subject:"Re\: The All"

On 2 April 2015 at 13:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 4/1/2015 5:05 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 2 April 2015 at 13:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

   On 4/1/2015 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 2 April 2015 at 11:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

   On 4/1/2015 3:19 PM, LizR wrote:

So how does every other country in the world manage to have less
 guns per person than the USA? Magic?

For one thing they're poorer.  The number of households with a gun
 is far smaller than the number of guns.

  What, all other countries are poorer than the US?


  Of course not.  I'm just pointing out one of the factors.  Some, like
 Switzerland, are richer...and have a higher percentage of households with
 guns.


  So are you saying that there is a correlation between the per-capita
 income of a country and the number of households with guns? If so, have you
 got some stats?

 Yes, but I'm pointing out that the correlation is in part driven by the
 expense of buying a gun and ammunition.  So people in Bangladesh or Chad
 are not likely to buy a rifle for sport or hunting.  Whereas the US people
 that buy a rifle for sport or hunting tend to also have another rifle for
 target shooting and a shotgun or two and a couple of pistols.  That's why,
 although the number to guns in the US has gone up, the number of households
 with a gun has gone down.


So what about  Europe, Canada, Svalbard, etc?

I do of course agree with your point on a broad scale. I normally only say
that the USA has more guns per person than other countries in the first
world, since I assume the first world is roughly on a par economically. So
income inequality may partially explain the gap between the USA and India,
but not between the USA and the UK. I don't know about households (do the
Swiss have more people per household than the US, or something? Or are you
saying the map is wrong?) - this map only shows the average number of
civilian-owned guns per capita.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!


On 4/1/2015 5:48 PM, LizR wrote:
By the way, Brent, your comment directly contradicts what the gun lovers always say - 
but anyone can get hold of one if they really want to!


I'd say ...really want to! is a big loophole in that assertion.



Unless - gasp - most people don't actually want to!


Sure, many people don't.  And the mantra that guns are dangerous has made people 
unfamiliar with them fearful of guns.  While people who grew up hunting and having guns 
around (like me) think of them as just another tool that can hurt you if used carelessly - 
like a motorcycle or dynamite.


(Or can't, but that does seem unlikely). I've never wanted one myself, nor have I known 
anyone who's owned a gun, to the best of my knowledge - apart from a friend of my son 
whose father lives in America (the father has a gun).


Well I don't know whether you count me as someone you know, I have six guns; two of which 
I bought and four and I inherited from close relatives.  But I've never know anyone who 
was shot, even accidentally.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

On 2 April 2015 at 13:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

 On 4/1/2015 5:48 PM, LizR wrote:

 By the way, Brent, your comment directly contradicts what the gun lovers
 always say - but anyone can get hold of one if they really want to!


 I'd say ...really want to! is a big loophole in that assertion.


 Unless - gasp - most people don't actually want to!


 Sure, many people don't.  And the mantra that guns are dangerous has made
 people unfamiliar with them fearful of guns.  While people who grew up
 hunting and having guns around (like me) think of them as just another tool
 that can hurt you if used carelessly - like a motorcycle or dynamite.

  (Or can't, but that does seem unlikely). I've never wanted one myself,
 nor have I known anyone who's owned a gun, to the best of my knowledge -
 apart from a friend of my son whose father lives in America (the father has
 a gun).


 Well I don't know whether you count me as someone you know, I have six
 guns; two of which I bought and four and I inherited from close relatives.
 But I've never know anyone who was shot, even accidentally.

 I take it back, Kevin Ireland, the NZ poet who lives in Auckland some of
the time and Oxford the rest, is a friend of mine who has owned plenty of
guns. Indeed he wrote a poem about shooting his dog.

I don't have a problem with guns being owned and used in the right place -
for hunting, in the countryside and so on. However (as I assume, being a
person of intelligence, you do actually realise) those aren't the guns I'm
objecting to, nor are they the ones that turn the USA black on that map,
nor are they the ones toddlers get hold of, or 9 year olds kill their
shooting instructors with.

I know you feel obliged to argue the contrary case, but I really would
appreciate a bit of common sense on what the real subject of the argument
is here, rather than what looks like a knee-jerk defence of guns just
because you happen to have grown up with them.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!


On 4/1/2015 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 April 2015 at 11:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 4/1/2015 3:19 PM, LizR wrote:


So how does every other country in the world manage to have less guns 
per
person than the USA? Magic?


For one thing they're poorer.  The number of households with a gun is far 
smaller
than the number of guns.

What, all other countries are poorer than the US?


Of course not.  I'm just pointing out one of the factors.  Some, like Switzerland, are 
richer...and have a higher percentage of households with guns.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

On 4/1/2015 8:30 PM, LizR wrote:

On 2 April 2015 at 13:58, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:

On 4/1/2015 5:48 PM, LizR wrote:

By the way, Brent, your comment directly contradicts what the gun
lovers always
say - but anyone can get hold of one if they really want to!

I'd say ...really want to! is a big loophole in that assertion.

Unless - gasp - most people don't actually want to!

Sure, many people don't. And the mantra that guns are dangerous has made
people
unfamiliar with them fearful of guns. While people who grew up hunting and
having
guns around (like me) think of them as just another tool that can hurt you
if used
carelessly - like a motorcycle or dynamite.

(Or can't, but that does seem unlikely). I've never wanted one myself,
nor have
I known anyone who's owned a gun, to the best of my knowledge - apart
from a
friend of my son whose father lives in America (the father has a gun).

Well I don't know whether you count me as someone you know, I have six
guns; two of
which I bought and four and I inherited from close relatives. But I've
never know
anyone who was shot, even accidentally.

I take it back, Kevin Ireland, the NZ poet who lives in Auckland some of the time and
Oxford the rest, is a friend of mine who has owned plenty of guns. Indeed he wrote a
poem about shooting his dog.

I assume that was to put a terminally ill dog out its misery (a sad duty I've done a few
of times) rather than an accident.

I don't have a problem with guns being owned and used in the right place - for hunting,
in the countryside and so on. However (as I assume, being a person of intelligence, you
do actually realise) those aren't the guns I'm objecting to, nor are they the ones that
turn the USA black on that map,

I don't think the map has enough resolution to show whether the guns are in the
countryside or suburbs or city. I know that, per household, there are a lot more guns in
sparsely populated areas, e.g. on western farms and ranches as compared to cities.

nor are they the ones toddlers get hold of, or 9 year olds kill their shooting
instructors with.

Rare incidents are not a good basis for public policy.

I know you feel obliged to argue the contrary case, but I really would appreciate a bit
of common sense on what the real subject of the argument is here, rather than what looks
like a knee-jerk defence of guns just because you happen to have grown up with them.

I'm sorry I didn't know you were arguing a case. What case are you arguing? Did you
assume I would join in a knee-jerk condemnation of US gun ownership? I wouldn't mind
giving up my guns if I thought it would make me significantly safer, just like I'd give up
my motorcycles if I thought they were going to kill me. Yes, I know the statistics.
You're more likely to be shot if you own a gun (accidents, suicides account for more than
half of gun deaths). And you're 30 times more likely to be killed on a motorcycle over
the same mileage as compared to a car. But minimizing risk isn't an overriding value in
my life.

Brent

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!


On 4/1/2015 5:05 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 April 2015 at 13:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 4/1/2015 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:

On 2 April 2015 at 11:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 4/1/2015 3:19 PM, LizR wrote:


So how does every other country in the world manage to have less 
guns per
person than the USA? Magic?


For one thing they're poorer.  The number of households with a gun is 
far
smaller than the number of guns.

What, all other countries are poorer than the US?


Of course not.  I'm just pointing out one of the factors.  Some, like 
Switzerland,
are richer...and have a higher percentage of households with guns.


So are you saying that there is a correlation between the per-capita income of a country 
and the number of households with guns? If so, have you got some stats?


Yes, but I'm pointing out that the correlation is in part driven by the expense of buying 
a gun and ammunition.  So people in Bangladesh or Chad are not likely to buy a rifle for 
sport or hunting.  Whereas the US people that buy a rifle for sport or hunting tend to 
also have another rifle for target shooting and a shotgun or two and a couple of pistols.  
That's why, although the number to guns in the US has gone up, the number of households 
with a gun has gone down.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

2015-04-01 Thread Russell Standish

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:49:56PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
 
 Sure there are obviously cultural and legal differences too.  I was
 in Sydney on the day of the Port Arthur massacre.  I gathered that,
 before that, personal ownership of guns in Australia was fairly
 common and not much regulated.  It motivated severe restrictions on
 and confiscation of privately owned guns.

Gun ownership has never been popular here, either before or after Port
Arthur. What changed was a tightening of rules over semi-automatic
weapons, and a massive buy-back of semi-automatic weapons that had
previously been privately owned.

To my knowledge, gun ownership rules have never been harmonised in
Australia. In the state of my upbringing (WA), it was illegal to own any
sort of gun (air-rifles were excepted from licensing, IIRC), except in
the following circumstances:

1) Farmers and professional shooters could own manually operated
rifles or shotguns up to .303 calibre

2) Other people could own guns, but they must be kept at
a licensed shooting range at all times. Possibly a handgun may have
been allowed under those circumstances.

3) Handguns could not be owned at all, unless made inoperable by
having it's barrel filled with lead (catering to the gun collector).

4) I'm guessing that police would have had access to all sorts weaponry,
but as a general rule, police were not armed with firearms. 

Obviously the rules in the Eastern States were laxer, given the extent
of private semi-automatic ownership, and the fact that cops pack sidearms.


-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!


On 4/1/2015 5:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 2 April 2015 at 13:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:


On 4/1/2015 5:05 PM, LizR wrote:

On 2 April 2015 at 13:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 4/1/2015 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:

On 2 April 2015 at 11:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 4/1/2015 3:19 PM, LizR wrote:


So how does every other country in the world manage to have 
less guns
per person than the USA? Magic?


For one thing they're poorer.  The number of households with a gun 
is far
smaller than the number of guns.

What, all other countries are poorer than the US?


Of course not.  I'm just pointing out one of the factors.  Some, like
Switzerland, are richer...and have a higher percentage of households 
with guns.


So are you saying that there is a correlation between the per-capita income 
of a
country and the number of households with guns? If so, have you got some 
stats?

Yes, but I'm pointing out that the correlation is in part driven by the 
expense of
buying a gun and ammunition.  So people in Bangladesh or Chad are not 
likely to buy
a rifle for sport or hunting.  Whereas the US people that buy a rifle for 
sport or
hunting tend to also have another rifle for target shooting and a shotgun 
or two and
a couple of pistols.  That's why, although the number to guns in the US has 
gone up,
the number of households with a gun has gone down.


So what about  Europe, Canada, Svalbard, etc?

I do of course agree with your point on a broad scale. I normally only say that the USA 
has more guns per person than other countries in the first world, since I assume the 
first world is roughly on a par economically. So income inequality may partially explain 
the gap between the USA and India, but not between the USA and the UK.


Sure there are obviously cultural and legal differences too.  I was in Sydney on the day 
of the Port Arthur massacre.  I gathered that, before that, personal ownership of guns in 
Australia was fairly common and not much regulated.  It motivated severe restrictions on 
and confiscation of privately owned guns.


I don't know about households (do the Swiss have more people per household than the US, 
or something? Or are you saying the map is wrong?) - this map only shows the average 
number of civilian-owned guns per capita.


So how did they count guns in Switzerland where all militia aged citizens are issued an 
assault rifle - which they can keep when they leave the militia at age 35?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

2015-04-01 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On 2 April 2015 at 11:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 4/1/2015 3:19 PM, LizR wrote:

  So how does every other country in the world manage to have less guns
 per person than the USA? Magic?

   For one thing they're poorer.  The number of households with a gun is
 far smaller than the number of guns.

 What, all other countries are poorer than the US?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

  From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
 Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 4:40 PM
 Subject: Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

In his long rambling manifesto he spoke -- much like you do in fact Mitch, of a 
clash of civilizations, and he saw himself as a defender of a Christian, Aryan 
Norway, being overrun by brown people. I am just going by his own stated 
motives, not your reinterpretation of what they must have been. The actual 
crime stats speak of a different story most terrorist attacks, by far-- in 
terms of numbers of incidences, but also in terms of overall damage, injury and 
death,  in the US and in the EU are not being perpetrated by Islamicists, but 
by other kinds of extremists, including many various separatist 
movements.Hindus and Buddhists and Jews and Christians as well are committing 
acts of terror; however in the Western press these rarely get reported as such; 
most often the reports speak of a disturbed or deranged person, with no mention 
of the fact that their derangement was centered in their Christian 
(Nationalist) or other beliefs.If you added up all the people who died as a 
result of terrorist acts over the last 50 years do you think it would even come 
close to the number of just Americans who get violently murdered each and every 
single year?In the year 2013 you were more likely to die as the result of being 
man slaughtered by a toddler with a gun in this country than you were likely to 
get murdered by a terrorist.I am trying to put all this brouhaha into some kind 
of perspective. It is so far down the stack of imminent threats this world 
actually faces; kind of makes you wonder why it gets so much attention and is 
presented as being our most pressing problem. What's the agenda? And whose 
agenda is it?

We have here a case of selective memory. Brevik was indeed a Nazi (no surprise 
there) but you do notice that all his victims were Norwegian socialists? His 
motive was revenge against his fellow countrymen, not Muslims living in Norway, 
which he could have easily attacked. It's impossible to truly see Brevik as a 
church goer, even in the Nazi WW2 German Lutheran style.  You forget the 
Islamist attacks in Madrid 2004 which killed 191 and the subway attack in 
London which killed, and 52 dead in the London tube attacks. If Hindus were 
committing mass murder all over the world, we'd be talking about them instead 
of believers in Muhammad. It's purely practical to focus on the Islamists and 
there's no easy resolution to this war (which it is). I can bring up the London 
beheading, and hundreds of other jihad attack. In the 70's I could have pointed 
out the IRA, Red Army Fraction, Bader Meinhoff types, or the Chilean military 
bombing in DC. The Islamists are super well funded and are motivated by a 
promise of eternity.   

-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Apr 1, 2015 1:20 pm
Subject: RE: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

#yiv5779553059 #yiv5779553059AOLMsgPart_2_aec9f228-bb25-4e63-bb93-3e3b7b86eab7 
td{color:black;} _filtered #yiv5779553059 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 
6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5779553059 {font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11 
6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5779553059 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 
2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5779553059 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 
3 5 4 4 2 4;} _filtered #yiv5779553059 {font-family:Georgia;panose-1:2 4 5 2 5 
4 5 2 3 3;}#yiv5779553059 .yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody 
p.yiv5779553059MsoNormal, #yiv5779553059 .yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody 
li.yiv5779553059MsoNormal, #yiv5779553059 .yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody 
div.yiv5779553059MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody a:link, #yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody span.yiv5779553059MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody a:visited, #yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody span.yiv5779553059MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody p 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody p.yiv5779553059MsoAcetate, #yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody li.yiv5779553059MsoAcetate, #yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody div.yiv5779553059MsoAcetate 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody span.yiv5779553059EmailStyle18 
{color:#1F497D;}#yiv5779553059 .yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody 
span.yiv5779553059BalloonTextChar {}#yiv5779553059 
.yiv5779553059aolReplacedBody .yiv5779553059MsoChpDefault {} _filtered 
#yiv5779553059 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv5779553059

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

On 2 April 2015 at 13:02, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 4/1/2015 4:47 PM, LizR wrote:

  On 2 April 2015 at 11:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

   On 4/1/2015 3:19 PM, LizR wrote:

So how does every other country in the world manage to have less guns
 per person than the USA? Magic?

For one thing they're poorer.  The number of households with a gun is
 far smaller than the number of guns.

  What, all other countries are poorer than the US?


 Of course not.  I'm just pointing out one of the factors.  Some, like
 Switzerland, are richer...and have a higher percentage of households with
 guns.


So are you saying that there is a correlation between the per-capita income
of a country and the number of households with guns? If so, have you got
some stats?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

2015-04-01 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

By the way, Brent, your comment directly contradicts what the gun lovers
always say - but anyone can get hold of one if they really want to!

Unless - gasp - most people don't actually want to! (Or can't, but that
does seem unlikely). I've never wanted one myself, nor have I known anyone
who's owned a gun, to the best of my knowledge - apart from a friend of my
son whose father lives in America (the father has a gun).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona 
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 1:53 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

All these movements are in the orbit of Cuba and Venezuela as well as with ties 
with islamism. The basque terrorists in the 70s trained together with the 
Palestinian terrorists LPO  (in the valley of the Becca) and with argelian 
communists.

Please be informed. 

Was the right-wing Christian fanatic Norwegian terrorist Anders who mass 
murdered (77 people injuring hundreds more) scores of Norwegians in a car bomb, 
followed by a cold blooded execution style gunning down of unarmed teenagers in 
2011, and who acted in the name of his Christian supremacist ideology also --- 
covertly somehow also an Islamic terrorist? 

Was the train station bombing in Bologna Italy, which along with the afore 
mentioned Norwegian act of mass terrorism ranks as Europes worst post WWII act 
of terrorism, was that act perpetrated by Islamicists (or was it rather 
perpetrated by shadowy groups linked to the P2 lodge and to Operation Gladio?)

Inform yourself, yourself! 

The two single largest acts of terrorism in post WWII Europe both committed by 
far right (and in the case of the Bologna bombing also implicating a shadowy 
paramilitary organization called Operation Gladio).

In the US, was Timothy McVeigh also a crypto Muslim of sorts? Or was that mass 
murder act of terrorism also driven by an extremist right wing ideology?

Me thinks, it is rather more yourself that needs to inform themselves, 
seminarian.

Chris

In the other side nobody says that all the terrorists are Muslims. You both may 
be a little off of reality guys. What children literature do you read?. 

There are alaso a great number of extreme left terrorist that has diminished 
since the defeat of the USSR. But there remain a lot of nostalgics of that era 
that populate the centers of power. And even the discussion lists.

2015-04-01 0:06 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com:

  _  

From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015  'Chris de Morsella' wrote:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

 “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” How many 
 times have you heard that one? 

Once. 

  Why don’t we see Christian, Buddhist, or Jewish terrorists?

We do. Religion poisons everything.

No argument form me on that point. However a really surprising quantity of 
terrorist acts (at least in Europe)  are from one of the many separatist 
militant groups operating in that continent, in such places such as Corsica, 
the Basque regions etc. Places that have become folded into one nation state or 
another with which they do not much get along.

Chris

  John K Clark 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 

Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!


On 4/1/2015 12:50 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:



On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

I hope that isn't an April Fool!

Well, this isn't rocket science...

In 2013, it was more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler than 
a
terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston 
Marathon
bombing, while toddlers killed five, all by accidentally shooting a gun.


Because all those guns make you safer...


Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop people from obtaining 
them. It's already possible to 3D print one, and this technology will only improve from 
now on.


So far the ones printed will only fire once (if at all).  And no one's been able to print 
ammunition yet.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

On 1 April 2015 at 20:50, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:



 On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 I hope that isn't an April Fool!

 Well, this isn't rocket science...

 In 2013, it was more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler than a
 terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston Marathon
 bombing, while toddlers killed five, all by accidentally shooting a gun.


 Because all those guns make you safer...


 Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop people
 from obtaining them. It's already possible to 3D print one, and this
 technology will only improve from now on.

 So how does every other country in the world manage to have less guns per
person than the USA? Magic?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

On 2 April 2015 at 08:45, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 4/1/2015 12:50 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

 On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

  I hope that isn't an April Fool!

  Well, this isn't rocket science...

  In 2013, it was more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler than
 a terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston
 Marathon bombing, while toddlers killed five, all by accidentally shooting
 a gun.


  Because all those guns make you safer...


  Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop
 people from obtaining them. It's already possible to 3D print one, and this
 technology will only improve from now on.

 So far the ones printed will only fire once (if at all).  And no one's
 been able to print ammunition yet.


Still it made a clever plot in Elementary, the modern adaptation of
Sherlock Holmes that leaves Sherlock standing.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

Even Svalbard appears to have less guns per head than the USA, and there
you're actually legally obliged to carry one whenever you leave town!

On 2 April 2015 at 11:19, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 1 April 2015 at 20:50, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:



 On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 I hope that isn't an April Fool!

 Well, this isn't rocket science...

 In 2013, it was more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler than
 a terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston
 Marathon bombing, while toddlers killed five, all by accidentally shooting
 a gun.


 Because all those guns make you safer...


 Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop people
 from obtaining them. It's already possible to 3D print one, and this
 technology will only improve from now on.

 So how does every other country in the world manage to have less guns per
 person than the USA? Magic?





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

2015-03-31 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

On 4/1/2015 3:19 PM, LizR wrote:
On 1 April 2015 at 20:50, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:40 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:

I hope that isn't an April Fool!

Well, this isn't rocket science...

In 2013, it was more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler
than a
terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston
Marathon
bombing, while toddlers killed five, all by accidentally shooting a
gun.

Because all those guns make you safer...

Guns can be very dangerous, but like drugs there is no way to stop people
from
obtaining them. It's already possible to 3D print one, and this technology
will only
improve from now on.

So how does every other country in the world manage to have less guns per person than
the USA? Magic?

For one thing they're poorer. The number of households with a gun is far smaller than the
number of guns.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

Regarding the subject of terrorism here is an eye opening article that 
quantifies it and gives a different perspective on it than is usually presented 
in the military industrial complex owned mass media. 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

2015-03-31 Thread LizR

I hope that isn't an April Fool!

Well, this isn't rocket science...

In 2013, it was more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler than a
 terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston Marathon
 bombing, while toddlers killed five, all by accidentally shooting a gun.


Because all those guns make you safer...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

2015-03-31 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015  'Chris de Morsella' wrote:




 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html



 “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” How
 many times have you heard that one?


Once.

  Why don’t we see Christian, Buddhist, or Jewish terrorists?


We do. Religion poisons everything.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

2015-03-31 Thread 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List

From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: Are all terrorrists Muslim? Not even close!

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 'Chris de Morsella' wrote:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

“Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.” How many
times have you heard that one?

Once.

Why don’t we see Christian, Buddhist, or Jewish terrorists?

We do. Religion poisons everything.
No argument form me on that point. However a really surprising quantity of
terrorist acts (at least in Europe) are from one of the many separatist
militant groups operating in that continent, in such places such as Corsica,
the Basque regions etc. Places that have become folded into one nation state or
another with which they do not much get along.Chris
John K Clark

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-31 Thread Kim Jones




 On 31 Oct 2014, at 4:47 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
  
  Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking.
 
 So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't agree 
 with what you wrote above.
 
   John K Clark 
 
  

Then your conclusion strikes me as facile in that you seek to find a logical 
contradiction as a way of invalidating my assertion. This is another item from 
your grab-bag of rhetorical tricks. There is no logical contradiction in my 
assertion. I neither agree with it nor disagree with it. I present it as an 
observation. You clearly saw a (negative) value in what I wrote because you 
have responded to what I wrote. If you saw no value in it then you would simply 
pass over it and ignore it. You are once again self-referentially incorrect (ie 
lying to yourself - something I never thought was actually possible but you 
demonstrate that it is possible to lie to yourself in this forum on virtually a 
daily basis.)

In real thinking you can be wrong and as bloody-minded as often as you want 
as long as you are right in the end ie when the thinking process reaches its 
conclusion. Being right in the end means having an outcome that offers a 
value that everyone sees. That is not the same thing as winning an argument. 
Being wrong is creative. Many discussions here become bogged down in argument 
which is anything but creative. 

 I don't do argument. Argument is based on the clash of opinion and values. 
Argument is rarely about what is ostensibly being argued because it is mainly 
powered by the values of those participating in the argument none of whom ever 
admit that this is really what is happening. That's not science. Science is 
about putting your personal prejudices, beliefs and convictions to one side as 
the topic is examined from a variety of viewpoints. You do argument all the 
time because it is the only way you have ever learnt to do thinking amongst a 
group of people. You see a dialectic process as a kind of battle where the 
winner is the one who is the most stubborn and self-convinced. 

Look, John - you have a lot to offer, I will certainly give you that. But as 
many have pointed out by now in so many different ways, you are more interested 
in winning armchair arguments and launching ad hominems than doing real 
science. Didn't your mommy love you enough when you were young, Sunshine? 
That's the only explanation that sticks for this chest-beating profile you have 
built for yourself. It's very disappointing because if only you would cease the 
ego-struck nonsense I believe you would get on with people here a whole lot 
better. 

Kim

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-31 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:

 Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking.



 So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't
 agree with what you wrote above.



 you seek to find a logical contradiction as a way of invalidating my
 assertion


I didn't just seek it I found it, and I can't imagine a better way of
invalidating a assertion than finding a logical contradiction in it.

 There is no logical contradiction in my assertion. I neither agree with
 it nor disagree with it.


If you don't agree with what you write how do you find the energy to push
the keys on your keyboard? And if your writing is so inofensive, bland and
information poor as to elicit no reaction of any sort from anyone why
should they bother to read such pablum?

 I present it as an observation.


A observation that you don't agree is valid.

 You clearly saw a (negative) value in what I wrote because you have
 responded to what I wrote.


True, but I'm not the one who wrote agreement and disagreement are not
aspects of real thinking and In fact I disagree with your statement.

 Being wrong is creative.


Okey dokey


  I don't do argument.


Then why wasn't that the only sentence in your post?

 you are more interested in winning armchair arguments and launching ad
 hominems than doing real science. Didn't your mommy love you enough when
 you were young, Sunshine? That's the only explanation that sticks for this
 chest-beating profile you have built for yourself.


And unlike me at least you don't stoop to launching ad hominems.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-31 Thread PGC



On Friday, October 31, 2014 10:06:39 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:




 On 31 Oct 2014, at 4:47 pm, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com javascript: 
 wrote:

 On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Kim Jones kimj...@ozemail.com.au 
 javascript: wrote:
  

  Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking.


 So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't 
 agree with what you wrote above.

   John K Clark 

  


 Then your conclusion strikes me as facile in that you seek to find a 
 logical contradiction as a way of invalidating my assertion. This is 
 another item from your grab-bag of rhetorical tricks. There is no logical 
 contradiction in my assertion. I neither agree with it nor disagree with 
 it. I present it as an observation. You clearly saw a (negative) value in 
 what I wrote because you have responded to what I wrote. If you saw no 
 value in it then you would simply pass over it and ignore it. You are once 
 again self-referentially incorrect (ie lying to yourself - something I 
 never thought was actually possible but you demonstrate that it is possible 
 to lie to yourself in this forum on virtually a daily basis.)

 In real thinking you can be wrong and as bloody-minded as often as you 
 want as long as you are right in the end ie when the thinking process 
 reaches its conclusion. Being right in the end means having an outcome 
 that offers a value that everyone sees. That is not the same thing as 
 winning an argument. Being wrong is creative. Many discussions here become 
 bogged down in argument which is anything but creative. 

  I don't do argument. Argument is based on the clash of opinion and 
 values. Argument is rarely about what is ostensibly being argued because it 
 is mainly powered by the values of those participating in the argument none 
 of whom ever admit that this is really what is happening. That's not 
 science. Science is about putting your personal prejudices, beliefs and 
 convictions to one side as the topic is examined from a variety of 
 viewpoints. You do argument all the time because it is the only way you 
 have ever learnt to do thinking amongst a group of people. 


This is why I don't care to engage John anymore for time being. In the 
frame/level he forces you to engage in, I gladly loose, because we're not 
seeing eye to eye anyway, as competitive ego-bashing is nothing I care for: 
I want to gain perspectives from discussion, not defend old familiar stuff 
religiously. Conflict and difference in position, yes. But riding that out 
and obsessing over the same stuff, no. I'll pass.

He is radical in his atheism to the extent that he obsesses and talks more 
about god than most Christians I know. Similar for his game with comp.

It's also clear he believes in reputation/status along with assuming an 
obviousness and accessibility of truth to him. 

Therefore he doesn't believe in defamation, because if your true 
reputation (plus the prizes you have won which should belisted in 
Wikipedia/Google of course) and the obvious/decidable truth content of your 
posts hold, you may, as somebody on top of religiously fanatical hierarchy, 
shame others into correctness; which doesn't mean agree to disagree 
while we go our ways, but instead constant barrage (which is simply spam 
or bot behavior to many outside his theological outlook) and iteration of 
the attacks, insults, mocking, and irrational repetition of linguistic 
tricks and slights of hand, which he knew how to do since before he was 
twelve.

So believing in impossibility of defamation, you can nitpick and insult 
repetitively forever. You're on a religious mission to disseminate truth. 
By now, it's so predictable how he will respond to the next answer of Bruno 
regarding step 3 (fumbling the pronouns cheap shot, or trivial beyond 
belief). He knows these lines of argument and understands them. Therefore 
it is difficult to extend good faith in difference of positions. Like 
religious radical he will continue to post this way with complete disregard 
of whether what he is writing is true or not. He must scream/insult louder 
and win. Even if this takes forever. 

I'm bored of this business. PGC 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-31 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014  PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:


  I don't care to engage John anymore


No NO, anything but that!

 I'm bored of this business.


Then goodby, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-31 Thread Kim Jones





On 1 Nov 2014, at 1:22 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

  Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking.
  
  So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't 
  agree with what you wrote above.
  
  you seek to find a logical contradiction as a way of invalidating my 
  assertion
  you seek to find a logical contradiction as a way of invalidating my 
  assertion
 
 I didn't just seek it I found it


You seek to find the contradiction because that is what you set out to do. That 
is your taste, your armchair sport. You always find what you seek because one 
always does, given that attitude. In other words, you approach every statement, 
every assertion with a view to exposing error. That's the mindset of a 
religious cleric tasked with outing heretics who do not respect the faith. 
Someone else might see more positive value in wondering in what sense it might 
be worthwhile considering that agreement and disagreement are not a part of 
thinking - given that it sounds pretty radical as an assertion, yes. Most 
people I imagine, would wonder a little about this statement, but you, in 
typical chest-beating fashion, immediately set out to kill anything that 
doesn't fit into your world view. Have you ever wondered about anything, John, 
or do you, like the religious clerics of the middle ages, know everything there 
is to know?


 and I can't imagine a better way of invalidating a assertion than finding a 
 logical contradiction in it.


Tee hee hee. That then, allows you to set up the pyre in the town square and 
light the fagot to burn the heretic alive. 

Any assertion whatsoever has value. The assertion aeroplanes should land 
upside down has extraordinary value despite it's apparent absurdity. The value 
is not in the assertion itself but in what it provokes or leads to in the mind 
of those hearing it. This is something you have to learn. The value of anything 
is something that exists in your head, not in the thing itself.

It is up to the thinker to find the value. This is a function of your mind that 
you haven't yet found.

Kim

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-31 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List


I ass-hume that was platonic, unless I changed my world beliefs, the dude, said 
he would block me, I demurred and so he did, and so I did back.  It's been a 
bit nicer for me. Absolutists are a bore and sometimes dangerous to freedom. 
 
Then goodby, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. 



  John K Clark

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 3:51 pm
Subject: Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?


On Fri, Oct 31, 2014  PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:

 

 I don't care to engage John anymore



No NO, anything but that!  


 I'm bored of this business.



Then goodby, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. 


  John K Clark




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-31 Thread LizR

On 31 October 2014 23:55, PGC multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:


 This is why I don't care to engage John anymore for time being. In the
 frame/level he forces you to engage in, I gladly loose, because we're not
 seeing eye to eye anyway, as competitive ego-bashing is nothing I care for:
 I want to gain perspectives from discussion, not defend old familiar stuff
 religiously. Conflict and difference in position, yes. But riding that out
 and obsessing over the same stuff, no. I'll pass.

 Nicely summarised. Not just true of John (probably true to an extent of
everyone here, though at least some of us try to overcome it when we find
ourselves doing it) - but he appears to be the current *bete noire*.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-31 Thread meekerdb

Actually I think discussion of John Clark and his faults is off topic.  How about taking 
it off line.


Brent

On 10/31/2014 12:56 PM, Kim Jones wrote:





On 1 Nov 2014, at 1:22 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com 
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:



 Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking.

 So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you 
don't
agree with what you wrote above.

 you seek to find a logical contradiction as a way of invalidating my 
assertion


I didn't just seek it I found it



You seek to find the contradiction because that is what you set out to do. That is your 
taste, your armchair sport. You always find what you seek because one always does, 
given that attitude. In other words, you approach every statement, every assertion with 
a view to exposing error. That's the mindset of a religious cleric tasked with outing 
heretics who do not respect the faith. Someone else might see more positive value in 
wondering in what sense it might be worthwhile considering that agreement and 
disagreement are not a part of thinking - given that it sounds pretty radical as an 
assertion, yes. Most people I imagine, would wonder a little about this statement, but 
you, in typical chest-beating fashion, immediately set out to kill anything that doesn't 
fit into your world view. Have you ever wondered about anything, John, or do you, like 
the religious clerics of the middle ages, know everything there is to know?



and I can't imagine a better way of invalidating a assertion than finding a logical 
contradiction in it.



Tee hee hee. That then, allows you to set up the pyre in the town square and light the 
fagot to burn the heretic alive.


Any assertion whatsoever has value. The assertion aeroplanes should land upside down 
has extraordinary value despite it's apparent absurdity. The value is not in the 
assertion itself but in what it provokes or leads to in the mind of those hearing it. 
This is something you have to learn. The value of anything is something that exists in 
your head, not in the thing itself.


It is up to the thinker to find the value. This is a function of your mind that you 
haven't yet found.


Kim

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

Haha... The irony is that Kant thought his construction of the matter 
concept could not be proven wrong since it was a priori...

But besides that, it remains the case that the electromagnetic force causes 
positive charges to repel each other and to attract negative charges, which 
are repellent among themselves. Your description of how a magnetic field 
works just seems to offer another way of describing the same fact. In other 
words: can't we say that the electromagnetic force is completely described 
(on some general level) by noting the repulsive and attractive forces 
between charges? Or is there more to this force?

Also with respect to Russell's remark about Pauli's exclusion principle 
(PEP): It says that fermions of the same type cannot have the same quantum 
state. But how is that different from saying that those fermions repel each 
other? And what is the status of the PEP? It seems to be independent of the 
four basic forces. Is it more of a logical principle? For example, Heinz 
Pagel in his book The Cosmic Code argues that PEP is an application of the 
logical principle of the identity of indiscernibles to the quantum level. 
In that case, I would say that the PEP actually provides a good argument 
for Kant's approach: using logical principles to argue for repulsion as 
constitutive of matter.

As for the fact that most philosopher's don't propose falsifiable 
hypotheses... This of course raises the question of what philosophy is 
supposed to do... I don't think there is on single answer to that question. 
I agree that a lot of philosophy is just empty words, said to say... Most 
philosophers, in the Continental tradition anyway, have lost touch with 
science... But that doesn't mean that philosophers should offer falsifiable 
claims like scientists. Take for example Popper's principle that claims are 
scientific iff they are falsifiable (the very principle you implicitly 
invoked). Is that principle itself falsifiable? Clearly not. We may have 
some inductive evidence for it (falsifiable theories have worked better 
through the centuries than non-falsifiable ones). But induction is 
precisely a principle rejected by Popper and is replaced by the 
falsification principle as the criterion of good science. It seems then 
that the falsification principle is an a priori construction that makes 
science possible. And that is a very Kantian approach...  








Op donderdag 30 oktober 2014 03:26:09 UTC+1 schreef John Clark:

 On Tue, Oct 28, 2014  Peter Sas peterj...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

  Kant constructs the concept of matter using only the concepts of 
 attractive and repulsive forces


 A magnetic field neither attracts nor repels an electron, instead it 
 applied a force that is always at right angles to the electron's direction 
 of motion. Oh well, at lest Kant came up with a theory that had the 
 capacity to be proven wrong, which is more than I can say about most 
 philosophers.

   John K Clark








 Recently I read Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786) 
 where he tries to base the basic concepts of physics on the transcendental 
 categories and principles laid down in his Critique of Pure Reason. One of 
 the most interesting parts, I found, was the second chapter on 'dynamics' 
 where Kant constructs the concept of matter using only the concepts of 
 attractive and repulsive forces (presupposing space and time as the forms 
 of sensory perception). Basically, the impenetrability of matter is 
 explained by a repulsive force inherent in matter, which needs to be 
 complemented by an attractive force, since otherwise matter would scatter 
 infinitely throughout space.

 Now what caught my attention was Kant's claim that all forces (in modern 
 terms: interactions) of nature must ultimately be understood as forms of 
 attraction and repulsion. His argument is very simple: in space, when one 
 object exerts a force on another, this can ony result either in the objects 
 moving away from each other (so that the force must be repulsive) or in the 
 objects moving towards each other (so that the force must be attractive). 

 Here is what he writes: 

 These [repulsion and attraction] are the only two moving forces that can 
 be thought. In the context of questions about one portion of matter 
 impressing some motion on another, the two portions must be regarded as 
 points; so any transaction of that kind must be regarded as happening 
 between two points on a single straight line. Now, there are only two ways 
 for two points to move relative to one another on a single straight line: 
 either they approach one another, caused to do so by an attractive force; 
 or they recede from one another, caused to do so by a repelling force. 
 Consequently, these two kinds of forces are the only ones we can make sense 
 of; and all the forces of motion in material Nature must come down to 
 them. (Chapter 2, Explanation 2 to Proposition 1)

 I thought this was a

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-30 Thread LizR

I thought the electromagnetic force was mediated by the exchange of photons
(or virtual photons). Does that involve any forces that aren't
attractive/repusive at the point of interaction (i.e. where said photons
are emitted or absorbed) ?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-30 Thread Richard Ruquist

Peter Sas needs an education in physics.
He came to the right place.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:10 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 I thought the electromagnetic force was mediated by the exchange of
 photons (or virtual photons). Does that involve any forces that aren't
 attractive/repusive at the point of interaction (i.e. where said photons
 are emitted or absorbed) ?

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

True, I need an education in physics... and math... and logic... Please 
don't hold back when I say something stupid...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

Photons are bosons, mediator particles The bosons mediate the forces 
between the fermions, the building pieces of matter... I guess what I wanna 
know is this: can all the foces mediated by the bosons be described as 
attractions or repulsions between the fermions? Or is that way too 
simplistic?

Op donderdag 30 oktober 2014 11:10:59 UTC+1 schreef Liz R:

 I thought the electromagnetic force was mediated by the exchange of 
 photons (or virtual photons). Does that involve any forces that aren't 
 attractive/repusive at the point of interaction (i.e. where said photons 
 are emitted or absorbed) ?



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-30 Thread Richard Ruquist

Magnetic forces are neither attractive nor repulsive.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:

 Photons are bosons, mediator particles The bosons mediate the forces
 between the fermions, the building pieces of matter... I guess what I wanna
 know is this: can all the foces mediated by the bosons be described as
 attractions or repulsions between the fermions? Or is that way too
 simplistic?

 Op donderdag 30 oktober 2014 11:10:59 UTC+1 schreef Liz R:

 I thought the electromagnetic force was mediated by the exchange of
 photons (or virtual photons). Does that involve any forces that aren't
 attractive/repusive at the point of interaction (i.e. where said photons
 are emitted or absorbed) ?

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-30 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:

 The irony is that Kant thought his construction of the matter concept
 could not be proven wrong since it was a priori...


And once again a philosopher has got it wrong.


  it remains the case that the electromagnetic force causes positive
 charges to repel each other and to attract negative charges, which are
 repellent among themselves. Your description of how a magnetic field works
 just seems to offer another way of describing the same fact.


A ELECTRIC field can only attract or repel a electron, but a MAGNETIC field
can only apply a force at right angles to the direction the charged object
is moving, and if it isn't moving the magnetic field has no effect on it.
As for a ELECTROMAGNETIC field, a changing electric field causes a magnetic
field at right angles to it, and a changing magnetic field causes a
electric field at right angles to it.



  can't we say that the electromagnetic force is completely described (on
 some general level) by noting the repulsive and attractive forces between
 charges?


No.

 Also with respect to Russell's remark about Pauli's exclusion principle
 (PEP): It says that fermions of the same type cannot have the same quantum
 state. But how is that different from saying that those fermions repel each
 other?


Nobody is saying nothing can be attractive or repulsive, we're just saying
not everything is.

 And what is the status of the PEP?


It's the basis of chemistry which is the basis of biology.

 It seems to be independent of the four basic forces.


It's not. It explains how electrons and electromagnetism work at the atomic
level (for larger things Maxwell's Equations work fine) and when things get
even smaller it explains how the strong nuclear force works inside the
nucleus.

 Is it more of a logical principle?


Yes. It explains why particles with half integer spin (1/2, 3/2, 5/2 etc)
like electrons, protons and neutrons can't be in the same quantum state but
particles with integer spin (0,1,2 etc)  like photons and the graviton and
the Higgs can be, in fact they prefer to be in the same state, that's why a
Laser works.


  Heinz Pagel in his book The Cosmic Code argues that PEP is an
 application of the logical principle of the identity of indiscernibles to
 the quantum level.


Yes. I've been know to badmouth philosophers but I've got to give credit to
Leibniz for that one, the identity of indiscernibles was important.


  I would say that the PEP actually provides a good argument for Kant's
 approach:


If you must give some credit to old philosophers give it to Leibniz not
Kant, Kant's theory is over 200 years old and in all that time it has
proven to be of zero help in understanding the universe.


  But induction is precisely a principle rejected by Popper


Some very very stupid philosophers may say they reject induction but they
do not, they couldn't get up in the morning and tie their shoes if they
did. Every animal without exception embraces induction. Why? Because
Evolution selected for animals that embraced induction. Why? Because
induction usually works. Why? Because things usually continue. Why? Because
that's the nature of our world.

if Everett is right then there is a universe where induction ALWAYS works,
although its not a very interesting place;  its a universe where all the
atoms are arranged in a unchanging and perfect crystal lattice that is
infinite in all directions. There is also a world where induction NEVER
works, a universe of nothing but white noise, and that too is a pretty dull
place. Our universe with all its complexity and richness is between these
two extremes, here induction is a great rule of thumb because it USUALLY
works.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-30 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 30 Oct 2014, at 15:06, Peter Sas wrote:

True, I need an education in physics... and math... and logic...  
Please don't hold back when I say something stupid...


No problem. In this list we get nervous only when people repeat the  
same stupidity an infinity of time.


Intelligence is just the attitude of courage for saying stupidities,  
and courage for realizing that, and courage for changing one's mind,  
usually for another stupidity, which needs some courage, etc.


To be sure I distinguish intelligence from competence. You need  
intelligence to develop competence, but usually competence has a  
negative feedback on intelligence.


Bruno






--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

Well, in defence of poor old Kant, let us remember that together with 
Laplace he was the discoverer of the nebular hypothesis about the formation 
of solar systems... I gues a similar story holds about galaxies...

So the man was not totally useless. 

And of course there is a strong Kantian aspect to the Kopenhagen 
interpretation of QM and in general in theories about subjective reduction 
(consciousness collapses the wave function) But I gues that on this 
forum WMI is most popular... Personally I still feel most attracted to 
subjective reduction, because it fits so well with the apparent 
irreducibility of consciousness to physical reality and it explains the 
subjective experience of the flow of time (we constantly create classical 
reality through our -- collective -- observation of.the quantum reality).

And of course I was not arguing against induction... just saying that 
Popper's falsification principle is itself not falsifiable nor based on 
induction...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

Obviously I meant MWI where I wrote WMI...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-30 Thread meekerdb


On 10/30/2014 10:16 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com 
mailto:peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:


 The irony is that Kant thought his construction of the matter concept 
could not be
proven wrong since it was a priori...


And once again a philosopher has got it wrong.

 it remains the case that the electromagnetic force causes positive 
charges to
repel each other and to attract negative charges, which are repellent among
themselves. Your description of how a magnetic field works just seems to 
offer
another way of describing the same fact.


A ELECTRIC field can only attract or repel a electron, but a MAGNETIC field can only 
apply a force at right angles to the direction the charged object is moving, and if it 
isn't moving the magnetic field has no effect on it. As for a ELECTROMAGNETIC field, a 
changing electric field causes a magnetic field at right angles to it, and a changing 
magnetic field causes a electric field at right angles to it.


 can't we say that the electromagnetic force is completely described (on 
some
general level) by noting the repulsive and attractive forces between 
charges?


No.


Attractive/repulsive I would assume to refer to forces acting along the line between two 
bodies.  The magnetic force between two moving charged particles is still along the line 
between them, even though it isn't along the direction of their motion.  But that's in a 
non-relativistic picture where there's a frame independent meaning to line between 
them.  Relativistically you need to think of the force as local momentum exchange with 
the field.  That takes place at a point and there is no line between them.




 Also with respect to Russell's remark about Pauli's exclusion principle 
(PEP): It
says that fermions of the same type cannot have the same quantum state. But 
how is
that different from saying that those fermions repel each other?


Nobody is saying nothing can be attractive or repulsive, we're just saying not 
everything is.


 And what is the status of the PEP?


It's the basis of chemistry which is the basis of biology.

 It seems to be independent of the four basic forces.


It's not. It explains how electrons and electromagnetism work at the atomic level (for 
larger things Maxwell's Equations work fine) and when things get even smaller it 
explains how the strong nuclear force works inside the nucleus.


 Is it more of a logical principle?


Yes. It explains why particles with half integer spin (1/2, 3/2, 5/2 etc) like 
electrons, protons and neutrons can't be in the same quantum state



I don't think the negation of Pauli's exclusion principle would entail a *logical* 
contradiction.  The exclusion principle follows from Lorentz symmetry in quantum field 
theory applied to particles with half-integer spin.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-30 Thread LizR

On 31 October 2014 03:06, Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:

 True, I need an education in physics... and math... and logic... Please
 don't hold back when I say something stupid...


Don't worry, they won't. The problem is getting them to hold back when you
say something intelligent.

Beware of replies that start But... - these appear to often be
agreement cunningly disguised to look like argumentation.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-30 Thread Kim Jones

 

 On 31 Oct 2014, at 11:31 am, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Beware of replies that start But... - these appear to often be agreement 
 cunningly disguised to look like argumentation.

Excellent point. In fact there is no real need for anyone to play the 
clever-clever yes, but card wherever real thinking is being done. Real 
thinkers neither agree nor disagree with each other's assertions. Real thinkers 
put their point, their observation, their piece of the puzzle on the table and 
then others either see value in it or they don't. There is no need for anyone 
to do what Clark does habitually which is to pour a bucket of scorn (or worse) 
onto someone's thinking just because it offends his personal taste in whatever; 
that's just sandpit behaviour. 

I have said it before and I will say it again now. Agreement and disagreement 
are not aspects of real thinking. There can be far too many subterfuges hidden 
in agreement to make it a genuine move. I may choose to agree with you for 
example, not because I understand you but because I want you to like me. 
Agreeing with someone is the cheapest and easiest way to gain their support, or 
to at least get them off your back. Agreement does not move thinking forward, 
it offers nothing in itself. Similarly, disagreement offers nothing other than 
a drawn sword or a rattling of a sabre in its scabbard; more sandpit behaviour.

Some so-called crazy ideas have movement value - this means the idea, 
although unacceptable for some reason, may be a stepping stone to a better idea 
if you freely associate with it and withhold your argument from incredulity 
kneejerk reaction.

Kim

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-30 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:


  Agreement and disagreement are not aspects of real thinking.


So if I assume you do real thinking then I must conclude that you don't
agree with what you wrote above.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-29 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014  Peter Sas peterjacco...@gmail.com wrote:

 Kant constructs the concept of matter using only the concepts of
 attractive and repulsive forces


A magnetic field neither attracts nor repels an electron, instead it
applied a force that is always at right angles to the electron's direction
of motion. Oh well, at lest Kant came up with a theory that had the
capacity to be proven wrong, which is more than I can say about most
philosophers.

  John K Clark








Recently I read Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786)
 where he tries to base the basic concepts of physics on the transcendental
 categories and principles laid down in his Critique of Pure Reason. One of
 the most interesting parts, I found, was the second chapter on 'dynamics'
 where Kant constructs the concept of matter using only the concepts of
 attractive and repulsive forces (presupposing space and time as the forms
 of sensory perception). Basically, the impenetrability of matter is
 explained by a repulsive force inherent in matter, which needs to be
 complemented by an attractive force, since otherwise matter would scatter
 infinitely throughout space.

 Now what caught my attention was Kant's claim that all forces (in modern
 terms: interactions) of nature must ultimately be understood as forms of
 attraction and repulsion. His argument is very simple: in space, when one
 object exerts a force on another, this can ony result either in the objects
 moving away from each other (so that the force must be repulsive) or in the
 objects moving towards each other (so that the force must be attractive).

 Here is what he writes:

 These [repulsion and attraction] are the only two moving forces that can
 be thought. In the context of questions about one portion of matter
 impressing some motion on another, the two portions must be regarded as
 points; so any transaction of that kind must be regarded as happening
 between two points on a single straight line. Now, there are only two ways
 for two points to move relative to one another on a single straight line:
 either they approach one another, caused to do so by an attractive force;
 or they recede from one another, caused to do so by a repelling force.
 Consequently, these two kinds of forces are the only ones we can make sense
 of; and all the forces of motion in material Nature must come down to
 them. (Chapter 2, Explanation 2 to Proposition 1)

 I thought this was a real eye opener. Nowadays, of course, we know much
 more about the basic interactions than in Kant's time. So I started
 wondering: First, is it true that all the basic interactions are forms of
 attraction and/or repulsion? And if so, then could it perhaps be possible
 that all the interactions can ultimately be unified in one most elementary
 form of attraction and repulsion? Isn't is the case that when we get closer
 to the singularity the interactions become one? But what then are they
 unified into?

 Gravity is clear attractive, though I gather that in inflation gravity can
 also be repulsive.
 In electromagnetism repulsion and attraction too play an important role,
 though I am not sure if this also holds for the weak nuclear force to which
 the electromagnetic force appears to be related.
 In the strong nuclear force attraction too plays a crucial role.

 So how do you think about Kant's suggestion in the light of present day
 physics? Is there a chance that all the fundamental interactions are
 different manifestations of one single polarity of attraction and
 repulsion?




 In short: matter is defined as filling space and as impenetrable for other
 pieces of matter. According to Kant, this concept of matter can be fully
 contstructed


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-28 Thread Peter Sas

Sorry about that last line... I forgot to delete that...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-28 Thread Russell Standish

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 06:01:15AM -0700, Peter Sas wrote:
 Recently I read Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786) 
 where he tries to base the basic concepts of physics on the transcendental 
 categories and principles laid down in his Critique of Pure Reason. One of 
 the most interesting parts, I found, was the second chapter on 'dynamics' 
 where Kant constructs the concept of matter using only the concepts of 
 attractive and repulsive forces (presupposing space and time as the forms 
 of sensory perception). Basically, the impenetrability of matter is 
 explained by a repulsive force inherent in matter, which needs to be 
 complemented by an attractive force, since otherwise matter would scatter 
 infinitely throughout space.
 
 Now what caught my attention was Kant's claim that all forces (in modern 
 terms: interactions) of nature must ultimately be understood as forms of 
 attraction and repulsion. His argument is very simple: in space, when one 
 object exerts a force on another, this can ony result either in the objects 
 moving away from each other (so that the force must be repulsive) or in the 
 objects moving towards each other (so that the force must be attractive). 
 
 Here is what he writes: 
 
 These [repulsion and attraction] are the only two moving forces that can 
 be thought. In the context of questions about one portion of matter 
 impressing some motion on another, the two portions must be regarded as 
 points; so any transaction of that kind must be regarded as happening 
 between two points on a single straight line. Now, there are only two ways 
 for two points to move relative to one another on a single straight line: 
 either they approach one another, caused to do so by an attractive force; 
 or they recede from one another, caused to do so by a repelling force. 
 Consequently, these two kinds of forces are the only ones we can make sense 
 of; and all the forces of motion in material Nature must come down to 
 them. (Chapter 2, Explanation 2 to Proposition 1)
 
 I thought this was a real eye opener. Nowadays, of course, we know much 
 more about the basic interactions than in Kant's time. So I started 
 wondering: First, is it true that all the basic interactions are forms of 
 attraction and/or repulsion? And if so, then could it perhaps be possible 
 that all the interactions can ultimately be unified in one most elementary 
 form of attraction and repulsion? Isn't is the case that when we get closer 
 to the singularity the interactions become one? But what then are they 
 unified into?
 
 Gravity is clear attractive, though I gather that in inflation gravity can 
 also be repulsive.
 In electromagnetism repulsion and attraction too play an important role, 
 though I am not sure if this also holds for the weak nuclear force to which 
 the electromagnetic force appears to be related.
 In the strong nuclear force attraction too plays a crucial role.
 
 So how do you think about Kant's suggestion in the light of present day 
 physics? Is there a chance that all the fundamental interactions are 
 different manifestations of one single polarity of attraction and 
 repulsion? 
 
 
 

Well that description remarkably presages electrostatic interations,
which come in both repulsive and attractive forms, are responsible for
the solidity of matter. Kant was perhaps 100 years ahead of his time
there.

But not 200 years. It turns out that classical electrodyanamics is
unstable - we should have all vanished in a puff of ultraviolet
radiation if what Kant said is actually true. Stability of matter
requires the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and not only that - to
have any sort of interesting chemistry requires the Pauli exclusion
principle.

In the words of our esteemed John Clark - clearly Kant doesn't know
what he's talking about :).

Cheers
-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-28 Thread LizR

Balancing classical forces appears to require cancellation to infinite
precision (which is one of the problems with Tronnies). Quantum theory
fixes that by doing something akin to converting the maths from using real
numbers to integers.

On 29 October 2014 10:43, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 06:01:15AM -0700, Peter Sas wrote:
  Recently I read Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786)
  where he tries to base the basic concepts of physics on the
 transcendental
  categories and principles laid down in his Critique of Pure Reason. One
 of
  the most interesting parts, I found, was the second chapter on 'dynamics'
  where Kant constructs the concept of matter using only the concepts of
  attractive and repulsive forces (presupposing space and time as the forms
  of sensory perception). Basically, the impenetrability of matter is
  explained by a repulsive force inherent in matter, which needs to be
  complemented by an attractive force, since otherwise matter would scatter
  infinitely throughout space.
 
  Now what caught my attention was Kant's claim that all forces (in modern
  terms: interactions) of nature must ultimately be understood as forms of
  attraction and repulsion. His argument is very simple: in space, when one
  object exerts a force on another, this can ony result either in the
 objects
  moving away from each other (so that the force must be repulsive) or in
 the
  objects moving towards each other (so that the force must be attractive).
 
  Here is what he writes:
 
  These [repulsion and attraction] are the only two moving forces that can
  be thought. In the context of questions about one portion of matter
  impressing some motion on another, the two portions must be regarded as
  points; so any transaction of that kind must be regarded as happening
  between two points on a single straight line. Now, there are only two
 ways
  for two points to move relative to one another on a single straight line:
  either they approach one another, caused to do so by an attractive force;
  or they recede from one another, caused to do so by a repelling force.
  Consequently, these two kinds of forces are the only ones we can make
 sense
  of; and all the forces of motion in material Nature must come down to
  them. (Chapter 2, Explanation 2 to Proposition 1)
 
  I thought this was a real eye opener. Nowadays, of course, we know much
  more about the basic interactions than in Kant's time. So I started
  wondering: First, is it true that all the basic interactions are forms of
  attraction and/or repulsion? And if so, then could it perhaps be possible
  that all the interactions can ultimately be unified in one most
 elementary
  form of attraction and repulsion? Isn't is the case that when we get
 closer
  to the singularity the interactions become one? But what then are they
  unified into?
 
  Gravity is clear attractive, though I gather that in inflation gravity
 can
  also be repulsive.
  In electromagnetism repulsion and attraction too play an important role,
  though I am not sure if this also holds for the weak nuclear force to
 which
  the electromagnetic force appears to be related.
  In the strong nuclear force attraction too plays a crucial role.
 
  So how do you think about Kant's suggestion in the light of present day
  physics? Is there a chance that all the fundamental interactions are
  different manifestations of one single polarity of attraction and
  repulsion?
 
 
 

 Well that description remarkably presages electrostatic interations,
 which come in both repulsive and attractive forms, are responsible for
 the solidity of matter. Kant was perhaps 100 years ahead of his time
 there.

 But not 200 years. It turns out that classical electrodyanamics is
 unstable - we should have all vanished in a puff of ultraviolet
 radiation if what Kant said is actually true. Stability of matter
 requires the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and not only that - to
 have any sort of interesting chemistry requires the Pauli exclusion
 principle.

 In the words of our esteemed John Clark - clearly Kant doesn't know
 what he's talking about :).

 Cheers
 --


 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)

 

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to

Re: Do all forces derive from repulsionattraction?

2014-10-28 Thread meekerdb

On 10/28/2014 6:01 AM, Peter Sas wrote:
Recently I readKant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786) where he tries
to base the basic concepts of physics on the transcendental categories and principles
laid down in his Critique of Pure Reason. One of the most interesting parts, I found,
was the second chapter on 'dynamics' where Kant constructs the concept of matter using
only the concepts of attractive and repulsive forces (presupposing space and time as the
forms of sensory perception). Basically, the impenetrability of matter is explained by a
repulsive force inherent in matter, which needs to be complemented by an attractive
force, since otherwise matter would scatter infinitely throughout space.

Now what caught my attention was Kant's claim that all forces (in modern terms:
interactions) of nature must ultimately be understood as forms of attraction and
repulsion. His argument is very simple: in space, when one object exerts a force on
another, this can ony result either in the objects moving away from each other (so that
the force must be repulsive) or in the objects moving towards each other (so that the
force must be attractive).

Here is what he writes:

These [repulsion and attraction] are the only two moving forces that can be thought. In
the context of questions about one portion of matter impressing some motion on another,
the two portions must be regarded as points; so any transaction of that kind must be
regarded as happening between two points on a single straight line. Now, there are only
two ways for two points to move relative to one another on a single straight line:
either they approach one another, caused to do so by an attractive force; or they recede
from one another, caused to do so by a repelling force. Consequently, these two kinds of
forces are the only ones we can make sense of; and all the forces of motion in material
Nature must come down to them. (Chapter 2, Explanation 2 to Proposition 1)

I thought this was a real eye opener. Nowadays, of course, we know much more about the
basic interactions than in Kant's time. So I started wondering: First, is it true that
all the basic interactions are forms of attraction and/or repulsion? And if so, then
could it perhaps be possible that all the interactions can ultimately be unified in one
most elementary form of attraction and repulsion? Isn't is the case that when we get
closer to the singularity the interactions become one? But what then are they unified into?

Gravity is clear attractive, though I gather that in inflation gravity can also be
repulsive.
In electromagnetism repulsion and attraction too play an important role, though I am not
sure if this also holds for the weak nuclear force to which the electromagnetic force
appears to be related.

In the strong nuclear force attraction too plays a crucial role.

So how do you think about Kant's suggestion in the light of present day physics? Is
there a chance that all the fundamental interactions are different manifestations of one
single polarity of attraction and repulsion?

In short: matter is defined as filling space and as impenetrable for other pieces of
matter. According to Kant, this concept of matter can be fully contstructed

I think Kant is interesting because he so well exemplifies the limitations of logic and
reason. Rotating bodies pull spacetime around with them so the force is not along the
line between them. Photons and electrons have angular momentum and they transmit that in
interactions. Particles have other attributes, generically called charges, which are
conserved just like momentum and so mediate interactions like forces. So once again
Kant exemplifies a failure of imagination.

Brent
One cannot guess the real difficulties of a problem before
having solved it.
--- Carl Ludwig Siegel

RE: HUMANS all come FROM AFRICA: HERPES does not lie

My fellow Africans some brilliant cold (sore) case detective work! A relatively 
simpler parasitical life form has been studied in its association with humans 
to provide an independent line of genetic evidence that supports the out of 
Africa hypothesis.

HUMANS all come FROM AFRICA: HERPES does not lie

Ex Africa semper frigida ulcus

Many lotharios will agree that there's nothing attractive about a cold sore - 
but the virus behind this common affliction is proving very useful in tracing 
the migration patterns of early humans.

In fact, boffins have been able to analyse the DNA of the unsightly, lip-borne 
herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) to shore up the out of Africa theory of 
early human development.

Scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison were able to identify 31 
different strains of HSV-1 in North America, Europe, Africa and Asia. The 
stunning result was that separate strains of the virus could be found on each 
continent.

This fact allowed the boffins to trace the pattern of human migration by 
analysing the relatively simple genome of HSV-1, which is significantly less 
complex than the human gene.

It's also pretty common as the virus is spread easily through saliva or contact 
with an infected piece of skin, and is a lifelong affliction.

Curtis Brandt, a professor of medical microbiology and ophthalmology, said: 
The viral strains sort exactly as you would predict based on sequencing of 
human genomes. We found that all of the African isolates cluster together, all 
the virus from the Far East, Korea, Japan, China clustered together, all the 
viruses in Europe and America, with one exception, clustered together.

What we found follows exactly what the anthropologists have told us, and the 
molecular geneticists who have analyzed the human genome have told us, about 
where humans originated and how they spread across the planet.

Researchers looked at the 31 different genomes and built a family tree for 
the HSV-1 virus.

What they found was was clear support for the out-of-Africa hypothesis.

Our results clearly support the anthropological data, and other genetic data, 
that explain how humans came from Africa into the Middle East and started to 
spread from there, Brandt added.

The study even seemed to back up the theory that human population of the planet 
was begun by a small group of pioneers who managed to cross the Sahara and 
escape the continent.

There is a population bottleneck between Africa and the rest of the world. 
Very few people were involved in the initial migration from Africa, Brandt 
continued. When you look at the phylogenetic tree from the virus, it's exactly 
the same as what the anthropologists have told us.

The results also seem to back up the theory of a land bridge over the Bering 
Strait, due to the fact that a Asian strain was found in Texas.

Which leads us on to an old joke. What's the difference between herpes and true 
love? Herpes is forever.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/22/early_human_beings_loved_snogging_as_much_as_us/

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: HUMANS all come FROM AFRICA: HERPES does not lie

2013-10-22 Thread LizR

I didn't realise there was still much doubt about this. I thought studying
human DNA had made the out of Africa hypothesis fairly robust. (Obviously
more confirming evidence will add another sigma, or whatever...)

?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: HUMANS all come FROM AFRICA: HERPES does not lie

Exactly, this adds an independent line of DNA evidence that supports this
hypothesis. 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 2:28 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: HUMANS all come FROM AFRICA: HERPES does not lie

 

I didn't realise there was still much doubt about this. I thought studying
human DNA had made the out of Africa hypothesis fairly robust. (Obviously
more confirming evidence will add another sigma, or whatever...)

?

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: HUMANS all come FROM AFRICA: HERPES does not lie

2013-10-22 Thread LizR

On 23 October 2013 11:04, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Exactly, this adds an independent line of DNA evidence that supports this
 hypothesis.

OK, fair enough. I just thought the headline *HUMANS all come FROM AFRICA:
HERPES does not lie* seemed to indicate that the writer thought this was a
major discovery.*

*
I didn't intend to be snarky. It's all very interesting.*
*

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: HUMANS all come FROM AFRICA: HERPES does not lie

2013-10-22 Thread Russell Standish

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:28:19AM +1300, LizR wrote:
 I didn't realise there was still much doubt about this. I thought studying
 human DNA had made the out of Africa hypothesis fairly robust. (Obviously
 more confirming evidence will add another sigma, or whatever...)
 

There is some evidence of interbreeding between the H. sapiens that
migrated from Africa, and the indigenous Neanderthal and Denisovan
species. IIRC, the indigineous species contributed something like 10%
of the genetic code to the humans from those areas - N to Europeans,
and D to some island populations off Asia.

So its not quite Out of Africa exlusively, more like mostly Out of
Africa, with a small dash of Multiregionalism.

But its fascinating what we've learnt just in the last decade. When my
son asked me (for a science assignment) to name a significant
scientific technology, I immediately said PCR!

Cheers
-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: HUMANS all come FROM AFRICA: HERPES does not lie

Yes... and some very interesting stuff too... It's also interesting also how
widespread the interbreeding between Neanderthal and Denisovan's appears to
have been based on DNA
Interestingly there now appears to have been at least two separate hominid
species -- including Homo floresiensis i.e. the Hobbits -- that in addition
to the Neanderthal  in Europe primarily -- have left a genetic trail in the
heritage of the peoples now living in Micronesia and amongst aboriginal
Australian populations. This is more clear in the case of the Denisovan's
and Neanderthal and we can only speculate whether it also occurred between
homo sapiens and homo floresiensis, but I somehow suspect it happened.
As we become more astute in reading DNA and understanding the larger
sequences that exist in them and their lineages I suspect we will be finding
other interesting lineages mixed in to our code... and that we are a
hybridized species.
But then is this not the way of nature :)

Comparing genomes, scientists concluded that today's humans outside Africa
carry an average of 2.5 percent Neanderthal DNA, and that people from parts
of Oceania also carry about 5 percent Denisovan DNA. A study published in
November found that Southeast Asians carry about 1 percent Denisovan DNA in
addition to their Neanderthal genes. It is unclear whether Denisovans and
Neanderthals also interbred. [Other studies seem to indicate that they did]
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/science/gains-in-dna-are-speeding-research
-into-human-origins.html?pagewanted=all_r=0

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 3:33 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: HUMANS all come FROM AFRICA: HERPES does not lie

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:28:19AM +1300, LizR wrote:
 I didn't realise there was still much doubt about this. I thought 
 studying human DNA had made the out of Africa hypothesis fairly 
 robust. (Obviously more confirming evidence will add another sigma, or 
 whatever...)
 

There is some evidence of interbreeding between the H. sapiens that migrated
from Africa, and the indigenous Neanderthal and Denisovan species. IIRC, the
indigineous species contributed something like 10% of the genetic code to
the humans from those areas - N to Europeans, and D to some island
populations off Asia.

So its not quite Out of Africa exlusively, more like mostly Out of Africa,
with a small dash of Multiregionalism.

But its fascinating what we've learnt just in the last decade. When my son
asked me (for a science assignment) to name a significant scientific
technology, I immediately said PCR!

Cheers
-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: HUMANS all come FROM AFRICA: HERPES does not lie

2013-10-22 Thread LizR

Where do pigs come in? :)


On 23 October 2013 12:24, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Yes... and some very interesting stuff too... It's also interesting also
 how
 widespread the interbreeding between Neanderthal and Denisovan's appears to
 have been based on DNA
 Interestingly there now appears to have been at least two separate hominid
 species -- including Homo floresiensis i.e. the Hobbits -- that in addition
 to the Neanderthal  in Europe primarily -- have left a genetic trail in the
 heritage of the peoples now living in Micronesia and amongst aboriginal
 Australian populations. This is more clear in the case of the Denisovan's
 and Neanderthal and we can only speculate whether it also occurred between
 homo sapiens and homo floresiensis, but I somehow suspect it happened.
 As we become more astute in reading DNA and understanding the larger
 sequences that exist in them and their lineages I suspect we will be
 finding
 other interesting lineages mixed in to our code... and that we are a
 hybridized species.
 But then is this not the way of nature :)

 Comparing genomes, scientists concluded that today's humans outside Africa
 carry an average of 2.5 percent Neanderthal DNA, and that people from parts
 of Oceania also carry about 5 percent Denisovan DNA. A study published in
 November found that Southeast Asians carry about 1 percent Denisovan DNA in
 addition to their Neanderthal genes. It is unclear whether Denisovans and
 Neanderthals also interbred. [Other studies seem to indicate that they did]

 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/science/gains-in-dna-are-speeding-research
 -into-human-origins.html?pagewanted=all_r=0

 -Original Message-
 From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
 Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2013 3:33 PM
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: HUMANS all come FROM AFRICA: HERPES does not lie

 On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:28:19AM +1300, LizR wrote:
  I didn't realise there was still much doubt about this. I thought
  studying human DNA had made the out of Africa hypothesis fairly
  robust. (Obviously more confirming evidence will add another sigma, or
  whatever...)
 

 There is some evidence of interbreeding between the H. sapiens that
 migrated
 from Africa, and the indigenous Neanderthal and Denisovan species. IIRC,
 the
 indigineous species contributed something like 10% of the genetic code to
 the humans from those areas - N to Europeans, and D to some island
 populations off Asia.

 So its not quite Out of Africa exlusively, more like mostly Out of
 Africa,
 with a small dash of Multiregionalism.

 But its fascinating what we've learnt just in the last decade. When my son
 asked me (for a science assignment) to name a significant scientific
 technology, I immediately said PCR!

 Cheers
 --


 
 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
 Principal, High Performance Coders
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: HUMANS all come FROM AFRICA: HERPES does not lie