--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> U.
>
>
> OK.
>
In the same tone that Elvis responds to his friend:
Elvis: But Jack, you're *black*.
Jack: I know... They dyed me all over. Wasn't that clever?
Elvis: Ok.
--Bubba Hotep
To subscribe, send
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > > >
> > >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > > UNLESS ! ! !
> > > Hawkings is wrong and these are a gateway
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
wrote:
>
> [...]
> > UNLESS ! ! !
> > Hawkings is wrong and these are a gateway to other universes as
> > often proposed.
> > The black holes Hawkings is now ins
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...]
> UNLESS ! ! !
> Hawkings is wrong and these are a gateway to other universes as
> often proposed.
> The black holes Hawkings is now insisting upon will not be powerful
> enough to hold together the universe
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> <<<
> >
> > Correct, because the laws of physics do not aplly there. Otherwise
> > the physicists would describe them. They can't because it is
> > theoretical, and the laws cannot work beyond a certain point wit
<<<
>
> Correct, because the laws of physics do not aplly there. Otherwise
> the physicists would describe them. They can't because it is
> theoretical, and the laws cannot work beyond a certain point within
> that theory. They do not work there.
>
> Think about it. Time stops at the Event Horizon.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Sir Roger Penrose is very clear on this.
> > "According to Roger Penrose's Principle of Cosmic Censorship, the
> > fact that the laws of physics break down inside the event horizon
> > has no impact
>
>
> Sir Roger Penrose is very clear on this.
> "According to Roger Penrose's Principle of Cosmic Censorship, the
> fact that the laws of physics break down inside the event horizon
> has no impact on the physics outside the black hole ">>>
>
<>
Correct, because the laws of physics do not aplly
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> beyond the event horizon, and if that description is
> > > > > changed them it is nothing more than a glorified neutron
> star.
> > > > >
> > >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
beyond the event horizon, and if that description is
> > > > changed them it is nothing more than a glorified neutron
star.
> > > >
> > > > The laws of PHYSICS DO NOT APLLY BEYOND THE EVENT HORIZON.
> > >
> > > Actual
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > > >
> > >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> > wrote:
> > > [...]
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > No, there is no relationship in any way whatsoever, of black
> ho
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
wrote:
> [...]
> > No, there is no relationship in any way whatsoever, of black
holes
> > in which matter, energy, and time, are completely annihilated
from
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig"
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> > >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
>
>
> Ok, I missed this bit:
> You have got to be a f
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...]
> No, there is no relationship in any way whatsoever, of black holes
> in which matter, energy, and time, are completely annihilated from
> the universe, to an entity that "keeps" energy for a couple of
> bi
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
>
> > wrote:
>
Ok, I missed this bit:
You have got to be a fvkin' spoof or a troll.
<>
How can you possibly talk about something that makes matter
dissapear for 10
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> wrote:
> You said it yourself:
>
> << a cosmological scale, >>>
>
> Which is why physicists are floundering for another contender for
> the hidden power needed to hold the u
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > > >
> > >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> > wrote:
> > > >
> >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > >
> > [...]
> > > And I don't think it turns black holes theory on its head. Black
> ho
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > > >
> > >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > And I don't think it turns black holes theory on its head. Black
holes are a consequence
> of
> > classical newtonian physics and Special Relativ
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> > wrote:
> > > >
> >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[...]
> And I don't think it turns black holes theory on its head. Black holes are a
> consequence
of
> classical newtonian physics and Special Relativity, are they not? Hawkings'
> conclusions
> were combining QM wit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> > > >
> > >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam"
>
> > > wrot
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin"
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam"
> > > wrote:
>
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- off_world_beings wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen Hawkings rec
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- off_world_beings wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen Hawkings recently
> > > denounced the theory that made him famous 20 years ago.
> >
> >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- off_world_beings wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Hawkings recently
> > denounced the theory that made him famous 20 years ago.
>
> What theory was that?
>
He had a bet going about how black holes would eat all inf
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[...]
> You seem to have curtailed that practice , so the board is not so
> bad these days.
> Except when Turquoise starts hate speech against Judy. Which may be
> the reason she is often critical of him. She ha
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> And also it's incredibly hypocritical to have TB's touting coherence
> creating effects, all the while creating incoherence here.
What, you mean no-one ever disagreed with you or Barry before Judy and I showed
up?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante
> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> wrote:
> > > >
> >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[...]
>
> Unless there is a time-out or these toxic posters are banned from
> FFL, FFL is on it's way out as a list.
>
Here, here!
Seriously, just because certain people post things YOU don't like, doesn't mean
that they
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- off_world_beings wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Stephen Hawkings r
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Oh, you don't get it. Try reading it again.
> > No, really. It isn't that difficult to grasp,
> > even for you, Barry.
>
> Judy, I've got a serious question for
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
> wrote:
> >
> > --- authfriend wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, you don't get it. Try reading it again.
> > > No, really. It isn't that difficult to grasp,
> > > even for you, Ba
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter wrote:
> >
> > Judy, I've got a serious question for you. Why do you
> > make comments like the above? What purpose does it
> > serve. We all know that you don't like Barry,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 9, 2006, at 8:21 AM, authfriend wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> --- authfriend wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Oh, you don't get it. Try reading it again.
> >>> No, really
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- off_world_beings wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephen Hawkings recently
> > > denounced the theory that made him famous 20 years ago.
> >
> > Wh
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- off_world_beings wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Hawkings recently
> > denounced the theory that made him famous 20 years ago.
>
> What theory was that?
>
The theory that if you're a quadraplegic in a wheelchair a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- off_world_beings wrote:
> >
> > Stephen Hawkings recently
> > denounced the theory that made him famous 20 years ago.
>
> What theory was that?>>
The theory that nothing can eminate from the event horizon
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Oct 9, 2006, at 6:26 AM, Peter wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Oh, you don't get it. Try reading it again.
> >> No, really. It isn't that difficult to grasp,
> >> even for you, Barry.
> >
> > Judy, I've got a serious questi
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
>
> I'm not predicting an "imminent demise" but a continuous loss of
> quality with posters leaving and obsessive posters filling the
> majority of space.
>
Yea, it's true. "I feel your pain"
lurk
>
>
>
To sub
--- off_world_beings wrote:
>
> Stephen Hawkings recently
> denounced the theory that made him famous 20 years ago.
What theory was that?
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups
On Oct 9, 2006, at 6:26 AM, Peter wrote:
>>
>> Oh, you don't get it. Try reading it again.
>> No, really. It isn't that difficult to grasp,
>> even for you, Barry.
>
> Judy, I've got a serious question for you. Why do you
> make comments like the above? What purpose does it
> serve.
Quite obvio
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 9, 2006, at 8:48 AM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:
>
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj wrote:
> >
> > snip
> >
> >>
> >> Unless there is a time-out or these toxic posters are banned
from
> >> FFL, FFL is
On Oct 9, 2006, at 8:48 AM, lurkernomore20002000 wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: snip Unless there is a time-out or these toxic posters are banned from FFL, FFL is on it's way out as a list. I agree there is a problem. But, please, how many times do
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> > On Oct 9, 2006, at 8:05 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ > > wrote:> >> >>> >> Judy, I've got a serious question for you. Why do you> >> make comments like the above? Wh
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Seems to me "anthropic reasoning" points directly
> > > to the problem of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter drpetersutphen@ > wrote:> >> > --- authfriend jstein@ wrote:> > > > > Oh, you don't get it. Try reading it again.> > > No, really. It isn't that difficult to grasp,> > > ev
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> > > --- authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> > > > > Oh, you don't get it. Try reading it again.> > No, really. It isn't that difficult to grasp,> > even for you, Barry.> > Judy, I've got a serious question for you. Why do
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
snip
>
> Unless there is a time-out or these toxic posters are banned from
> FFL, FFL is on it's way out as a list.
I agree there is a problem. But, please, how many times do people have
to predict the imminent demise of FFL.
On Oct 9, 2006, at 8:05 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Judy, I've got a serious question for you. Why do you make comments like the above? What purpose does it serve. We all know that you don't like Barry, but this near constant sarcas
On Oct 9, 2006, at 8:21 AM, authfriend wrote:--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Oh, you don't get it. Try reading it again. No, really. It isn't that difficult to grasp, even for you, Barry. Judy, I've got a serio
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > It's not controversial at all, it's completely logical.
> > >
> > > And thus almost certainly incorrect. :-)
> >
> > Oh, you don't get it. Try reading it again.
> > No, really. It isn't that difficult to gras
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Oh, you don't get it. Try reading it again.
> > No, really. It isn't that difficult to grasp,
> > even for you, Barry.
>
> Judy, I've got a serious question for you. Why d
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Judy, I've got a serious question for you. Why do you
> make comments like the above? What purpose does it
> serve. We all know that you don't like Barry, but this
> near constant sarcasm and snide remarks, why?
> Occassiona
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Oh, you don't get it. Try reading it again.
> > No, really. It isn't that difficult to grasp,
> > even for you, Barry.
>
> Judy, I've got a serious question for you. Why do
--- authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oh, you don't get it. Try reading it again.
> No, really. It isn't that difficult to grasp,
> even for you, Barry.
Judy, I've got a serious question for you. Why do you
make comments like the above? What purpose does it
serve. We all know that yo
> > > It's not controversial at all, it's completely logical.
> >
> > And thus almost certainly incorrect. :-)
>
> Oh, you don't get it. Try reading it again.
> No, really. It isn't that difficult to grasp,
> even for you, Barry.
I haven't read it, period. I was just commenting
on those who b
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > "...the dark energy is infinitesimal and no one has been able
to
> > > > say why.
> > > >
> > > > Except, that is, for followers of a controversial doctrine
> > > > called the
> > > > anthropic principle. The
> > > "...the dark energy is infinitesimal and no one has been able to
> > > say why.
> > >
> > > Except, that is, for followers of a controversial doctrine
> > > called the
> > > anthropic principle. There is no fundamental reason, they say,
> > > why the
> > > dark energy is so weak. It is
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante
wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > Seems to me "anthropic reasoning" points directly
> > > to the problem of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
>
> > Seems to me "anthropic reasoning" points directly
> > to the problem of awareness.
> >
>
> **
>
> "...the dark energy is infinit
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
>
> > Seems to me "anthropic reasoning" points directly
> > to the problem of awareness.
> >
>
> **
>
> "...the dark energy is infini
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote:
> >
>
> > Seems to me "anthropic reasoning" points directly
> > to the problem of awareness.
> >
>
> **
>
> "...the dark energy is infini
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Seems to me "anthropic reasoning" points directly
> to the problem of awareness.
>
**
"...the dark energy is infinitesimal and no one has been able to say
why.
Except, that is, for followers of a
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante
> wrote:
>
> > When I say Vedic science, I was not referring to the
> > stories, but to the reality, the core teaching of the
> > Vedas, that bliss consciousness i
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "larry.potter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante
> > wrote:
> >
> > > When I say Vedic science, I was not referring to the
> > > stories, b
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante
> wrote:
>
> > When I say Vedic science, I was not referring to the
> > stories, but to the reality, the core teaching of the
> > Vedas, that bliss consciousness
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I loved this passage he quotes from Nobel Prize-
> winning physicist Steven Weinberg:
Wonderful address by Steven Weinberg on the
topic of "intelligent design":
http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> When I say Vedic science, I was not referring to the
> stories, but to the reality, the core teaching of the
> Vedas, that bliss consciousness is all that there is
> or ever was -- phenomenal reality is just maya, not
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "suziezuzie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "suziezuzie"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Space ripples discovery "changed everything" By Maggie Fox,
> Health
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "suziezuzie"
> wrote:
> >
> > Space ripples discovery "changed everything" By Maggie Fox,
Health
> > and Science Correspondent
> > Tue Oct 3, 1:33 PM ET
> >
> >
> >
> >
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "suziezuzie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Space ripples discovery "changed everything" By Maggie Fox, Health
> and Science Correspondent
> Tue Oct 3, 1:33 PM ET
>
>
>
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The discovery by John Mather and George
Smoot
> of "cosmic
80 matches
Mail list logo
