🚀 go-pugleaf

In <O1iblelgYjV9079yn@calvados.apna.org.au> shelter@calvados.apana.org.au (Madhudvisa) writes:


>   This is a lot better because it makes the whole Northern Hemisphere
>   exactly as we have observed it... Things only get tricky when you
>   go "down under". We now have a North Pole exactly as we have
>   observed it and we also have a South Pole -- which is no longer a
>   point but a rugged icey mountainous region surrounding the whole
>   planet. If you think about it there hasn't been so much exploration
>   down there -- there's really no reason to go there. There are some
>   Antarctic weather and research stations down there but that's about
>   it.

This is a troll, right? The South Pole has been continuously occupied
since 1958. It's the _North_ Pole which is only occasionally visited.

shelter@calvados.apna.org.au (Madhudvisah dasa Swami) writes:

> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) wrote:
      
>[flat earth theory w/ North Pole at center deleted]

>> This is a troll, right? The South Pole has been continuously occupied
>> since 1958. It's the _North_ Pole which is only occasionally visited.

>I take your point about the South Pole having some people living
>there. It is certainly not completely vacant. My point is not,
>however, if there are people there, because of course there are, but
>would they notice? We see what we expect to see, there are so many
>examples. My point is if you travel to the South Pole and find nothing
>unusual, you arrive where you expect to and find your research centre
>or whatever, what need would you have to doubt your world view?

Madhudvisah, honey, I see you're posting from Australia.  Have you
ever wondered why books and pictures of the moon and the stars which
are published in the northern hemisphere show a view which is quite
clearly upside-down, compared to what you see if you go outside at
night and look up?  Think about it.


This article was egregiously crossposted.  Followups have been set
to alt.sci.physics.new-theories - although perhaps discussions of
flat earths belong in alt.sci.physics.old-theories, which regrettably
does not exist.

In article <3n9gdm$8ap@starman.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com (Richard
A. Schumacher) wrote:

> In <O1iblelgYjV9079yn@calvados.apna.org.au>
shelter@calvados.apana.org.au (Madhudvisa) writes:
> 
> 
> >   This is a lot better because it makes the whole Northern Hemisphere
> >   exactly as we have observed it... Things only get tricky when you
> >   go "down under". We now have a North Pole exactly as we have
> >   observed it and we also have a South Pole -- which is no longer a
> >   point but a rugged icey mountainous region surrounding the whole
> >   planet. If you think about it there hasn't been so much exploration
> >   down there -- there's really no reason to go there. There are some
> >   Antarctic weather and research stations down there but that's about
> >   it.
> 
> This is a troll, right? The South Pole has been continuously occupied
> since 1958. It's the _North_ Pole which is only occasionally visited.

Oh yeah?  Care to identify the factory that makes all those toys that show
up in my living room every December?

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 

In article <3n9gdm$8ap@starman.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com (Richard
A. Schumacher) wrote:
> 
> In <O1iblelgYjV9079yn@calvados.apna.org.au>
> shelter@calvados.apana.org.au (Madhudvisa) writes:
> 
>  
> >   This is a lot better because it makes the whole Northern Hemisphere
> >   exactly as we have observed it... Things only get tricky when you
> >   go "down under". We now have a North Pole exactly as we have
> >   observed it and we also have a South Pole -- which is no longer a
> >   point but a rugged icey mountainous region surrounding the whole
> >   planet. If you think about it there hasn't been so much exploration
> >   down there -- there's really no reason to go there. There are some
> >   Antarctic weather and research stations down there but that's about
> >   it.
> 
> This is a troll, right? The South Pole has been continuously occupied
> since 1958. It's the _North_ Pole which is only occasionally visited.
> 


I take your point about the South Pole having some people living
there. It is certainly not completely vacant. My point is not,
however, if there are people there, because of course there are, but
would they notice? We see what we expect to see, there are so many
examples. My point is if you travel to the South Pole and find nothing
unusual, you arrive where you expect to and find your research centre
or whatever, what need would you have to doubt your world view?

--

Madhudvisah dasa Swami   |
                         |   S H E L T E R   I N T E R N A T I O N A L
                         |____________________________________________

      Different types of yoga are steppingstones on the path to Krishna.

In <D7HCBE.2B5@crash.cts.com> roosen@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen)
writes: 
>
>The flat earth theory was disproven experimentally in 1492 by
Christopher 
>Columbus.  He set out on a voyage of discovery with five ships.  Only
two 
>of them fell of the edge.  It was a close thing.

Sorry Robert, but you got your facts wrong. Those two ships didn't fall
off the edge of the earth.  They disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle.

-- Andrew Skolnick
<g,d&r>

This "flat earth" joke stopped being funny days ago.
Give it a rest.

Andrew Skolnick (skolnick@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <D7HCBE.2B5@crash.cts.com> roosen@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen)
: writes: 
: >
: >The flat earth theory was disproven experimentally in 1492 by
: Christopher 
: >Columbus.  He set out on a voyage of discovery with five ships.  Only
: two 
: >of them fell off the edge.  It was a close thing.

: Sorry Robert, but you got your facts wrong. Those two ships didn't fall
: off the edge of the earth.  They disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle.

: -- Andrew Skolnick

Wow.  So once again a theory was proven even though the data were 
incorrect.  
	Of course, if people would stop calling it the Bermuda Triangle 
and start calling it the Sargasso Sea again, the mystery of the missing 
ships would be explained.
	NSF, here comes my application
Robert 

Robert Roosen (roosen@crash.cts.com) wrote:
: Andrew Skolnick (skolnick@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: : Sorry Robert, but you got your facts wrong. Those two ships didn't fall
: : off the edge of the earth.  They disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle.

: Wow.  So once again a theory was proven even though the data were 
: incorrect.  
: 	Of course, if people would stop calling it the Bermuda Triangle 
: and start calling it the Sargasso Sea again, the mystery of the missing 
: ships would be explained.

There is no mystery.  Ships don't go missing in the Bermuda Triangle
(Sargasso Sea, if you prefer) any more frequently than they do anywhere
else.  Everybody think thier little chunk of water is particularly dangerous
and mysterious:

    The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down,
    of the big lake they called Gitchegoomee.
    The lake it is said never gives up its dead,
    when the winds of November come early.

     -- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmond Fitzgerald" 

--
Grant Edwards        | Microsoft isn't the   | Yow!  Either CONFESS now or
Rosemount Inc.       | answer. Microsoft     | we go to ``PEOPLE'S
                     | is the question, and  | COURT''!!
grante@rosemount.com | the answer is no.     | 

Paul Schlyter (pausch@electra.saaf.se) wrote:
> In article <O1iblelgYjV9079yn@calvados.apna.org.au>,

> But to make things really simple: on a flat earth the sun would rise
> and set at the same moment all over the earth, i.e. the entire earth
> would have day, or night.  Now, select a friend that you trust for
> this experiment: one of you should travel to another continent.
> Select a moment when one of you sees day while the other sees night
> (if you find it hard to select such a moment, I can help you out).
> Call each other up by telephone, tell each other what you see -- then
> try to explain THAT with a flat-earth model.....  <grin>

	OBVIOUSLY you haven't given this enough thought.  You have been 
brainwashed by those nutty round-earthers!  The earth truely _is_ flat, it
is just that it has TWO SIDES!!!!  While I see day (night) I am on the 'top'
and my telephone friend who sees night (day) is CLEARLY on the other side.

	Hmmm . . . ever wonder why those photos from the shuttle only can show
one side at a time?  The illusion, from space, that the earth is round come from
the little recognized fact that, while truely flat, the earth is dish-shaped!
Thou fool!  How is it that thou seest but canst believe.  Surely they shall hear
and see the truth, but shall not perceive!!

jarrod (tongue in cheek)

In article <1995Apr30.145323.16530@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@reddwarf.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>From: grante@reddwarf.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
>Subject: Re: The Flat Earth?
>Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 14:53:23 GMT

>Robert Roosen (roosen@crash.cts.com) wrote:
>: Andrew Skolnick (skolnick@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

>: : Sorry Robert, but you got your facts wrong. Those two ships didn't fall
>: : off the edge of the earth.  They disappeared in the Bermuda Triangle.

>: Wow.  So once again a theory was proven even though the data were 
>: incorrect.  
>:       Of course, if people would stop calling it the Bermuda Triangle 
>: and start calling it the Sargasso Sea again, the mystery of the missing 
>: ships would be explained.

>There is no mystery.  Ships don't go missing in the Bermuda Triangle
>(Sargasso Sea, if you prefer) any more frequently than they do anywhere
>else.  Everybody think thier little chunk of water is particularly dangerous
>and mysterious:

>    The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down,
>    of the big lake they called Gitchegoomee.
>    The lake it is said never gives up its dead,
>    when the winds of November come early.

Actually, "when the skies of November turn gloomy.", but who's counting...


>     -- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmond Fitzgerald" 

>--
>Grant Edwards        | Microsoft isn't the   | Yow!  Either CONFESS now or
>Rosemount Inc.       | answer. Microsoft     | we go to ``PEOPLE'S
>                     | is the question, and  | COURT''!!
>grante@rosemount.com | the answer is no.     | 

Bob C.

* Good, fast, cheap!  (Pick 2) *

Jarrod J. Williamson (jarrod@breeze.seas.ucla.edu) wrote:

: 	Hmmm . . . ever wonder why those photos from the shuttle only can show
: one side at a time?  The illusion, from space, that the earth is round come from
: the little recognized fact that, while truely flat, the earth is dish-shaped!

Golly! And here I thought the illusion of roundness in the photos was 
just the normal distortion from using fisheye lenses!  The things you can 
learn from Usenet!

: Thou fool!  How is it that thou seest but canst believe.  Surely they shall hear
: and see the truth, but shall not perceive!!

: jarrod (tongue in cheek)

--
David Wasserman      (davidwss@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca)
Curmudgeon-At-Large  (DWasserman@edc.gov.ab.ca)
"The older I get, the more value I place on experience."
 
(tongue hanging out, tail wagging)

In article <cas.615.000B4C91@ops1.bwi.wec.com>,
Bob Casanova <cas@ops1.bwi.wec.com> wrote:
>>    The legend lives on from the Chippewa on down,
>>    of the big lake they called Gitchegoomee.
>>    The lake it is said never gives up its dead,
>>    when the winds of November come early.
> Actually, "when the skies of November turn gloomy.", but who's counting...
>>     -- Gordon Lightfoot, "The Wreck of the Edmond Fitzgerald" 

Actually, I think both wordings occur at different points, but I haven't
heard it for several months. [Here's a co-incidence: I only ever hear it
on the radio when I'm in the San Jose area.]

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather     | If you lie to the compiler, it will get its revenge.
clive@stdc.demon.co.uk |   - Henry Spencer

In article <3o48kh$vcr@news.sas.ab.ca>,
davidwss@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () writes:
|> Jarrod J. Williamson (jarrod@breeze.seas.ucla.edu) wrote:
|> 
|> : 	Hmmm . . . ever wonder why those photos from the shuttle only can show
|> : one side at a time?  The illusion, from space, that the earth is round come from
|> : the little recognized fact that, while truely flat, the earth is dish-shaped!
|> 
|> Golly! And here I thought the illusion of roundness in the photos was 
|> just the normal distortion from using fisheye lenses!  The things you can 
|> learn from Usenet!

So close, so close ... the real truth of the matter is that the
Earth is indeed flat.  Infinitely repeating tessellations cover the
plane, so dimension is 2, not less.  Therefore, you won't ever fall
off the edge, you'll just move into the next (deformed? transformed?)
square.

Objection 1: The supposed impossibility of mapping a spherical surface
onto a flat plane while preserving distance relationships.

Refutation:  Space is expanding in ways difficult to comprehend for
beings accustomed to Euclidean 3-space.  Remember it's not expanding
into another spatial dimension; the actual shape of 3D space is deformed.

Note that this implies complementary tessellations.  We've also disposed
of the pesky notion of free will, since motion is now coupled to an
infinite series of conjugate bodies, all constrained to move in the
same direction, alternately separated by distance D and (complement D).
Sort of the Tomes Harmonic Theory with bells on.  Stand between two
parallel mirrors, you'll get the idea.
  
Objection 2:  Pictures from space seem to show a round Earth.

Refutation:  Light paths curve, converging upwards. The light horizon
is one tile,  and the shape of the curve is like an inverse gravity
well with odd skirts. The higher you go, the smaller the Earth appears.

Planets, even the Moon, are all infinite, parallel, non-intersecting
planes in Escher space.

-- 
Philip R. Young        |             young@bunyip.ap.dg.com
                       |       Philip_Young@dgap.ceo.dg.com

 "It is the lurid intermixture of the two that produces the
  illuminating blaze of the infernal regions."

  - Nathaniel Hawthorne, "Rappaccini's Daughter"

In article <3obtef$8ij@fdcap2.ap.dg.com> young@bunyip.ap.dg.com (Philip Young) writes:
> the real truth of the matter is that the
> Earth is indeed flat.  Infinitely repeating tessellations cover the
> plane, so dimension is 2, not less.  Therefore, you won't ever fall
> off the edge, you'll just move into the next (deformed? transformed?)
> square.
> 
> Objection 1: The supposed impossibility of mapping a spherical surface
> onto a flat plane while preserving distance relationships.
> 
> Refutation:  Space is expanding in ways difficult to comprehend for
> beings accustomed to Euclidean 3-space.  Remember it's not expanding
> into another spatial dimension; the actual shape of 3D space is deformed.
> 
> Note that this implies complementary tessellations.  We've also disposed
> of the pesky notion of free will, since motion is now coupled to an
> infinite series of conjugate bodies, all constrained to move in the
> same direction, alternately separated by distance D and (complement D).
> Sort of the Tomes Harmonic Theory with bells on.  Stand between two
> parallel mirrors, you'll get the idea.
>   
> Objection 2:  Pictures from space seem to show a round Earth.
> 
> Refutation:  Light paths curve, converging upwards. The light horizon
> is one tile,  and the shape of the curve is like an inverse gravity
> well with odd skirts. The higher you go, the smaller the Earth appears.
> 
> Planets, even the Moon, are all infinite, parallel, non-intersecting
> planes in Escher space.

Its about time you mathematicians and physicists came around and actually
made a significant discovery! And to think, while tripping on some wicked
acid back in 1981 this "infinite flat reality tessalation" had already become 
quite _clearly_ apparent to me. Damn! I should have published. How bitter I
am now! I should have known that all of that acid would serve me well if I
had only trusted it as an accurate means of seeing the world. Again, dem it!

Have you ever noticed that everywhere you go everything has a new behind?

Even _I_ am baffled by this fact.

-- Eric Nelson -- 
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee:
ENShook@Alpha1.csd.UWM.edu
Home:
Panopticon@Oubliette.com

> Grant Edwards (grante@reddwarf.rosemount.com) wrote:
>
> There is no mystery.  Ships don't go missing in the Bermuda Triangle
> (Sargasso Sea, if you prefer) any more frequently than they do
> anywhere else.  Everybody think thier little chunk of water is
> particularly dangerous and mysterious:

I think Mojo Nixon has the answer.  All those boats disappearing in 
the Bermuda Triangle...  Elvis eats 'em.

   Elvis eats boats
   Elvis eats boats
   Elvis, Elvis, Elvis, Elvis, Elvis eats boats
       - Mojo Nixon


Michael Reuss
Honorary Kid

Michael Reuss (Mike_Reuss@HP-Loveland-om10.om.hp.com) wrote:
: > Grant Edwards (grante@reddwarf.rosemount.com) wrote:
: >
: > There is no mystery.  Ships don't go missing in the Bermuda Triangle
: > (Sargasso Sea, if you prefer) any more frequently than they do
: > anywhere else.  Everybody think thier little chunk of water is
: > particularly dangerous and mysterious:

: I think Mojo Nixon has the answer.  All those boats disappearing in 
: the Bermuda Triangle...  Elvis eats 'em.

:    Elvis eats boats
:    Elvis eats boats
:    Elvis, Elvis, Elvis, Elvis, Elvis eats boats
:        - Mojo Nixon

I thought the line was "Elvis needs boats".

--
----------All Opinions Expressed are MINE, not IBM's--------------
Michael Rogero Brown             (uKR1 System Administrator)  
IBM (uKR1 Development)       TEL/TIE   (407) 443-6400   
Boca Raton, FL               Internet:  mikal@bocaraton.ibm.com

If you think I speak for IBM, then I've got some swamp land^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
real estate here in Florida to sell you.

In article <O1iblelgYjV9079yn@calvados.apna.org.au> shelter@calvados.apana.org.au (Madhudvisa) writes:
>
>   As for diametrically opposite points, remember for this exercise we
>   are talking about a flat plate not a sphere. For our model to find
>   the diametrically opposite point you start at the original point
>   and travel through the centre (which we are now taking as the North
>   Pole) for the distance of the radius of the circle. If it is midday
>   at our original point it will be midnight at the opposite point. So
>   now we have opposite points for everything except the North Pole --
>   the opposite point is not a point but it is the circumference of
>   the circle.
       [snip]
>   to flatten out the Northern Hemisphere and just let the Southern
>   bits stick out over the edges.. ie: South Africa and South America
>   just stick out as we have observed them and you put Australia out
>   there somewhere, throw in a few little islands and you've got it.


Only one problem:
   People flying or sailing from Cape Horn to the Cape of Good Hope have
measured the distance between these two points time and time again.  They
would have to be MUCH farther apart than the distances measured if they
were near the outside edge of a flat circular plate -- AND the shortest
distance between them, in the case of the flat circular Earth, would be a
line passing through the Tropical Latitudes!


However, I'm perfectly willing to agree that Mars is flat.  I hereby open
membership in the Flat Mars Society.  The only times we've seen it through
a telescope it's been a fully-lit DISK, hasn't it?  Ever seen it as a
crescent, hmmm, have you?  Have you ever seen the Dark Side of Mars?  Do
you really think those Mariner and Viking probes actually WENT there, and
weren't just sending back pictures of rocks from some NASA guy's sandlot
through a red filter?  I say we take our stand NOW!!!


Roger M. "slashing himself to death on Occam's razor" Wilcox
-- 
Roger M. Wilcox   rogerw@cisco.com   (a.k.a. tracer@netcom.com (Jeff Boeing))
------------------- I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low. -----------------
MSTie #38188 | Dvorak keyboard - Esperanto - Ross Perot - ProLog - Amiga 2000
             | Do I follow lost causes, or what?

rogerw@cisco.com (Roger M. Wilcox) wrote:

>In article <O1iblelgYjV9079yn@calvados.apna.org.au> shelter@calvados.apana.org.au (Madhudvisa) writes:
>>
>>   As for diametrically opposite points, remember for this exercise we
>>   are talking about a flat plate not a sphere. For our model to find
>>   the diametrically opposite point you start at the original point
>>   and travel through the centre (which we are now taking as the North
>>   Pole) for the distance of the radius of the circle. If it is midday
>>   at our original point it will be midnight at the opposite point. So
>>   now we have opposite points for everything except the North Pole --
>>   the opposite point is not a point but it is the circumference of
>>   the circle.
>       [snip]
>>   to flatten out the Northern Hemisphere and just let the Southern
>>   bits stick out over the edges.. ie: South Africa and South America
>>   just stick out as we have observed them and you put Australia out
>>   there somewhere, throw in a few little islands and you've got it.


This was an exercise in lateral thinking... I thought everyone understood
that by now. After all the original posting did start with "Just
imagine..." (the original article is so old... you must have a serious
problem with your newsfeed! :-)



Madhudvisah dasa Swami
                             Check out the _NEW_ WWW pages at:
                          http://www.peg.apc.org/~shelter/ctfote

                       ___________________________________________
(shelter@peg.apc.org) |                                           |
                      | S H E L T E R   I N T E R N A T I O N A L |
                      |___________________________________________|

                                CHANT HARE KRISHNA AND BE HAPPY!
                                
Quotes from His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada 
(c)Bhaktivedanta Book Trust

Roger M. Wilcox (rogerw@cisco.com) wrote:
>In article <O1iblelgYjV9079yn@calvados.apna.org.au> shelter@calvados.apana.org.au (Madhudvisa) writes:
>>   to flatten out the Northern Hemisphere and just let the Southern
>>   bits stick out over the edges.. ie: South Africa and South America
>>   just stick out as we have observed them and you put Australia out
>>   there somewhere, throw in a few little islands and you've got it.
Eeeeeek! I'm falling off the edge of the world! :) (I live is one of 
those southern bits that hangs over. Nice view!)

>However, I'm perfectly willing to agree that Mars is flat.  I hereby open
>membership in the Flat Mars Society.  The only times we've seen it through
>a telescope it's been a fully-lit DISK, hasn't it?  Ever seen it as a
>crescent, hmmm, have you?  Have you ever seen the Dark Side of Mars?  Do
>you really think those Mariner and Viking probes actually WENT there, and
>weren't just sending back pictures of rocks from some NASA guy's sandlot
>through a red filter?  I say we take our stand NOW!!!
Yup! Remember Capricorn One! It's all a hoax. :)
David.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sooner or later, our sun will grow old and burn out, whether it happens
in 100 years or a million years. And it won't just take us with it. It
will take Marilyn Monroe, Buddy Holly, ... And all of this - ALL of this
would have been for nothing, unless we go to the stars.
	dragon@triode.apana.org.au (David Powell, Sydney Australia)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <3ritv0$iks@news.sas.ab.ca>,
 <jatzeck@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
}David Powell (dragon@triode.apana.org.au) wrote:
}: >However, I'm perfectly willing to agree that Mars is flat.  I hereby open
}: >membership in the Flat Mars Society.  The only times we've seen it through
}: >a telescope it's been a fully-lit DISK, hasn't it?  Ever seen it as a
}: >crescent, hmmm, have you?  Have you ever seen the Dark Side of Mars?  Do
}: >you really think those Mariner and Viking probes actually WENT there, and
}: >weren't just sending back pictures of rocks from some NASA guy's sandlot
}: >through a red filter?  I say we take our stand NOW!!!
}
}: Yup! Remember Capricorn One! It's all a hoax. :)
}
}And remember who starred in that one?

And now the government is framing O.J. for two murders in revenge for his
exposure of how the moon landings were faked.  Why did it taken 16 years?
Typical government inefficiency and ineptitude.

-- Herb Huston
-- huston@access.digex.net

David Powell (dragon@triode.apana.org.au) wrote:

: >However, I'm perfectly willing to agree that Mars is flat.  I hereby open
: >membership in the Flat Mars Society.  The only times we've seen it through
: >a telescope it's been a fully-lit DISK, hasn't it?  Ever seen it as a
: >crescent, hmmm, have you?  Have you ever seen the Dark Side of Mars?  Do
: >you really think those Mariner and Viking probes actually WENT there, and
: >weren't just sending back pictures of rocks from some NASA guy's sandlot
: >through a red filter?  I say we take our stand NOW!!!

: Yup! Remember Capricorn One! It's all a hoax. :)

And remember who starred in that one?

--
*******************************************************************************
*                                                                             *
* Bernhard Michael Jatzeck              email: jatzeck@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca *
*                                                                             *
*******************************************************************************

The "flat earth" idea came from a posting related to the book "Telling
Lies for God" where some atheist was spouting his view that the Bible was
invalid as it described the Earth as flat...

So I thought it would be a nice exercise to investigate intellectually if
one could actually come up with a consistent world-view based on a
flat-earth...

I was surprised that not many scientists were prepared to "enter into the
spirit" of the exercise. I was amazed at the foul email sent by some of
the sci-astro crowd... They are very attached to their spherical rotating
earth! But the point of the exercise was to demonstrate it's more a matter
of perception than anything else. The world may be flat (although I
haven't got all the bugs out of the theory yet!). It certainly may be
stationary. There is no way we could tell. The universe might well be
rotating around a stationary earth... No one can argue this point. (Of
course they will argue but they can't put a good case...:-)

Actually it's all about the theory you accept... I have heard a story that
many years ago some farmers came into town to report some extraordinary
events that had occurred on their farms. They reported there were rocks
falling from the sky! So the scientists naturally thought the poor fellows
were crazy... How could rocks fall from the sky. It was only when they had
a valid scientific theory [these rocks were, of course, the result of
volcanic erruptions on the moon!] that they could accept the farmers
stories... Of course we now call rocks falling from the sky meteorites and
there is no problem.

So our "scientific" view of the world and the world itself are two
completely different things. Currently we see science struggling to fit
the universe inside their "big bang" cosmology. But it just won't fit! The
observed evidence disproves the theory in so many ways. I don't have to
present this evidence as scientists who are much more qualified than me
have already done it so nicely. You can refer to Eric Lerner's "The Big
Bang Never Happened" and many other books. He defeats the big bang
cosmology and goes on try and establish another cosmology - the "plasma"
universe. His refutation of the big bang is excellent but his replacement
for it is not very satisfying...

The strongest "evidence" for the big bang is the observed red-shift of the
stars. They say this proves the universe is expanding, which is what you
would expect if it all started with a "big bang". But the same "evidence"
can be interpreted in many ways. The red-shift evidence also seems to
prove the earth is at the center of the universe... Not something we here
very much of from the "big bang" cosmologists is it?

So despite the fact their theory can't explain the the observed universe
they still are still "preaching" it... It's incredible. It's not science
at all. It's blind faith in a dogma which has been clearly and
scientifically  disproven by scientists who have broken away from this
blind faith in the "big bang".

So why are so many "intelligent" men maintaining "blind faith" in a dogma
that clearly does not explain the observed universe? It's because there is
no clear alternative other than the traditional one that God created the
universe. This "theory" can be stated in modern scientific terms using
Mandelbrot's fractal theory  and common sense. It is reasonable to assume
things happen on different scales in a similar way. We see a small
universe [a child] created from life [the father and mother], similarly it
is reasonable to assume that the universe [a big body] was created from
life. [God] This is a complete scientific "theory" and completely explains
the observed universe. Some people may choose not to accept it as their
world-view, that is one thing, but no one can claim it is invalid. However
the "big bang" cosmology has been scientifically proved to be clearly
wrong.

Now we only have one valid theory for the creation, that God created the
world. So it is my humble request that religious people take strength from
this and resist the attempts by science to destroy the world's faith in
God with their baseless and illogical theories.


Thank you. Hare Krishna!

Madhudvisah dasa Swami
(shelter@peg.apc.org)      http://www.peg.apc.org/~shelter/ctfote
                                
Quotes from His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada 
(c)Bhaktivedanta Book Trust

shelter@peg.apc.org (Madhudvisah dasa Swami) wrote:
>The "flat earth" idea came from a posting related to the book "Telling
>Lies for God" where some atheist was spouting his view that the Bible was
>invalid as it described the Earth as flat...
>
[nonsense deleted]



..I hope it's what it looks like : a joke!!! (If you are serious then you
should rather post to alt.religion.nonsense, or alt.I.am.completely crazy
(ah!It doesn't exist, well you should create it!!!)).

Madhudvisah dasa Swami (shelter@peg.apc.org) wrote:
[snip]
:
: Now we only have one valid theory for the creation, that God created the
: world. So it is my humble request that religious people take strength from
: this and resist the attempts by science to destroy the world's faith in
: God with their baseless and illogical theories.


: Thank you. Hare Krishna!

: Madhudvisah dasa Swami

ahh I seee its all so clear now. By the way if I want to work out how far away
a star is how do use your theory to get an answer? or perhapes I should use
the red shift? When deciding which one to use what points should I take into 
consideration?

	1) god wont talk to me
	2) The big bang theory isnt perfect but at least it makes some testable
		predictions
	3) religious people are all mad and it would be a better world if we
		could convice them that they are wrong.
	4) how dose god(tm) explain red shift and cosmic microwave
		background radiation
	5) will I get any marks in my exam if I write 'god did it all' in answer
		to any question?

Ewan.

	'you can imagine that everything orbits around you, but you will
		get dizzy'

In article <3rqcr9$a4g@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>, shelter@peg.apc.org
(Madhudvisah dasa Swami) wrote:

[munch]

> I was surprised that not many scientists were prepared to "enter into the
> spirit" of the exercise. I was amazed at the foul email sent by some of
> the sci-astro crowd... They are very attached to their spherical rotating
> earth!

and, they've even cobbled up a name for this mysterious attachment:
"Gravity"!  What a load of codswollop, eh?

It's polite to put the word "troll" in the keywords line when on a fishing
expedition

--Tom

--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone.  Keep your filthy hands off 'em! 

In article <3rqcr9$a4g@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>, shelter@peg.apc.org (Madhudvisah dasa Swami) writes:

> Actually it's all about the theory you accept... I have heard a story that
> many years ago some farmers came into town to report some extraordinary
> events that had occurred on their farms. They reported there were rocks
> falling from the sky! So the scientists naturally thought the poor fellows
> were crazy... How could rocks fall from the sky. It was only when they had
> a valid scientific theory [these rocks were, of course, the result of
> volcanic erruptions on the moon!] that they could accept the farmers
> stories... Of course we now call rocks falling from the sky meteorites and
> there is no problem.

Problem:  there is no volcanic activity on the moon, and if there were any,
there is no way that the rocks could be ejected with enough velocity to
escape the moon's gravitational pull.  Meteors do exist, and some of them
do originate from the moon, but vulcanism has nothing to do with it.  They
have to be knocked off the moon by a substantial impact.

-- K.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin L. Sterner  |  U. Penn. High Energy Physics  |  Smash the welfare state!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Madhudvisah dasa Swami (shelter@peg.apc.org) wrote:

> The strongest "evidence" for the big bang is the observed red-shift of the
> stars. They say this proves the universe is expanding, which is what you
> would expect if it all started with a "big bang".

Also the uniform three-degree cosmic background radiation.  However I
agree that there are other theories (e.g "tired light" and the steady
state) which, while not generally accepted, are at least on
respectable ground.

> But the same "evidence"
> can be interpreted in many ways. The red-shift evidence also seems to
> prove the earth is at the center of the universe... Not something we here
> very much of from the "big bang" cosmologists is it?

Because it proves no such thing.  The universe does not have a centre,
any more than it has an edge.  Medieval cartographers put Jerusalem in
the centre of the flat Earth.  Your error is surprisingly similar.

Imagine a balloon being blown up with two ants standing on it, a few
centimeters apart.  Each ant perceives that the balloon is:

* flat (they are too small to perceive the curve)

* getting larger,

* the rest of the balloon is moving away.

Both ants see this, and both ants might thus conclude that they are at
the centre of a flat sheet of rubber which is getting larger, and that
there must presumably be a receeding edge somewhere out there.  They
are both wrong.  The surface of the balloon has no edge, and no
centre.

We see a distant galaxy moving away from us, while we appear to be
stationary.  However, imagine an observer in that distant galaxy
looking at ours.  It sees other galaxies (including ours) moving away,
and thus concludes that it is at the centre of the Universe as well.

If one of the ants starts walking in any direction, he will eventually
return to his starting point.  In the same way, if you got into a
spaceship, picked a direction, and carried on going, you would
eventually wind up back here, arriving from the opposite direction.
But whereas this only works for the ants in two dimensions
(north-south and east-west), it works for us in three (north-south,
east-west and up-down, if you like).

Paul.

--
Paul Johnson            | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
+44 1245 473331 ext 2245+-----------+-----------------------------------------+
Work: <paul.johnson@gmrc.gecm.com>  | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
Home: <Paul@treetop.demon.co.uk>    | standards, all different.

shelter@peg.apc.org (Madhudvisah dasa Swami) writes:

> Actually it's all about the theory you accept... I have heard a story that
> many years ago some farmers came into town to report some extraordinary
> events that had occurred on their farms. They reported there were rocks
> falling from the sky! So the scientists naturally thought the poor fellows
> were crazy... How could rocks fall from the sky. It was only when they had
> a valid scientific theory [these rocks were, of course, the result of
> volcanic erruptions on the moon!] that they could accept the farmers
> stories... Of course we now call rocks falling from the sky meteorites and
> there is no problem.

It isn't just scientists, though! I lived in Germany for two years, and I
remember explaining to someone what an electric kettle is, and for what it
is used. The startling response (from several people in the room) was that
there is no such thing (not available in Germany at the time)! The obvious
implication being that I was lying about the possibility of such a device!

Don't worry about the negative response to your post. Most people wouldn't
recognise an irony unless it fell off the ironying board.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Newsam               Micro Services -- ben@microser.demon.co.uk
                             Tel & Fax: -- +44 (114) 285 2727
Programming, Documentation, Consultancy -- Windows, SDK, MFC, C++ etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Madhudvisah dasa Swami (shelter@peg.apc.org) wrote:
: So I thought it would be a nice exercise to investigate intellectually if
: one could actually come up with a consistent world-view based on a
: flat-earth...

: Madhudvisah dasa Swami
 ....hey, Mad' baby...good to see ya posting your crap again....
 ....glad to see that in your travels u ain't fallen off the edge yet !
 ....just one thing....try not to let all those astro/cosmo-nauts see the
posting!....one dreads to think of their psychological turmoil in a 'post-
reading situation' as the Americans might say.
 To all you sceptical types out there let me just say that not only has
Mad' baby _seen_ the light...he's actually gone _faster_ than it.....and
y'all shoulda seen the red-shift effect on his saffron robe!!! Outasite!!!
  :-)  :-)
 Luv yaz all!
   Bear

In article <3sapbs$nts@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>, davidcs@psych.psy.uq.oz.au (David Smyth) writes:

> I just know the physicists are going to tell me what I just said is
> incorrect - and they are right according to General Relativity.  The
> pendulum would rotate due to gravitational effects of the rest of the
> rotating universe if the earth was stationary.  My apologies to
> the Swami (even if I still think he did fall out of a very tall tree).

Nope, it can't work that way.  You were right the first time.  If you were
at the center of a rotating sphere of matter, there would be no force
causing you to begin rotating.  (No, don't anyone invoke Mach's principle.
That would be the same thing as insisting that the Earth is not stationary,
but the flat-heads start from a position that explicitly violates Mach's
principle.)

The only way to synchronize the motion of the pendulum to some gravitational 
source would be through tidal forces (like the moon always keeping one 
face towards the Earth).  The tidal forces from sources outside the solar 
system are essentially zero by symmetry (there is a tiny one from the 
galactic center, a smaller one from the Virgo cluster, etc).  The only 
tidal force to synchronize the pendulum would be from the moon, and to 
a lesser extent from the sun.  But lo and behold, a pendulum at the North 
pole (shouldn't matter where, since the Earth is flat, right?) is 
synchronized not to the motion of the moon, but to the motions of the 
isotropically distributed distant galaxies.

The only conclusion, if one still wants to say the Earth is flat, is that 
angular momentum is not conserved.

-- K.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin L. Sterner  |  U. Penn. High Energy Physics  |  Smash the welfare state!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <3s8bj6$ao3@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>, shelter@peg.apc.org (Madhudvisah dasa Swami) says:
>
>dp025@un.seqeb.gov.au ( DAVID PRITCHARD) wrote:
>
>> To all you sceptical types out there let me just say that not only has
>>Mad' baby _seen_ the light...he's actually gone _faster_ than it.....and
>>y'all shoulda seen the red-shift effect on his saffron robe!!! Outasite!!!
>>  :-)  :-)
>> Luv yaz all!
>>   Bear
>
>Dear David,
>
>Thanks for the input... My theory doesn't really have an edge... but
>that's another story. My sister just sent me a photo she took so I put it
>on my home page at http://www.peg.apc.org/~shelter  The red-shift didn't
>come out very well though...
>
>Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
>
>
>
>Thank you. Hare Krishna!
>
>Madhudvisah dasa Swami
>(shelter@peg.apc.org)      http://www.peg.apc.org/~shelter/ctfote
>                                
>Quotes from His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada 
>(c)Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
>
>
Everybody here is talking about relativity, rotating frames of reference,
speed of light etc.  All you need do is place a large pendulum anywhere
on the planet (except at or near the equator) and you may observe the
earth rotate beneath it.  But I guess Swami Mad-what's-his-name will just
define the pendulum as the rest-of-the-universe other than earth and say
it is attached to the rotating stars.  Even though it is here on dear old
centre-of-the-universe planet earth.  This guy has obviously fallen out
of a very tall tree and no matter what you say he is going to be blissfully
happy with the thorough completeness of his ignorance.

Dave

In article <3sao8d$nts@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>, davidcs@psych.psy.uq.oz.au (David Smyth) says:
>
>In article <3s8bj6$ao3@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>, shelter@peg.apc.org (Madhudvisah dasa Swami) says:
>>
>>dp025@un.seqeb.gov.au ( DAVID PRITCHARD) wrote:
>>
>>> To all you sceptical types out there let me just say that not only has
>>>Mad' baby _seen_ the light...he's actually gone _faster_ than it.....and
>>>y'all shoulda seen the red-shift effect on his saffron robe!!! Outasite!!!
>>>  :-)  :-)
>>> Luv yaz all!
>>>   Bear
>>
>>Dear David,
>>
>>Thanks for the input... My theory doesn't really have an edge... but
>>that's another story. My sister just sent me a photo she took so I put it
>>on my home page at http://www.peg.apc.org/~shelter  The red-shift didn't
>>come out very well though...
>>
>>Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
>>
>>
>>
>>Thank you. Hare Krishna!
>>
>>Madhudvisah dasa Swami
>>(shelter@peg.apc.org)      http://www.peg.apc.org/~shelter/ctfote
>>                                
>>Quotes from His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada 
>>(c)Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
>>
>>
>Everybody here is talking about relativity, rotating frames of reference,
>speed of light etc.  All you need do is place a large pendulum anywhere
>on the planet (except at or near the equator) and you may observe the
>earth rotate beneath it.  But I guess Swami Mad-what's-his-name will just
>define the pendulum as the rest-of-the-universe other than earth and say
>it is attached to the rotating stars.  Even though it is here on dear old
>centre-of-the-universe planet earth.  This guy has obviously fallen out
>of a very tall tree and no matter what you say he is going to be blissfully
>happy with the thorough completeness of his ignorance.
>
>Dave
>
>

I just know the physicists are going to tell me what I just said is
incorrect - and they are right according to General Relativity.  The
pendulum would rotate due to gravitational effects of the rest of the
rotating universe if the earth was stationary.  My apologies to
the Swami (even if I still think he did fall out of a very tall tree).

Dave

In article <3rs6l4$2po@netnews.upenn.edu>, sterner@sel.hep.upenn.edu
(Kevin Sterner) wrote:


> Problem:  there is no volcanic activity on the moon, and if there were any,
> there is no way that the rocks could be ejected with enough velocity to
> escape the moon's gravitational pull.  Meteors do exist, and some of them
> do originate from the moon, but vulcanism has nothing to do with it.  They
> have to be knocked off the moon by a substantial impact.

Kevin, you missed the point.  The volcanic moon *was* an accepted
'scientific' theory at one point.  Untrue in light of today's knowledge
but nevertheless accepted at the time.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kevin L. Sterner  |  U. Penn. High Energy Physics  |  Smash the welfare state!
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't you consider 2000 scientists living off of 250 million tax dollars a
year for the past 40 years at PPPL a welfare state?  They are not close to
breakeven in fusion research and suspect it will be at least another 40 or
50 years if then.  They are all WELFARE QUEENS IN WHITE COATS!  Get it?

Regards,

-- 
"It is dangerous to be right in
 matters on which the established
 authorities are wrong."

Voltaire

Madhudvisah dasa Swami (shelter@peg.apc.org) wrote:
: dp025@un.seqeb.gov.au ( DAVID PRITCHARD) wrote:

: >Mad' baby _seen_ the light...he's actually gone _faster_ than it.....and
: >y'all shoulda seen the red-shift effect on his saffron robe!!! Outasite!!!
:  <snip> another story. My sister just sent me a photo she took so I put it
: on my home page at http://www.peg.apc.org/~shelter  The red-shift didn't
: come out very well though...
  .....thanx man...unfortunately I don't have WEB browse facilities :-(
.......Can I just say I luv the way you have all these folk...and me...
all 37 postings in this thread!!! metaphorically thrusting and parrying.
If the _whole World_ was on the Net.....maybe we wouldn' have any more war!
:-) :-)
      Harry Wosname
       Bear

[follow-up set to science groups only]

sterner@sel.hep.upenn.edu (Kevin Sterner) wrote:

>In article <singtech-2306950242460001@ip-salem2-26.teleport.com>, singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) writes:

<snip>

>I think you'd better read the original post again.  There is nothing
>in the Swami's post to indicate anything but his belief that lunar
>vulcanism is the source of meteors, and his belief that this is the
>accepted explanation.

It's not my belief at all! It was once held by the scientists [or so I
have been told anyhow] :-)

<snip>

>No, as a matter of fact I do not.  The main problem with welfare statism 
>is not the expense, or the burden it places on the resources of the
>productive members of society, or the fact that it returns nothing to
>the economy.  It is that it destroys the fabric of society by creating
>a permanent underclass that is for the most part incapable of breaking 
>the cycle of poverty.

And why is that? Because science has produced so much wonderful advanced
technology and abolished the jobs they used to do... If the society
provided jobs they could do these people [who are now unemployed] would
work and be fine upstanding citizens... They would be paying tax, they
would be consuming... they wouldn't be a burden at all. But how can they
be productive? Your machines are doing all the work! It is a great
paradox... you are making "advancements" but your "advancements" are
putting people out of work. You then have to pay them social security
[which comes out of your own pockets] As you "advance" more and more so
many more become unemployed as a result... Thus science destroys the
society...

Of course this is a great credit to the intelligence of the scientists but
has anyone given a thought to the direction we are going... the
consequences of such a policy... Everything automatic, everything
computerized and everyone unemployed!!!


>  Combine that with democracy, and you have the
>perfect totalitarian state: the people voluntarily vote themselves into
>poverty and oppression.  (This hardly describes the Princeton Plasma 
>Physics Lab!)

You [the scientists (BTW I was a computer systems analyst before so I did
a fair share of it myself too)] are forcing them into poverty and
oppression by taking away their jobs. Not many people want to be
unemployed. Mostly they are ready to work at something, but many people
are not super-intelligent, they are suited to manual laboring, farm work,
etc... But where are the jobs for them now... You have the tractors and
the computers doing it... It may be very economical but it's destroying
the society...


<snip>

Thank you. Hare Krishna!

Madhudvisah dasa Swami
(shelter@peg.apc.org)      http://www.peg.apc.org/~shelter/ctfote
                                
Quotes from His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada 
(c)Bhaktivedanta Book Trust

In article <singtech-2306950242460001@ip-salem2-26.teleport.com>, singtech@teleport.com (C. Cagle) writes:

> In article <3rs6l4$2po@netnews.upenn.edu>, sterner@sel.hep.upenn.edu
> (Kevin Sterner) wrote:
> 
> 
> > Problem:  there is no volcanic activity on the moon, and if there were any,
> > there is no way that the rocks could be ejected with enough velocity to
> > escape the moon's gravitational pull.  Meteors do exist, and some of them
> > do originate from the moon, but vulcanism has nothing to do with it.  They
> > have to be knocked off the moon by a substantial impact.
> 
> Kevin, you missed the point.  The volcanic moon *was* an accepted
> 'scientific' theory at one point.  Untrue in light of today's knowledge
> but nevertheless accepted at the time.

I think you'd better read the original post again.  There is nothing
in the Swami's post to indicate anything but his belief that lunar
vulcanism is the source of meteors, and his belief that this is the
accepted explanation.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Kevin L. Sterner  |  U. Penn. High Energy Physics  |  Smash the welfare state!
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Don't you consider 2000 scientists living off of 250 million tax dollars a
> year for the past 40 years at PPPL a welfare state?  

No, as a matter of fact I do not.  The main problem with welfare statism 
is not the expense, or the burden it places on the resources of the
productive members of society, or the fact that it returns nothing to
the economy.  It is that it destroys the fabric of society by creating
a permanent underclass that is for the most part incapable of breaking 
the cycle of poverty.  Combine that with democracy, and you have the
perfect totalitarian state: the people voluntarily vote themselves into
poverty and oppression.  (This hardly describes the Princeton Plasma 
Physics Lab!)

If you want to continue this thread, another newsgroup might be a
better choice.  I suggest talk.politics.libertarian.

Oh, btw, plasma physics has essentially nothing to do with high energy
physics.  I wouldn't know a tokamak from a doughnut.

>They are not close to
> breakeven in fusion research and suspect it will be at least another 40 or
> 50 years if then.  

But it does have the potential for an economic return...something that
can rarely be demanded of scientific research, and can never be 
demanded of welfare statism.

>They are all WELFARE QUEENS IN WHITE COATS!  Get it?

Oh, I get it alright.  You have such contempt for the advancement of science
that you consider it to be a drain of resources rather than something
beneficial or even neutral.  I can't imagine an attitude more threatening
to the survival and happiness of mankind.

-- K.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin L. Sterner  |  U. Penn. High Energy Physics  |  Smash the welfare state!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

~All you need do is place a large pendulum anywhere
~on the planet (except at or near the equator) and you may observe the
~earth rotate beneath it.
~
~Dave
~
Ha ha ha ha Dave you got him on this one...good work.

...gene preston

dp025@un.seqeb.gov.au ( DAVID PRITCHARD) wrote:

>Madhudvisah dasa Swami (shelter@peg.apc.org) wrote:
>: dp025@un.seqeb.gov.au ( DAVID PRITCHARD) wrote:

>: >Mad' baby _seen_ the light...he's actually gone _faster_ than it.....and
>: >y'all shoulda seen the red-shift effect on his saffron robe!!! Outasite!!!
>:  <snip> another story. My sister just sent me a photo she took so I put it
>: on my home page at http://www.peg.apc.org/~shelter  The red-shift didn't
>: come out very well though...
>  .....thanx man...unfortunately I don't have WEB browse facilities :-(
>.......Can I just say I luv the way you have all these folk...and me...
>all 37 postings in this thread!!! metaphorically thrusting and parrying.

They are doing it in _ALL_ of the threads... Not just this one! What's the
difference?

>If the _whole World_ was on the Net.....maybe we wouldn' have any more war!
>:-) :-)
>      Harry Wosname
>       Bear

I don't think the net will help much... If everyone was on it they'd
mostly be posting in alt.lets.talk.about.sex and downloading from
alt.binaries.naked.women... According to the scientists that's all there
is, thats the purpose of life...

But we could talk about Krishna instead. That may just create a
revolution!


Thank you. Hare Krishna!

Madhudvisah dasa Swami
(shelter@peg.apc.org)      http://www.peg.apc.org/~shelter/ctfote
                                
Quotes from His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada 
(c)Bhaktivedanta Book Trust

cca93039@sun1.bham.ac.uk (ET Chilton) wrote:

>Madhudvisah dasa Swami (shelter@peg.apc.org) wrote:
>[snip]
>:
>: Now we only have one valid theory for the creation, that God created the
>: world. So it is my humble request that religious people take strength from
>: this and resist the attempts by science to destroy the world's faith in
>: God with their baseless and illogical theories.


>: Thank you. Hare Krishna!

>: Madhudvisah dasa Swami

>ahh I seee its all so clear now. By the way if I want to work out how far away
>a star is how do use your theory to get an answer?

We have books... The Vedas. You just read them. It's very simple.

> or perhapes I should use
>the red shift? 

Yes, you can do that also... But you will never know if it is the correct
distance or not.

>When deciding which one to use what points should I take into 
>consideration?

There are two ways to get knowledge. The ascending process where you try
to find out by your own observations and experiments and there is the
descending process, that means you accept the knowledge from an authority,
someone who knows. If you can find a perfect authority you can get the
perfect knowledge... The other way [using the red-shift and your
assumptions] is not very perfect... Your assumptions may well be wrong.

>	1) god wont talk to me

God will talk to anyone but you have to want to talk to Him, that's all.
But whether you would ask Him about the red-shift? 

There is a nice story about an old lady who was collecting firewood in the
forest. She had collected quite a big bundle and was carrying it on her
back. Then something happened and the bundle fell on the ground. It was
very heavy and she didn't know how she would pick it up again. So she
cried out "God help me.." And God appeared saying, "Yes, you called Me.
What do you want?" So she said, "Please God could you put this bundle on
my back again..."

>	2) The big bang theory isnt perfect but at least it makes some testable
>		predictions

Yes... The red-shift and the background radiation... I know...

>	3) religious people are all mad and it would be a better world if we
>		could convice them that they are wrong.

This is an interesting statement... We could say something about
scientists. But that would not be fair. There are many intelligent and
thoughtful scientists and there are some mad ones as well. It is the same
with religous people...

>	4) how dose god(tm) explain red shift and cosmic microwave
>		background radiation

You are only so concerned about these two tiny miniscule details of the
cosmos because your big-bang seems a little consistent with them. God
explains everything... He doesn't limit Himself to the red-shift...

>	5) will I get any marks in my exam if I write 'god did it all' in answer
>		to any question?

That depends on who marks it. But you should not just say "God did it".
You should explain scientifically how God did it. For that the text book
is the Srimad Bhagavatam. Study that and you will understand the science
of God...

Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!






Thank you. Hare Krishna!

Madhudvisah dasa Swami
(shelter@peg.apc.org)      http://www.peg.apc.org/~shelter/ctfote
                                
Quotes from His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada 
(c)Bhaktivedanta Book Trust

sterner@sel.hep.upenn.edu "Kevin Sterner" writes:

> I think you'd better read the original post again.  There is nothing
> in the Swami's post to indicate anything but his belief that lunar
> vulcanism is the source of meteors, and his belief that this is the
> accepted explanation.

I did. I read it again. And in his little anecdote (it seems to me) it was
the scientists who refused to believe in rocks falling from the sky and
would not accept that they existed until they had a theory (vulcanism
on the moon). As I added later, some people wouldn't recognise an irony
unless it fell off the ironying board (hint - that was a joke).

The Swami, in his gentle way, said "Excuse me, what if..", and everyone
shouted "YOU'RE WRONG!!", and he is still smiling. Even his modest proposal
of a Flat Earth was an innocent way of starting a little discussion, but
instead it brought down a shower of invective. Ah well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Newsam               Micro Services -- ben@microser.demon.co.uk
                             Tel & Fax: -- +44 (114) 285 2727
Programming, Documentation, Consultancy -- Windows, SDK, MFC, C++ etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In <3rqcr9$a4g@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>, shelter@peg.apc.org (Madhudvisah dasa Swami) writes:
>The "flat earth" idea came from a posting related to the book "Telling
>Lies for God" where some atheist was spouting his view that the Bible was
>invalid as it described the Earth as flat...
>
>So I thought it would be a nice exercise to investigate intellectually if
>one could actually come up with a consistent world-view based on a
>flat-earth...

Hi Bozo!

I'm the atheist that was sprouting my view that the Bible was invalid
as it described the earth as flat.  Actually, I said that creation
'scientists" claim that the Bible was inerrant (they mean literally
true, but they're not too bright).  I then gave a number of examples
of "facts" in the Bible that we now know are false.  That the Earth was
flat was one of them.

I never claimed that the Bible was "invalid", whatever that means.
I simply said that to treat it as a scientific book was stupidity.

Your lack of comprehension skills is matched only by your intellectual
weakness.  In response to this you posted a load of rubbish about an
"intellectual exercise", pretending that the world actually was flat.
Obviously your definition of intellectual is different from mine - it
seemed more like an exercise in futility to me.  Perhaps the reason people
were reluctant to indulge you in your little game was that they saw it
as a complete waste of time?

There is ample evidence that the Earth is round.  Boats and planes don't
drop over the edge, the stars in the sky are in different positions,
according to your position on the Earth.  These are simple observations
that people made thousands of years ago, yet they seem to elude you.
Now we have even more proof: hundreds of satellites are orbiting the
Earth right now, and we've seen photographs of the Earth taken from space.

Jerking-off about "world views", as if this made nonsense reasonable,
changes none of this.  This is a common tactic of cranks, who pretend that
their foaming at the mouth is intellectually justifiable, trying to engage
people in debate.  This gives the impression that their superstitions are
on the same level as reasonable and rational investigation.  If you are
going to use waste your time using your intellect on speculation that can
be falsified by a 10 year old, perhaps you'd be better off forgetting it
completely and doing what you do best - dancing with the fairies at the
bottom of the garden.


David Kay.

gene.preston@access.texas.gov (Gene Preston) writes:

>~All you need do is place a large pendulum anywhere
>~on the planet (except at or near the equator) and you may observe the
>~earth rotate beneath it.

>Ha ha ha ha Dave you got him on this one...good work.

   Hey, we never said the flat Earth didn't rotate, or that it wasn't
round, either.  Just flat.

-- 
L. Drew Davis                        Internet: drewd@cc.gatech.edu
You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment.

dnk@world.net   (David Kay) wrote:

>In <3rqcr9$a4g@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>, shelter@peg.apc.org (Madhudvisah dasa Swami) writes:
>>The "flat earth" idea came from a posting related to the book "Telling
>>Lies for God" where some atheist was spouting his view that the Bible was
>>invalid as it described the Earth as flat...
>>
>>So I thought it would be a nice exercise to investigate intellectually if
>>one could actually come up with a consistent world-view based on a
>>flat-earth...

>Hi Bozo!

>I'm the atheist that was sprouting my view that the Bible was invalid
>as it described the earth as flat.

Thank you. It started an interesting discussion.

>  Actually, I said that creation
>'scientists" claim that the Bible was inerrant (they mean literally
>true, but they're not too bright).  I then gave a number of examples
>of "facts" in the Bible that we now know are false.  That the Earth was
>flat was one of them.

>I never claimed that the Bible was "invalid", whatever that means.
>I simply said that to treat it as a scientific book was stupidity.

>Your lack of comprehension skills is matched only by your intellectual
>weakness.  In response to this you posted a load of rubbish about an
>"intellectual exercise", pretending that the world actually was flat.

I was exploring the model, that's all. Many things can be explained
according to this view [more than I initially expected]... It is true that
we see the world through our own "model"... And there can be more than one
model that fits the observations...

>Obviously your definition of intellectual is different from mine - it
>seemed more like an exercise in futility to me.  

No. It was certainly not futile. 

>Perhaps the reason people
>were reluctant to indulge you in your little game was that they saw it
>as a complete waste of time?

Well some were reluctant, of course, but many, many people have been [and
still are] discussing things which grew out of it. So it was valuable.

>There is ample evidence that the Earth is round.

I never said it wasn't round. I merely suggested it might be flat... It is
still round.

>  Boats and planes don't
>drop over the edge,

You obviously didn't read the articles. There is no edge... Everything
looks exactly the same as we see it now. The only problem I had was
annoying distance discrepancies as one gets closer to the south pole and a
problem in the Southern Hemisphere sky... Otherwise everything was fine.

> the stars in the sky are in different positions,
>according to your position on the Earth.

Yes. They are in the flat earth model too. But I haven't worked it out
completely. It is a little tricky...

>  These are simple observations
>that people made thousands of years ago, yet they seem to elude you.

No. They haven't eluded me. I was exploring to see if theses same "simple
observations" could be explained using a completely different model of the
universe. It may sound unreasonable to you but it is a valid exercise.

>Now we have even more proof: hundreds of satellites are orbiting the
>Earth right now, and we've seen photographs of the Earth taken from space.

The satellites [except for the polar orbiting ones] are not a problem at
all. The photos from space well... that's not so easy to explain :-(

>Jerking-off about "world views", as if this made nonsense reasonable,
>changes none of this.

No. We all see the world differently. It's not nonsense.

 < the rest has degenerated into meaningless mud slinging... >
Thank you. Hare Krishna!

Madhudvisah dasa Swami
(shelter@peg.apc.org)      http://www.peg.apc.org/~shelter/ctfote
                                
Quotes from His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada 
(c)Bhaktivedanta Book Trust

In article <3sntvr$p4h@terminus.cc.gatech.edu>,
L. Drew Davis <drewd@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>gene.preston@access.texas.gov (Gene Preston) writes:
>
>>~All you need do is place a large pendulum anywhere
>>~on the planet (except at or near the equator) and you may observe the
>>~earth rotate beneath it.
>
>>Ha ha ha ha Dave you got him on this one...good work.
>
>   Hey, we never said the flat Earth didn't rotate, or that it wasn't
>round, either.  Just flat.
>

But, the fact that the pendulum will rotate at most latitudes, but WON'T
rotate at the equator proves that the earth isn't a rotating disk.  So,
since we know it rotates, and we know it isn't a rotating disk, it can't
be flat.

-Bret Wood
-bretwood@cs.uoregon.edu

PS -- A more formal geometrical proof in ASCII is available upon request...

		NOT!!!!!!    :)

C. Cagle (singtech@teleport.com) wrote:

> Kevin, you missed the point.  The volcanic moon *was* an accepted
> 'scientific' theory at one point.  Untrue in light of today's knowledge
> but nevertheless accepted at the time.

No, you missed the point.  The theory was consistent with the
available evidence.  Scientists never claim to be right 100% of the
time (unlike religionists).

> Don't you consider 2000 scientists living off of 250 million tax dollars a
> year for the past 40 years at PPPL a welfare state?  They are not close to
> breakeven in fusion research and suspect it will be at least another 40 or
> 50 years if then.  They are all WELFARE QUEENS IN WHITE COATS!  Get it?

Wrong again.  Scientists are contributing to the wealth of society.
Or are you going to boycott all products of science for the last
several hundred years?  If so, I'll come and visit you in your mud hut
some time.

Paul.

--
Paul Johnson            | GEC-Marconi Ltd is not responsible for my opinions. |
+44 1245 473331 ext 2245+-----------+-----------------------------------------+
Work: <paul.johnson@gmrc.gecm.com>  | You are lost in a twisty maze of little
Home: <Paul@treetop.demon.co.uk>    | standards, all different.

In article <3sfvaq$ok8@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>,
Madhudvisah dasa Swami <shelter@peg.apc.org> wrote:

>
>I don't think the net will help much... If everyone was on it they'd
>mostly be posting in alt.lets.talk.about.sex and downloading from
>alt.binaries.naked.women... According to the scientists that's all there
>is, thats the purpose of life...
>
>But we could talk about Krishna instead. That may just create a
>revolution!
>

Was it not Krishna who used to get sexual pleasure from many many 
women (Gopies) including his aunt Radha? Then how do you claim that 
talk.krishna can restrain us from useless talk.about.sex etc.

No offence intended.


Dewan Rashid.
(from my understanding and correct me if I am wrong)

>
>Thank you. Hare Krishna!
>
>Madhudvisah dasa Swami
>(shelter@peg.apc.org)      http://www.peg.apc.org/~shelter/ctfote
>                                
>Quotes from His Divine Grace A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada 
>(c)Bhaktivedanta Book Trust
>
>

In article <3tdh5c$b1u@hercules.iassf.easams.com.au>,
    Dewan RASHID <dmr@hercules.iassf.easams.com.au> wrote:
>In article <3sfvaq$ok8@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>,
>Madhudvisah dasa Swami <shelter@peg.apc.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>I don't think the net will help much... If everyone was on it they'd
>>mostly be posting in alt.lets.talk.about.sex and downloading from
>>alt.binaries.naked.women... According to the scientists that's all there
>>is, thats the purpose of life...
>>
>>But we could talk about Krishna instead. That may just create a
>>revolution!
>
>Was it not Krishna who used to get sexual pleasure from many many 
>women (Gopies) including his aunt Radha? Then how do you claim that 
>talk.krishna can restrain us from useless talk.about.sex etc.

Krishna had lots of sex. He didn't hang out on Usenet wishing he was
having sex (and downloading dirty pictures of Kali).

Point in Krishna's favor, yes?

--Andrew Solovay <solovay@netcom.com>

"Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohow permanent."
		--- Pogo Possum

[sci.astro removed from follow-up]

dmr@hercules.iassf.easams.com.au (Dewan RASHID) wrote:

>In article <3sfvaq$ok8@dingo.cc.uq.oz.au>,
>Madhudvisah dasa Swami <shelter@peg.apc.org> wrote:

>>
>>I don't think the net will help much... If everyone was on it they'd
>>mostly be posting in alt.lets.talk.about.sex and downloading from
>>alt.binaries.naked.women... According to the scientists that's all there
>>is, thats the purpose of life...
>>
>>But we could talk about Krishna instead. That may just create a
>>revolution!
>>

>Was it not Krishna who used to get sexual pleasure from many many 
>women (Gopies) including his aunt Radha? Then how do you claim that 
>talk.krishna can restrain us from useless talk.about.sex etc.

People always misunderstand Krishna's pastimes with the Gopis and Srimati
Radharani. It is a very difficult subject matter for us to understand
because we think Krishna is like us. But Krishna is the Supreme
Personality of Godhead. He is unlimited in every respect whereas we are
very limited. We are small an He is great.

Everything that exists here in the material world has its original
counterpart in the spiritual world. The difference is there it is in it's
original pure form whereas here it is reflected in a perverted way. So
this mundane sex life is a perverted reflection of the pure spiritual
relationship between Krishna and His devotees. Everything exists there,
but it is not like sex life here. There is a vast difference.

Mundane people consider Krishna to be a woman-hunter or a very lusty young
boy... But this is not the case. To understand Krishna's pastimes with the
Gopis one has to understand Krishna first. So there is a very special
book, Srimad Bhagavatam, which presents the science of Krishna. In the
tenth canto Krishna's pastimes are described, but cantos 1-9 have to be
studied first. Otherwise one will miss the point and think Krishna to be
an ordinary person.

"The acts of yogamaya make it possible for the Lord and the gopis, in
loving ecstasy, to sometimes meet and sometimes separate. These
transcendental loving affairs of the Lord are unimaginable to empiricists
involved in the impersonal feature of the Absolute Truth. Therefore the
Lord Himself appears before the mundaners to bestow upon them the highest
form of spiritual realization and also personally relish its essence. The
Lord is so merciful that He Himself descends to take the fallen souls back
home to the kingdom of Godhead, where the erotic principles of Godhead are
eternally relished in their real form, distinct from the perverted sexual
love so much adored and indulged in by the fallen souls in their diseased
condition.

"The reason the Lord displays the rasa-lila is essentially to induce all
the fallen souls to give up their diseased morality and religosity, and to
attract them to the kingdom of God to enjoy the reality. A person who
actually understands what the rasa-lila is will certainly hate to indulge
in mundane sex life. For the realized soul, hearing the Lord's rasa-lila
through the propper channel will result in complete abstinence from
material sexual pleasure." (Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Adi-lila 4.30)

So talk.krishna would be very effective in restraining us from
talk.useless. It has to be heard from a proper authority though. The whole
thing is spoiled if the speaker is not qualified. 

>No offence intended.


Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!