with that
statement? What can't the child "see"?"
His other assertions are that BGD, Brain Growth Deficit, causes us to
not be able to "see" part of reality, and finally, that this "invisible
world" contains God, religion, and heaven. I know, it sounds as idiotic
as it is, but he is serious about this, and we are just trying to help.
QUESTIONS TO GEORGE HAMMOND:
I am now going to put back into this post the questions that you did NOT
answer, and see if you are sincere or not. I have given the reasoning
above for these questions. This involves the core of your paper, so
whether you answer them or not pretty much determines your fate. You
either have answers or you are a faker, trying to appear sciency but
with no more behind you than a high school graduate. To quote for the
fifth time from my previous post:
Your paper is a house of cards. It is built on certain unfounded
assumptions which are referred to later and used in mathematical proofs.
The missing steps are between:
* PFF and seeing reality
You have asserted that a lower PFF means that you see less of reality.
Please explain or show the steps in your reasoning or relate the
experiments that led you to believe this.
* BGD and "invisible world"
You have asserted that a BGD means that there is a world that is
invisible to us. Please explain your reasoning or the experiments that
led you to believe this. These steps are missing in your paper.
* "invisible world" and God, heaven, religion
Please explain why the invisible world would have to be God, or heaven,
or anything to do with any particular religion. Tell us your reasoning,
or relate the experiments that revealed to you what was in there. If
this world is invisible to us, how did you manage to see what was in
there? These steps are missing in your paper, and would be certainly the
most interesting part of it, if you care to reveal it.
Fill in the missing steps before you go to any mathematics.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Hammond Still Unable; Eickmeier Anti-SPOG re-post |
28 Jun 2005 11:59:21 AM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bO4we.127965$VH2.78692@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
This is posted in case Mr. Hammond has missed my posts in his newsreader,
although it would be hard to imagine that he has not seen it. I have
posted these questions four times in the How to Avoid Homicide thread, and
then formally in a new thread called The Eickmeier Anti-SPOG. George
Hammond has simply ignored it, because he apparently has no answers to it.
So let's all focus our attention on his response to this new thread, which
I promised him I would keep posting until he does answer. It should be
very interesting.
Also a reminder - a SERIOUS and honest scientist will answer ANY honest
rebuttal to his claims.
Hammond does not - so I don't expect him to do anything intelligent, or
honest, with this post.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: Hammond Still Unable; Eickmeier Anti-SPOG re-post |
28 Jun 2005 12:30:36 PM |
|
|
ZenIsWhen wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bO4we.127965$VH2.78692@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
This is posted in case Mr. Hammond has missed my posts in his newsreader,
although it would be hard to imagine that he has not seen it. I have
posted these questions four times in the How to Avoid Homicide thread, and
then formally in a new thread called The Eickmeier Anti-SPOG. George
Hammond has simply ignored it, because he apparently has no answers to it.
So let's all focus our attention on his response to this new thread, which
I promised him I would keep posting until he does answer. It should be
very interesting.
Also a reminder - a SERIOUS and honest scientist will answer ANY honest
rebuttal to his claims.
Hammond does not - so I don't expect him to do anything intelligent, or
honest, with this post.
Well, we're still waiting, aren't we? I have made it as easy as
possible, unlike the Schornak Anti-SPOG, which is a web site.
I'm trying to imagine the Hammond mindset in reading my Anti-SPOG. Maybe
he is going back over his paper and trying to find where he explains the
gaps I have asked about. If he then realizes that they are just
assertions, he has no response except 1) to call me incompetent, 2) to
say it is all explained in the SPOG if I will only read it, or 3) to
snip me and mumble something about it not being worth his valuable time.
In all cases, he would be not responding, so that is exactly what he is
doing, not responding, except not "in public" right out in the open,
admitting that he has no answers. We're supposed to think he just hasn't
seen the questions. Then eventually we'll go away and he can restart.
Well, I've got news for him.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Hammond Still Unable; Eickmeier Anti-SPOG re-post |
28 Jun 2005 12:59:39 PM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0Pfwe.128311$VH2.30139@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
ZenIsWhen wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bO4we.127965$VH2.78692@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
This is posted in case Mr. Hammond has missed my posts in his newsreader,
although it would be hard to imagine that he has not seen it. I have
posted these questions four times in the How to Avoid Homicide thread,
and then formally in a new thread called The Eickmeier Anti-SPOG. George
Hammond has simply ignored it, because he apparently has no answers to
it. So let's all focus our attention on his response to this new thread,
which I promised him I would keep posting until he does answer. It should
be very interesting.
Also a reminder - a SERIOUS and honest scientist will answer ANY honest
rebuttal to his claims.
Hammond does not - so I don't expect him to do anything intelligent, or
honest, with this post.
Well, we're still waiting, aren't we? I have made it as easy as possible,
unlike the Schornak Anti-SPOG, which is a web site.
I'm trying to imagine the Hammond mindset in reading my Anti-SPOG. Maybe
he is going back over his paper and trying to find where he explains the
gaps I have asked about. If he then realizes that they are just
assertions, he has no response except 1) to call me incompetent, 2) to say
it is all explained in the SPOG if I will only read it, or 3) to snip me
and mumble something about it not being worth his valuable time. In all
cases, he would be not responding, so that is exactly what he is doing,
not responding, except not "in public" right out in the open, admitting
that he has no answers. We're supposed to think he just hasn't seen the
questions. Then eventually we'll go away and he can restart.
Well, I've got news for him.
I think Hammond just has a brain growth deficit that causes blindness when
it comes to looking at certain posts....
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RyanT" |
|
| Title: Re: Hammond Still Unable; Eickmeier Anti-SPOG re-post |
28 Jun 2005 02:15:45 PM |
|
|
ZenIsWhen wrote:
Also a reminder - a SERIOUS and honest scientist will answer ANY honest
rebuttal to his claims.
Hammond does not - so I don't expect him to do anything intelligent, or
honest, with this post.
Heh that's pointing out the obvious, but getting him to admit it
probably won't happen. All you can really do is point out the obvious
***** in his ideas so he doesn't go around looking like he's making
sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: Hammond Still Unable; Eickmeier Anti-SPOG re-post |
28 Jun 2005 03:01:03 PM |
|
|
RyanT wrote:
ZenIsWhen wrote:
Also a reminder - a SERIOUS and honest scientist will answer ANY honest
rebuttal to his claims.
Hammond does not - so I don't expect him to do anything intelligent, or
honest, with this post.
Heh that's pointing out the obvious, but getting him to admit it
probably won't happen. All you can really do is point out the obvious
***** in his ideas so he doesn't go around looking like he's making
sense.
Reminds me of Speakers Corner of Hyde Park in London. All they need is a
soap box, and they can spout their theories. You hate to see a crowd
forming that looks like they're buying it, but it would be even more
foolish to start arguing with the guy. But in a newsgroup you can
confront him head on, one on one, and get a response. Or not.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Final Note re: Hammond |
29 Jun 2005 07:18:02 AM |
|
|
I notice now that Hammond is not only not answering my questions, he is
studiously avoiding me altogether. That has to go down as a major
victory because it shows he is scared shitless that I will bring up the
questions again if I ever correspond with him. He is trying to make me
go away.
Pleased and Proud,
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: Final Note re: Hammond |
02 Jul 2005 11:06:44 AM |
|
|
Posting this just to bump this thread one more time. George has answered
some of my posts on the PFF, but not the Anti-SPOG. He knows when he's
licked.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier wrote:
I notice now that Hammond is not only not answering my questions, he is
studiously avoiding me altogether. That has to go down as a major
victory because it shows he is scared shitless that I will bring up the
questions again if I ever correspond with him. He is trying to make me
go away.
Pleased and Proud,
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff_Relf" |
|
| Title: Hammond is right, ideas have a virtual weight. |
28 Jun 2005 02:55:13 AM |
|
|
Hi Eickmeier, Hammond and T_Wake,
Hammond is right, ideas have a virtual weight.
They are, therefore, subject to Einstein's laws, including time dilation.
As a professional programmer myself,
I can attest to the fact that it's a lot like lifting weights.
Ideas are Heavy, they have a virtual momentum.
I'm a virtual weight lifter, working menial, low_rent jobs.
But, if I understood him correctly,
Hammond says God is simply a bigger weight lifter.
While I say: God is my goal, my desire for control.
Yet, because physical processes determine absolutely everthing,
....he is also my Ever_Fleeting_Mirage.
There is, of course, no irrefutable proof that
physical processes determine absolutely everthing,
but, all the same, that's my most likely scenario, my best assumption,
my postulate with the most supporting evidence.
I am, God is, not just lame, but totally Helpless.
God is my desire, not my reality.
Through no fault of my own... I was born.
Through no fault of my own... I die.
Like a star, I burn bright, dissipating into the night.
Zooming out to large times and sizes, e.g. evolution and the big bang,
makes me feel helpless, like an ant,
while zooming in to tiny times and sizes makes me feel omnipotent, like God.
But which is it ? Am I God or an ant ? It's a matter of perception.
Likewise, gravity and electricity are two perceptions of the same thing.
But, for people like Hammond, who are chronically depressed,
i.e. always on the verge of suicide and/or homicide,
the big bang is even more controversial than evolution
because People_Needing_Faith can't zoom out, can't feel so helpless.
Sadly: Everything forever dissipates, transforms.
Observationally, our universe has gone from virtually zero entropy,
where nothing at all was dissipated at the virtual start of the big bang,
i.e. a virtual infinite density and heat, to where we are today,
i.e. what we subjectively call the middle, where water and life exist.
And, thanks to the observed constant acceleration
of the expansion of spacetime over the past 12 billion years or so,
our universe is surely headed to a virtual infinite entropy,
i.e. a virtual perfect vacuum... perfect dissipation.
Gravity, then, is simply a remanent of greater densities that once existed.
The only difference between gravity and electricty, I posit, is
how our minds preceive our universe at different scales.
Einstein has shown that time is spatial, parochial: Space_Time.
It takes yet another Spatial dimension, entropy, to track
the constant acceleration in the expansion of space_time: Space_Time_Entropy.
Recent evidence has shown that
Einstein's cosmological Constant is true for the last 12 billion years or so.
If alpha, the Fine_Structure_Constant, and the speed of light
are a function of density, not unlike sound waves, as I suspect,
then the leading cosmological theory, inflation, is wrong and I am right:
Entropy is an intrinsic property of mass_energy.
By the way, the postulate that says that
Physical_Processes_Determine_Absolutely_Everthing
is called physicalism... not atheism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Hammond is right, ideas have a virtual weight. |
28 Jun 2005 06:08:20 AM |
|
|
"Jeff_Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2005_Jun_28_1gea@Cotse.NET...
Wow. So many words......
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff_Relf" |
|
| Title: Think again Eickmeier, Hammond and T_Wake. |
28 Jun 2005 08:00:17 AM |
|
|
Hi Eickmeier, Hammond and T_Wake,
Re: My comment about the heated_words you three guys have been exchanging,
T_Wake wrote: Wow. So many words.
And here Eickmeier wondered if I was a candidate for the Hammond's COSA:
news:mUawe.169238$IO.24651@tornado.tampabay.rr.com
where COSA is Hammond's Church_Of_the_Scientific_Advent:
news:sjis3sxs5w.fsf@not.for.mail.beable.com
Maybe it's just me but I preferred my analysis
over the Holier_Than_Thou drivel that you three keep dishing out.
If any one of you three think you're the only sane one, think again.
The reality is always more prosaic than that, sorry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Think again Eickmeier, Hammond and T_Wake. |
28 Jun 2005 12:57:22 PM |
|
|
"Jeff_Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2005_Jun_28_PdYa@Cotse.NET...
Hi Eickmeier, Hammond and T_Wake,
Re: My comment about the heated_words you three guys have been
exchanging,
T_Wake wrote: Wow. So many words.
And here Eickmeier wondered if I was a candidate for the Hammond's COSA:
news:mUawe.169238$IO.24651@tornado.tampabay.rr.com
where COSA is Hammond's Church_Of_the_Scientific_Advent:
news:sjis3sxs5w.fsf@not.for.mail.beable.com
Maybe it's just me but I preferred my analysis
over the Holier_Than_Thou drivel that you three keep dishing out.
If any one of you three think you're the only sane one, think again.
The reality is always more prosaic than that, sorry.
I am not sure what you are driving at here. I don't think any of the three
people you are currently targeting with your post think they are the only
sane one. I know I don't. There are lots of sane people out there. Mr
Hammond is not one of them though.
Do you think you are the only sane person?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff_Relf" |
|
| Title: Which am I, a God or an ant ? |
29 Jun 2005 03:58:25 AM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake and Eickmeier, Re: Your heated dialogs with Hammond,
I wrote: If any one of you three think you're the only sane one, think again.
Reality is always more prosaic than that, sorry.
T_Wake replied: I am not sure what you are driving at here.
I don't think any of the three people you
are currently targeting with your post think they are the only sane one.
I know I don't. There are lots of sane people out there.
Mr Hammond is not one of them though.
Do you think you are the only sane person ?
What ? All I said was Hammond made some interesting points
which, as usual, got buried under Holier_Than_Thou rhetoric.
Eickmeier told me:
But your post had nothing to do with the subject at hand.
news:E_ewe.128301$VH2.43531@tornado.tampabay.rr.com
Then T_Wake replied to Eickmeier above, saying:
And it was longer than probably the whole thread put together.
news:cYCdnUS0xoeDElzfRVnyuA@pipex.net
As I said, I think ideas have a virtual weight,
so Hammond has raised some interesting issues.
Just something for you to think about someday, if you want.
I also pointed out were my view of God diverged from Hammond's, to wit:
Zooming out to large times and sizes, e.g. evolution and the big bang,
makes me feel helpless, like an ant,
while zooming in to tiny times and sizes makes me feel omnipotent, like God.
But which am I, a God or an ant ? It's a matter of perception.
Likewise, gravity and electricity are two perceptions of the same thing.
Again, food for thought.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Which am I, a God or an ant ? |
29 Jun 2005 02:56:11 PM |
|
|
"Jeff_Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2005_Jun_29_p1BF@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake and Eickmeier, Re: Your heated dialogs with Hammond,
I wrote: If any one of you three think you're the only sane one, think
again.
Reality is always more prosaic than that, sorry.
T_Wake replied: I am not sure what you are driving at here.
I don't think any of the three people you
are currently targeting with your post think they are the only sane one.
I know I don't. There are lots of sane people out there.
Mr Hammond is not one of them though.
Do you think you are the only sane person ?
What ? All I said was Hammond made some interesting points
which, as usual, got buried under Holier_Than_Thou rhetoric.
I simply answered your question and replied along the similar lines.
I am sorry if you feel my "rhetoric" is holier than thou. I have no idea why
you think that, but you are fully entitled to your opinions.
Likewise, I (we) am (are) entitled to my (our) opinions.
Eickmeier told me:
But your post had nothing to do with the subject at hand.
news:E_ewe.128301$VH2.43531@tornado.tampabay.rr.com
Then T_Wake replied to Eickmeier above, saying:
And it was longer than probably the whole thread put together.
news:cYCdnUS0xoeDElzfRVnyuA@pipex.net
As I said, I think ideas have a virtual weight,
so Hammond has raised some interesting issues.
Just something for you to think about someday, if you want.
His ideas are interesting the fields of psychology. His logic is tortured
and if you can follow a single, coherent, logical, idea out of his threads
then you are doing better than George.
I also pointed out were my view of God diverged from Hammond's, to wit:
Zooming out to large times and sizes, e.g. evolution and the big bang,
makes me feel helpless, like an ant,
while zooming in to tiny times and sizes makes me feel omnipotent, like
God.
But which am I, a God or an ant ? It's a matter of perception.
Likewise, gravity and electricity are two perceptions of the same thing.
Again, food for thought.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff_Relf" |
|
| Title: It's ideas that I've come to discuss. |
30 Jun 2005 05:11:18 AM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, I said that Hammond has raised some interesting notions,
as I've found that ideas have a virtual weight.
And you replied: His ideas are interesting the fields of psychology.
His logic is tortured and if you can follow a single, coherent,
logical, idea out of his threads then you are doing better than George.
I don't care how whacked Hammond is, it's ideas that I've come to discuss.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: It's ideas that I've come to discuss. |
30 Jun 2005 07:26:58 AM |
|
|
"Jeff_Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2005_Jun_30_mEb7@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, I said that Hammond has raised some interesting notions,
as I've found that ideas have a virtual weight.
And you replied: His ideas are interesting the fields of psychology.
His logic is tortured and if you can follow a single, coherent,
logical, idea out of his threads then you are doing better than George.
I don't care how whacked Hammond is, it's ideas that I've come to discuss.
Ok. I, personally, don't have a problem with that. I am not convinced his
"ideas" are relevant to sci.physics where I read them so I have adjusted the
follow ups to this message so that it may find a more appropriate group.
(Sorry if I have got them wrong).
If his ideas contained any real science or physics then this would be a
suitable place for discussion. They don't and this isn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff_Relf" |
|
| Title: I've never felt a need to moderate any group. |
30 Jun 2005 06:02:30 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, I said I care more about Hammond's ideas than his mental state,
and you replied: Ok. I, personally, don't have a problem with that.
I am not convinced his "ideas" are relevant to sci.physics where I read them
so I have adjusted the follow ups to this message
so that it may find a more appropriate group.
...
If his ideas contained any real science or physics then
this would be a suitable place for discussion. They don't and this isn't.
I've never felt a need to moderate any group,
to decide who should be allowed in or what the topics should be.
That's just not me.
For example, Right now I assume that I'm just talking to you.
Others might read it too, maybe not.
Hell, even You might not be reading this, or give a damn about it.
Busy people will only be reading replies they get
and maybe a few select other posts.
i.e. They're unlikely to be affected by me or Hammond in any way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: I've never felt a need to moderate any group. |
01 Jul 2005 07:06:18 AM |
|
|
"Jeff_Relf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2005_Jun_30_rn33@Cotse.NET...
I've never felt a need to moderate any group,
to decide who should be allowed in or what the topics should be.
That's just not me.
For example, Right now I assume that I'm just talking to you.
Others might read it too, maybe not.
Hell, even You might not be reading this, or give a damn about it.
Busy people will only be reading replies they get
and maybe a few select other posts.
i.e. They're unlikely to be affected by me or Hammond in any way.
No one is saying moderate the group, simply discriminate on the choice of
groups - which you have done by simply posting to sci.physics.
Is there a reason you haven't listed all the hundreds of thousands of groups
in the address of this message?
Newsgroups are places for people to discuss similar topics. There is no
point coming to sci.physics and discussing the latest ideas in massage for
example. And on a similar vein, why ask alt.massage about relativity?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff_Relf" |
|
| Title: Joshua flies very high in the astroplane. |
02 Jul 2005 08:08:09 AM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, I told you that I only care about ideas,
not how whacked a poster is, and, I hasten to add, the topic of the newsgroup,
and you replied: Newsgroups are places for people to discuss similar topics.
There is no point coming to sci.physics
and discussing the latest ideas in massage for example.
And on a similar vein, why ask alt.massage about relativity ?
I'd be hard pressed to find a decent sized newsgroup where
no one would enjoy a Well_Done explanation of relativity.
And, hey, I bet you secretly liked the massage story I told you :)
That kid, Joshua, flies very high in the astroplane, so to speak.
I might even do some paid/fun work for him someday.
Enjoying Jim_White's Alabama_Chrome:
http://www.Cotse.NET/users/jeffrelf/Alabama_Chrome.MP3
Sunday I am young and wild, Monday I go lame, Tuesday I start twitching,
Wednesday I'm insane, Thursday I lay a dying, Friday I'm quite dead,
Saturday I get carried away by things better left unsa-a-aiiid.
'Cause heaven ain't no place, brother, and love ain't no word, sister,
and prison ain't no building made of iron bars and stone.
You can seek the rhyme and reason but in the realm of the unknown
you won't catch no true reflections in tha-a-at Alabama_Chrome.
A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome, Alabama_Chrome, A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome.
For there's mountains you will scale with ease,
yet molehills where you stumble.
Sins you so regret and yet other sins that you enjoy.
Harps can beg forgiveness, and the guitars can scream pain,
but the contradictions are larger than any language can expla-a-aiiin.
Yea-a-ah.
In a sacred territory where the preachers come to steal
the jewel of your heart, for they have no treasure of their own,
there lies a sacred window, in your hand the perfect stone.
You'd throw it but you arms are bound 'round with that Alabama_Chrome.
A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome, Alabama_Chrome, A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome.
The heat is withering, humidity smothering.
Strip of silver tape, a sly lie covering a dent in the side
of a redneck ride.
Going deep for the Crimson Tide. Yeeea-a-ah.
Gonna bump to the thump of the Selma slammer.
Wanna jump up and down like a wack jackhammer.
Sing a little Sweet_Home_Alabama.
Jimmy gimme a wink like a big flimflammer.
Bone tired and so weary of treating truth as a lie.
I've been hunkered down in the bunker of some fool's alibi.
Squint harder, you will see the slim tether of the saints,
whipping wild in the hurricane of all that is and all that ain't.
'Cause there's angels in the shed, mother, and spiders in the bed, brother,
and ghosts inside my head, father, no I am not alone.
My mind is teeth without a mouth, my thoughts are marrow without a bone,
my eyes are blinded by a thousand layers of that God_Damn Alabama_Chrome.
A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome, God_Damn Alabama_Chrome.
God_Damn, God_Damn Alabama_Chrome.
A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome, God_Damn Alabama_Chrome, God_Damn Alabama_Chrome.
A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome, God_Damn.
A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome, God_Damn.
A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome, Alabama, Alabama, A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome.
Whooh, talking 'bout Alabama.
A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome, whooh, A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Joshua flies very high in the astroplane. |
02 Jul 2005 11:37:59 AM |
|
|
Jeff_Relf wrote:
A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome, God_Damn Alabama_Chrome.
God_Damn, God_Damn Alabama_Chrome.
A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome, God_Damn Alabama_Chrome, God_Damn
Alabama_Chrome. A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome, God_Damn.
A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome, God_Damn.
A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome, Alabama, Alabama, A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome.
Whooh, talking 'bout Alabama.
A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome, whooh, A-a-alaba-a-ama Chrome.
Alabama, you got
the weight on your shoulders
That's breaking your back.
Your Cadillac
has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track
--
Texeme Textcasting Technology
http://www.texeme.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Tobin" |
|
| Title: Re: I've never felt a need to moderate any group. |
30 Jun 2005 06:05:23 PM |
|
|
In article <Jeff_Relf_2005_Jun_30_rn33@Cotse.NET>,
Jeff_Relf <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote:
I've never felt a need to moderate any group,
That's because you're one of the abusers.
-- Richard
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff_Relf" |
|
| Title: Richard'd be better off sticking to the issues. |
30 Jun 2005 06:29:51 PM |
|
|
Hi Richard and T_Wake, I said I'd never felt a need to moderate any group,
And Richard called me one of the abusers.
I don't know who you are, Richard,
but I'm sure you'd be better off sticking to the issues
instead of painting yourself and others with such a broad brush.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Which am I, a God or an ant ? |
29 Jun 2005 06:12:06 AM |
|
|
to an ant you are a god,
to a god you are an ant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: Which am I, a God or an ant ? |
29 Jun 2005 07:15:28 AM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
to an ant you are a god,
to a god you are an ant.
Thank you both for your deep thoughts.
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff_Relf" |
|
| Title: Deep_Thoughts. |
29 Jun 2005 09:04:50 AM |
|
|
Hi Eickmeier, Dave and T_Wake,
I asked: Which am I, God or an ant ?
Dave replied: To an ant you are a god, to a god you are an ant.
And Eickmeier then commented: Thank you both for your deep thoughts.
Thanks for being so kind
but that reminded me of Saturday_Night_live's Deep_Thoughts.
1. If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is
" God is crying." And if he asks why God is crying,
another cute thing to tell him is
" Probably because of something you did."
2. One thing kids like is to be tricked. For instance,
I was going to take my little nephew to Disneyland,
but instead I drove him to an old burned-out warehouse.
" Oh, no," I said, " Disneyland burned down." He cried and cried,
but I think that deep down he thought it was a pretty good joke.
I started to drive over to the real Disneyland,
but it was getting pretty late.
3. I love to go to the schoolyard and watch the children jump and scream,
but they don't know I'm using blanks.
4. When I die,
I would like to go peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather did.
Not screaming and yelling like the passenger in his car.
5. Better not take a dog on the space shuttle,
because if he sticks his head out when you're coming home
his face might burn up.
6. I hope life isn't a big joke, because I don't get it.
7. When you go in for a job interview,
I think a good thing to ask is if they ever press charges.
8. I bet one legend that keeps recurring throughout history,
in every culture, is the story of Popeye.
9. Too bad you can't buy a voodoo globe
so that you could make the earth spin real fast and freak everybody out.
10. It takes a big man to cry, but it takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.
11. If they ever come up with a swashbuckling school,
I think one of the courses should be laughing, then jumping off something.
12. I think a good gift for the President would be a chocolate revolver.
And since he is so busy,
you'd probably have to run up to him real quick and give it to him.
http://farstrider.net/DeepThoughts/Handey.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Deep_Thoughts. |
29 Jun 2005 04:40:12 PM |
|
|
Deep Water 2 .
this bat does work .
The oil ringging underground like a bell the bat can hear better than
anything we biult yet .
A trained bat at that .
The bat they let go in the dark in the center of thehold when we ring
for oil.
The bat will fly to the direction of the ring for food. Big oil wells
we hear but the small ones we miss . So we are finding out if the bat
can hear small wells ring .
Your brain can focus on a sound among sounds ,,we nead the focus in
sound to pick the small ring out. The bat does an ausome job.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Deep_Thoughts. |
29 Jun 2005 05:23:33 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12861-42C3153C-122@storefull-3215.bay.webtv.net...
Deep Water 2 .
this bat does work .
The oil ringging underground like a bell the bat can hear better than
anything we biult yet .
A trained bat at that .
The bat they let go in the dark in the center of thehold when we ring
for oil.
The bat will fly to the direction of the ring for food. Big oil wells
we hear but the small ones we miss . So we are finding out if the bat
can hear small wells ring .
Your brain can focus on a sound among sounds ,,we nead the focus in
sound to pick the small ring out. The bat does an ausome job.
Wow. A new definition of insane.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Deep_Thoughts. |
29 Jun 2005 05:54:03 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:u6Odnc8Kacnwgl7fRVnyjQ@pipex.net:
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12861-42C3153C-122@storefull-3215.bay.webtv.net...
Deep Water 2 .
this bat does work .
The oil ringging underground like a bell the bat can hear better than
anything we biult yet .
A trained bat at that .
The bat they let go in the dark in the center of thehold when we ring
for oil.
The bat will fly to the direction of the ring for food. Big oil wells
we hear but the small ones we miss . So we are finding out if the bat
can hear small wells ring .
Your brain can focus on a sound among sounds ,,we nead the focus in
sound to pick the small ring out. The bat does an ausome job.
Wow. A new definition of insane.
Gone Batty.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Deep_Thoughts. |
29 Jun 2005 09:04:03 PM |
|
|
To find oil a bang will make the oil or a pond ring like a bell. The
oil tones and water tones are not the same ring , but very near.
If 5 people are talking at the same time you can focus on just 1 person
talking .
You can focus a sound among sounds .
1000 small oil wells exsist for evry big one.
They are allways shallow easy drills but the small oil is very hard to
find just so you can pump it dry in 3 months and fill 3 tankers.
the bats foods are conected to chosen sounds. This bat hears small
oil wells ring from 5 miles away and a mile down.
basismo bascillio
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Deep_Thoughts. |
30 Jun 2005 07:11:27 AM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24397-42C35313-110@storefull-3214.bay.webtv.net...
Well, that about all the sense you say anyway.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Deep_Thoughts. |
29 Jun 2005 10:55:36 PM |
|
|
(tj Frazir) wrote in news:24397-42C35313-110
@storefull-3214.bay.webtv.net:
To find oil a bang will make the oil or a pond ring like a bell. The
oil tones and water tones are not the same ring , but very near.
If 5 people are talking at the same time you can focus on just 1 person
talking .
You can focus a sound among sounds .
1000 small oil wells exsist for evry big one.
They are allways shallow easy drills but the small oil is very hard to
find just so you can pump it dry in 3 months and fill 3 tankers.
the bats foods are conected to chosen sounds. This bat hears small
oil wells ring from 5 miles away and a mile down.
basismo bascillio
Bats hear ultrasonic sounds up to 100,000 Hz (100 KHz)
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml
Oil exploration is done using sesmic waves. Those are infra sonic. Below
the human hearing range. The earth can't transmit higher frequencies for
significant distances. The highest frequency seismic waves are about 80 Hz.
http://www.cseg.ca/luncheons/200206/
Bats can't hear or transmit infra sound.
I fear that you will never be able to train bats to hear oil.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
