Didn't you say you weren't going to be commenting on this subject any longer?
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been out of this thread on religion and radiometric dating, but a > certain fellow can't take no for an answer. > > Regarding Axil's speculation, he still needs to explain how his > nanostructure can perform what he speculates it can perform at high temps. > I know I keep harping on this sintering, melting of nanostructures stuff, > but it is a very strong objection to his theory. He needs to be able to > account for this physical property of nanonickel, instead of just brushing > it aside as something I am too dumb to understand. Unless he can come up > with a reasonable explanation why his nickel nanostructures won't sinter > and melt, his theory really is dead, no matter how elegant and esoteric the > rest of the theory is. > > > Jojo > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Steve High <[email protected]> > *To:* Vortex <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, August 16, 2014 11:37 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL > > Hey guys is there any chance that the discussion on radiometric dating > could be moved to another thread? Axil put a lot of work into his Egoout > posting which I think is well-written and contains a number of interesting > ideas. I would love to see these ideas getting batted around by the learned > folk at vortex, but that seems to be getting crowded out by the discussion > on radiometrics and religion. I would like to read that too, just on a > different thread. The crux of Axil's idea seems to be that nanomagnetic > excitation of the nucleus results in the production of virtual mesons that > turn into muons that go on to promote proton-proton interactions. I am > wondering if these individual steps have received scientific exposition or > validation elsewhere, and can all this take place without having to deal > with the dreaded gamma ray? > > > On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> We are talking rational history here, right? >> >> Google hits for >> "historicity of Bhagavad Gita" : 3 >> >> "historicity of Jesus" : about 214,000 >> >> Several times, I have asked people who claim to believe the Bhagavad >> Gita, "do you really believe these are historical accounts"? Their answer >> is basically no, it's just something they believe in. They were raised >> believing it, so they don't rock that boat. >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Yes, specifically the Bhagava Gita. This a small text about Jesus, in >>> his previous incarnation, talking to Arjuna. >>> >>> It's very likely that Jesus was carpenter. He had a family to feed. Or >>> do you think he stared at a wall until he started preaching? >>> >>> >>> 2014-08-15 13:26 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart <[email protected]>: >>> >>> I am turning the other cheek by not reciprocating with an insult. >>>> >>>> As for your other point, I am not sure what you want to prove to me. >>>> Are these passages from the Mahabharata? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jojo >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>> [email protected] >>> >> >> >
