John, it's known for decades that pairs of particles called
virtual particles pop into existence from nothingness in
vacuum, and then immediately annihilate each other.
In fact, Stephen Hawking found out about the emission of
black holes using this phenomenon.
It's quite possible that our
Love it, love it, love it. And here I thought it was just an idiotic TV show!
Watch out for those subliminals, folks! They're everywhere (-:
On Thursday, December 12, 2013 9:38 PM, anartax...@yahoo.com
anartax...@yahoo.com wrote:
Sherwood Schwartz, the creator of Gilligan's Island,
What Barry means is that he's way too ignorant of theology to discuss it
rationally, and he isn't interested in learning anything that would make it
possible for him to do so even enough to make a decent case against its
arguments. Instead, he'll stick with the potshots that make his ignorance
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:
What Barry means is that he's way too ignorant of theology to discuss it
rationally, and he isn't interested in learning anything that would make it
possible for him to do so even enough to make a decent case against its
I recall going through such a phase, about twenty years ago - I was always
right, judgmental as hell, had it all dialed in, knew exactly where everyone
else was coming from - a lot like this dude's current trip - and I was the
loneliest, most miserable soul on the planet, as a result. I doubt
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote:
I recall going through such a phase, about twenty years ago - I was always
right, judgmental as hell, had it all dialed in, knew exactly where everyone
else was coming from - a lot like this dude's current trip - and I
Jason,
It appears that you're up to date to the latest popular theories in cosmology.
You may also be familiar with John Haglin's cosmological theory. I believe
this theory would explain the virtual particles that you're wondering about.
These particles could come from the unified field.
jr_esq,
I have read it, less interested in rereading it at this point. The meaning
between absolute and relative is only relevant when you are experiencing waking
consciousness and you are interested in spiritual things; when you are
experiencing TC and you are having your first taste of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@ wrote:
Also, your statement that the universe just happened raises some
questions for logical and scientific reasons. As stated in the Kalam
Cosmological Argument, your statement cannot stand further
Barry ranted:
It's just one of those arguments that God-freaks trot out to prove the
existence of the Big Man In The Sky they believe in.
Sheesh, you're even more ignorant than Richard Dawkins. Get that Straw Man in
the Sky before he gets you!
The whole *point* of the thesis I proposed
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote:
Barry ranted:
It's just one of those arguments that God-freaks trot out to prove the
existence of the Big Man In The Sky they believe in.
Sheesh, you're even more ignorant than Richard Dawkins. Get that Straw Man in
the Sky
Thanks for da kind woids, Ann.
snip
Ann wrote:
I loved absolutely everything about this reply. This is not because I
necessarily agree with all of it but because it comes from a place of such
intelligence and openness and clarity that it makes me feel good and it makes
the points Judy
Barry,
It's logical to say that there is a Prime Mover if one reaches an infinite
regression situation. It isn't arbitrary. Specifically, space and time are
mental constructs. They cannot exist without a Knower. Without a Knower,
there is NOTHING, NOWHERE, NOTIME. How is it possible
Comments on jr_esq's response to Barry
What are the characteristics of a 'Prime Mover'? How do you find those out?
How do you determine if there is a prime mover or not? What is the test?
With regard to experiences that result from meditation etc., I have had a
number of really
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote:
Comments on jr_esq's response to Barry
What are the characteristics of a 'Prime Mover'? How do you find those out?
How do you determine if there is a prime mover or not? What is the test?
With regard to experiences that
Sherwood Schwartz, the creator of Gilligan's Island, said he patterned the
'seven stranded castaways' after the seven deadly sins but he didn't admit it
until years later in his book about the show. (There is that number '7' again,
as in seven states of unconsciousness)
The sins and their
Re I have the heat turned down to save $$.:
If you're so smart why aren't you rich?
Sorry, just being cute. But aren't awakening experiences with their
rock-solid sort of effect that cannot be doubted more amenable to explanations
that prioritise idealism (mind is more fundamental than
This is very humorous and I see the fit. However, I think Gilligan as Satan is
a bit of a stretch. Gilligan's Island was the only show I was allowed to watch
growing up in that it fit the 30 minute timeframe and was on just before dinner
and didn't have any real violence in it. All that
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote:
Sherwood Schwartz, the creator of Gilligan's Island, said he patterned the
'seven stranded castaways' after the seven deadly sins but he didn't admit it
until years later in his book about the show. (There is that number '7'
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote:
Re: There is no you. You are gone. There is just life. Sounds crazy doesn't
it. Xeno, how are you defining you? What is writing this? What makes the
choice to have hot chocolate instead of some other drink and watch a frivolous
Anartaxius,
You should reread MMY's commentary on the Bhagavad Gita to understand the
meaning between the absolute and the relative. He stated that human beings
live both the absolute and the relative at the same time.
Specifically, the juncture of the absolute and the relative is
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Anartaxius wrote:
Comments on jr_esq's response to Barry
What are the characteristics of a 'Prime Mover'? How do you find
those out? How do you determine if there is a prime mover or not? What
is the test?
Thanks for your comments on all of this, Xeno.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams wrote:
This statement of Barry's is somewhat misleading - Buddhists are not
atheists.
I won't get sucked into a debate with either Richard or Empty on this. I
will only point out that trying to claim anything about What Buddhists
It should be noted that Barry is the author of this thread, and that he
sucks, when it comes to describing what Buddhists believe. Everyone
knows that Buddhas are supernatural beings, not real people that can
fly up in the air like Rama supposedly did.
All Buddhist believe in Buddhas -
Oh Barry, how you really hate the human race. You are constantly irritated and
upset by how stupid everyone is and how different you are from the rest of the
blathering, naive masses. The mere idea that you espouse of there having been
no creation or creator and that those who believe in such
See what I mean about minds too small to conceive of eternity?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
Oh Barry, how you really hate the human race. You are constantly
irritated and upset by how stupid everyone is and how different you are
from the rest of the blathering, naive masses.
Well, c'mon now, Ann, it's not as if Barry ever suggested that mainstream
science was any more than adolescent twaddle. I mean, he's been rock-solid
consistent about mainstream science having its head up its ass, just like the
rest of us. Can't call him a hypocrite on that score, no siree bob.
God is widely conceived to be eternal, you dumb fuck.
Lord, you have been our dwelling place
throughout all generations.
Before the mountains were born
or you brought forth the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
You turn men back to dust,
saying, “Return
Re I stayed out of the latest tempest-in-a-pisspot discussions of the Big Bang,
and how REEEAAALLY STOOOPID some people here think those who don't believe in
it are,:
I think it was the other way around. Ie, me saying how credulous people are in
*believing* in the Big Bang ie, in
God is widely conceived to be eternal, you dumb fuck.
Love it! This would be awesome, stitched into a sampler, with a border of roses
around it - excellent!
Buddhists don't believe in eternity, that would be considered an
extreme view. Buddhists follow the Middle Way, believing neither in the
extremes of eternalism or annihilationism. Buddhists ascribe to the view
of dependent origination - everything happens for a reason - and that
emptiness
Yeah, the whole Big Bang theory is based on the measurement of cosmic
background radiation, similar to tuning a satellite dish, and staying away from
the earth noise.
So, we've built instruments to measure the background radiation, out there.
We have reached a point of measurement, where, the
But Richard, do Buddhists believe in ONE supreme being?
On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 8:29 AM, Richard J. Williams
pundits...@gmail.com wrote:
It should be noted that Barry is the author of this thread, and that he sucks,
when it comes to describing what Buddhists believe. Everyone
If Curtis were here, he would almost certainly note that what may seem to us
laypeople to be common sense (e,g., the mass of
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars couldn't possibly have been squashed
into a point) is not a reliable basis for evaluating scientific theories.
After all, if
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita wrote:
Re I stayed out of the latest tempest-in-a-pisspot discussions of
the Big Bang, and how REEEAAALLY STOOOPID some people here think those
who don't believe in it are,:
I think it was the other way around. Ie, me saying how credulous
Maybe Share would make him one. ;-)
DoctorDumbass opined:
(I wrote:)
God is widely conceived to be eternal, you dumb fuck.
Love it! This would be awesome, stitched into a sampler, with a border of roses
around it - excellent!
Well, I thought it was a very tantric comment so I'd probably use the yin yang
symbol rather than roses! And it kind of made turq the father of God!
On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:25 AM, authfri...@yahoo.com
authfri...@yahoo.com wrote:
Maybe Share would make him one. ;-)
Actually, it isn't what you believe that's the problem. It's your thought-free,
scornful dismissal of the beliefs of others (as in this and your earlier posts
today).
Barry, panties well twisted, lashes out:
But go figure. Some people get REALLY bent out of shape (like Ann just
Wow, turq, what the heck do you mean by: a form of chaotic controlled folly,
reality being determined by nothing more (or less) than the combined
sentience of all sentient beings in the universe.
On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:11 AM, TurquoiseB turquoi...@yahoo.com
wrote:
--- In
I mean, turq, maybe this is what God is really, the combined sentience, etc.
BTW, yahoo is being wonky today so if I take to long to write a reply, it
refreshes all by itself!
On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:41 AM, Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Wow, turq, what the heck do
While I'm at it:
I'm just always amused at the kneejerk reactions to anyone (often moi,
admittedly) who suggests that no such concept as God is necessary to
explain the universe, or even the fairly simple belief that the universe
has no beginning or end. I honestly think that
It's a bit more complicated than that, actually. The Wikipedia article is a
good starting point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
And dark matter is still just inferential; we haven't yet been able to
identify any dark matter particles.
No,
Barry,
You're making statements based on your own faith (Buddhist, non-theist or
whatever) which cannot be accepted as scientific. The current scientific
discoveries in cosmology do not support your position. Specifically,
1. Scientists have accidentally found the existence of the
Re The current scientific discoveries in cosmology do not support your
position [Big Bang dissing].:
That's true. But modern physics has only been around for a century or so.
We're still at the baby-crawling stage. You no longer think your siblings stop
existing when they walk out the
Buddhists believe in many Buddhas and that in your essential nature you
are a Buddha too.
On 12/11/2013 9:58 AM, Share Long wrote:
But Richard, do Buddhists believe in ONE supreme being?
On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 8:29 AM, Richard J. Williams
pundits...@gmail.com wrote:
It should be
A cup of water will look like an ocean, if you are small enough. This Big Bang
theory is all about dynamics, and nothing about context. I don't doubt the
measurements, but the theory is full of holes - black ones.
S3,
The Big Bang Theory is constantly being tested for validity. For example,
Michio Kaku, a physics professor at CUNY, states that there is something
fundamentally wrong with the equations that are being used to describe the
Singularity or at the Bang. His analysis shows that the
I was thinking of it more in terms of say an 1823 sampler, on Antiques
Roadshow. Cheers!
The Big Bang.
The question of eternity and the beginning of the universe has been approached
in different ways. It's a mystery, and as human beings, we like to solve
mysteries. Maybe this one cannot be solved.
Eternity seems to be approached in two different ways. 1. As endless time
Xeno,
You stated that:
Scientists on the other hand, with the Big Bang, think that time also began
with the Big Bang, that is, nothing came before the Big Bang because that is a
meaningless question to ask. It just happened. Nothing made the universe, it
just happened. There are other
Doc,
Some scientist like Michio Kaku, professor at CUNY, thinks that the universe
is a white hole. Thus, he's implying that our universe was a spin-off from
an older universe. He believes this can be proved by analyzing the WMAP data,
which is essentially the baby picture of this
And another thing . . . Judy said: If Curtis were here, he would almost
certainly note that what may seem to us laypeople to be common sense is not a
reliable basis for evaluating scientific theories. After all, if it were, we
would be fully justified in immediately tossing quantum mechanics
See Wikipedia for the various inaccuracies in the play's account of the trial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherit_the_Wind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherit_the_Wind
The movie may have been worse. The playwrights maintained they never intended
the play to be historical. Rather, it
I'm kinda thinking the universe is more like an endless piece of swiss
cheese, with each hole akin to a small bang (or a Big Bang, if viewed
myopically, like the earth scientists do...).
My more compelling issue, is that my space heater stays on - it is cold outside!
Re I'm kinda thinking the universe is more like an endless piece of swiss
cheese.:
You were anticipated by Menocchio, an Italian miller. He was burned at the
stake in 1599, at the age of 67, on orders of Pope Clement VIII.
Wiki quotes him: I have said that, in my opinion, all was chaos,
Everyone sounds insane in that story. :-(
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, jr_esq@... wrote:
Also, your statement that the universe just happened raises some questions for
logical and scientific reasons. As stated in the Kalam Cosmological Argument,
your statement cannot stand further logical scrutiny. Basically, the KCA
---In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, s3raphita wrote:
Re I stayed out of the latest tempest-in-a-pisspot discussions of the Big
Bang, and how REEEAAALLY STOOOPID some people here think those who don't
believe in it are,:
58 matches
Mail list logo
