Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Benj · Guest

On Oct 8, 10:32 am, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

[quote]And if you have no manufacturing you might
as well grow your own food. The real problem
is as the Leader of your House put it: you can>t
buy a new car because you need a loan to
pay for it and the dealer can>t sell you a car
because he needs a loan to buy his inventory.
Tough shit. Cut the banker out, cut the civil
servant out, they are taking too big a slice of
the pie. But what did you need a new car
for anyway? Maintain the old one properly,
buy the new when you can afford it and you
WILL cut the banker out.
[/quote]

So now ask yourself, WHY do you need a loan for a new car? Do you NEED
a new car or simply WANT one? And why is everyone so set on paying
double for a new car? (cost of car plus interest). That would be
because someone TOLD you that you should. So instead of just waiting
until you have the money to buy this or that, you borrow the money to
buy it and then pay some huge interest because someone on TV told you
that you can borrow against your future. And of course they tell you
this because THEY are the ones who get that extra money that things
cost.

So they sell you and you buy it. You have to promise your future so
you can buy some huge SUV with all the off-road features and low
mileage for that "extreme" "off-road" trip to work each day!
Everybody wonders how I make little money but live like a freakin'
king. Duh. I haven>t bought all that BS that you are sold on. My old
POS Geo Metro hauls my ass around just fine. Do I need to spend a
hundred grand to drive around in "style"? Gimme a break.

If you wonder why you work more and have less, it>s that banker on
your back you are carrying around.

There is only ONE valid reason for loans. That would be to get the
capital to purchase "something" that will eventually pay back the
money you borrowed plus (hopefully) a reasonable profit. If your car
is not going to be used to earn back the money you borrowed to buy it,
then you should have never had that loan! Think about it.

dlzc · Guest

Dear Benj:

On Oct 8, 10:00 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
....
[quote]So now ask yourself, WHY do you need a loan
for a new car? Do you NEED a new car or simply
WANT one?
[/quote]
Somehow we have to get this back to physics.

Cars are 2-20,000 pounds of personal jewelry. Some folks live far
from "distribution centers" and horses or bicycles or walking simply
take too long. A new car is less problematic than a used one, and
spare parts are easier to get. Additionally, they help support the
guy next door (essentially).

....
[quote]There is only ONE valid reason for loans. That
would be to get the capital to purchase
"something" that will eventually pay back the
money you borrowed plus (hopefully) a
reasonable profit. If your car is not going to be
used to earn back the money you borrowed to
buy it, then you should have never had that
loan! Think about it.
[/quote]
Less than 10% of the *average* person>s income is spent on
subsistence. The balance is voluntary / optional, and strictly
speaking keeps your neighbors employed. A loan simply provides income
for (ultimately) retired folks (and the occasional fat cat).
Insurance on the other hand...

We are members of a group. We decide how many members that includes,
by what we do *now*. We know how to collapse back to ruin, it is
built into the animal. Can we learn how to *trust*; or must
contagion, famine, and conflagration (the animal programming) take
over?

David A. Smith

Benj · Guest

On Oct 8, 1:37 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

[quote]Cars are 2-20,000 pounds of personal jewelry. Some folks live far
from "distribution centers" and horses or bicycles or walking simply
take too long. A new car is less problematic than a used one, and
spare parts are easier to get. Additionally, they help support the
guy next door (essentially).
[/quote]
Question, should a person take out a LOAN to buy jewlery? Does that
make sense to you? How does the jewelry pay back the loan? I>m not
saying it can>t. It could. Say you need to have the Jewelry to "show
class" for some promotion or sales job you are undertaking. Just like
say you need a new car because you are a salesman and need both the
'style" and the reliability. But for old Joe Sixpack, a loan to buy
stuff that has no potential payback is a loser.

[quote]Less than 10% of the *average* person>s income is spent on
subsistence. The balance is voluntary / optional, and strictly
speaking keeps your neighbors employed. A loan simply provides income
for (ultimately) retired folks (and the occasional fat cat).
Insurance on the other hand...
[/quote]
So, you are saying "greed is good"? Optional income isn>t the problem.
If you have extra money, buy anything you like with it. The problem is
when you use that extra money to buy more money. Why not just write
checks directly to the fat cats and have that good feeling that comes
with giving to "charity"?

[quote]We are members of a group. We decide how many members that includes,
by what we do *now*. We know how to collapse back to ruin, it is
built into the animal. Can we learn how to *trust*; or must
contagion, famine, and conflagration (the animal programming) take
over?
[/quote]
Why should we "learn" to "trust" anyone? Why should I "trust" anyone?
Experience on this planet has shown that to not be such a wise choice.
I love the way all the talking head news people all advertise
themselves by talking about "trust"!!! HA! They are about THE most
untrustworthy people this side of politicians! And the banks even
have "Trust" in their names! There is a reason for the "rule".

Here>s the problem in a nutshell. On the planet there are two kinds
of people. Those willing to try to advance behavior to new levels of
civilization and those still following animal mores. Animals are
basically amoral. If you see something you want, if you can, you take
it. If someone gets in your way, you kill them. When hunting you use
camouflage and deception to make the kill. And it>s all perfectly fine
whether you are the one living or the one dying under the rules of
"evolution". But here>s the catch. Animals form societies, but they do
not create civilizations. And it>s even worse than that. We humans
have BOTH groups operating with opposing philosophies at the same
time. One tries to use animal rules (predators) and another is trying
to raise civilization above the level of taking swords and going to
grab what you want from the neighboring city-state. But until somehow
these people are forced to wear Nazi-style patches identifying which
group they belong to, "trust" is a pretty foolish thing to try.

And of course, business is really just an analog for war. Hence one
has the problem of predators believing that the rich and intelligent
have a divine duty to take everything the poor and dumb own, while we
also have an idealistic group trying to promote logic, fairness, the
scientific method and civilization in the face of all this opposition.
It>s not a particularly hopeful situation. Until one group or the
other gains the upper hand, the situation is not likely to be
resolved.

Nevertheless I>m still rooting for the side of civilization no matter
how it turns out.

Now. If we could just mathematically model these ideas and sell them
to Wall Street! :-)

dlzc · Guest

Dear Benj:

On Oct 8, 11:07 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 1:37 pm,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:

Cars are 2-20,000 pounds of personal jewelry. Some
folks live far from "distribution centers" and horses or
bicycles or walking simply take too long. A new car
is less problematic than a used one, and spare parts
are easier to get. Additionally, they help support the
guy next door (essentially).

Question, should a person take out a LOAN to
buy jewlery? Does that make sense to you?
How does the jewelry pay back the loan? I>m not
saying it can>t. It could. Say you need to have the
Jewelry to "show class" for some promotion or
sales job you are undertaking. Just like say you
need a new car because you are a salesman and
need both the 'style" and the reliability. But for old
Joe Sixpack, a loan to buy stuff that has no
potential payback is a loser.
[/quote]
But you don>t disagree that optional income can be spent in any way,
and if "five years" disposable income can be "gathered" into a today
purchase, and this purchase simply makes you more liable to show up
for work, feel better about your circumstances, and feel like working
a little harder to make sure you can pay off the debt... should loans
for "jewelry" be forbidden? It seems to me "investment" yields
current productivity. Or can.

[quote]Less than 10% of the *average* person>s income
is spent on subsistence. The balance is voluntary
/ optional, and strictly speaking keeps your
neighbors employed. A loan simply provides
income for (ultimately) retired folks (and the
occasional fat cat). Insurance on the other hand...

So, you are saying "greed is good"?
[/quote]
Greed is the basis for civization, if you insist on "black and white"
allocations. I am willing to discuss shadings here, if you wish.

[quote]Optional income isn>t the problem. If you have
extra money, buy anything you like with it.
[/quote]
How about I help you buy a new / less-used car, on the agreement that
you pay me some amount more by the end of the loan?

[quote]The problem is when you use that extra money
to buy more money. Why not just write checks
directly to the fat cats and have that good feeling
that comes with giving to "charity"?
[/quote]
I would not consider you charity. I would hope that if I loaned you
money (like I had any), you would not consider me a fat cat because I
did. And vice versa.

[quote]We are members of a group. We decide
how many members that includes, by what
we do *now*. We know how to collapse back
to ruin, it is built into the animal. Can we
learn how to *trust*; or must contagion,
famine, and conflagration (the animal
programming) take over?

Why should we "learn" to "trust" anyone?
[/quote]
Why should you not live next door to:
- someone that has a military arsenal, and practices some arcane
ritual you don>t personally believe in (say cannibalism)?
- some family that squirts out a kid or two every nine months, neither
of them has a job, and they never (can afford to) go to the doctor?
.... can you trust them?

[quote]Why should I "trust" anyone?
[/quote]
You do and must. You trust your NSP to deliver your posts, for
example.

[quote]Experience on this planet has shown that to not
be such a wise choice. I love the way all the
talking head news people all advertise themselves
by talking about "trust"!!! HA! They are about THE
most untrustworthy people this side of politicians!
[/quote]
Douglas Adams... "take me to your lizard"

[quote]And the banks even have "Trust" in their names!
[/quote]
US unit of currency has exactly the same thing. Money is only a unit
of trust. And those that hold "precious metals and jems" trust that
they will always be in demand, and will get them food on demand.

[quote]There is a reason for the "rule".

Here>s the problem in a nutshell. On the planet
there are two kinds of people.
[/quote]
No. Nothing is this simple.

[quote]Those willing to try to advance behavior to new
levels of civilization and those still following
animal mores. Animals are basically amoral.
[/quote]
Not really. Cats are really better at society than we are. As are
whales, dolphins (who still eat their own), wolves, etc. "Moral" is
pretty slippery when applied to animals, since much
"anthropomorphizing" must be imposed in order to judge. But to your
point...

Must society be based on the highest, the lowest, or something in
between?

[quote]If you see something you want, if you can,
you take it. If someone gets in your way, you
kill them. When hunting you use camouflage
and deception to make the kill. And it>s all
perfectly fine whether you are the one living or
the one dying under the rules of "evolution".
But here>s the catch. Animals form societies,
but they do not create civilizations. And it>s
even worse than that. We humans have BOTH
groups operating with opposing philosophies
at the same time. One tries to use animal
rules (predators) and another is trying to
raise civilization above the level of taking
swords and going to grab what you want
from the neighboring city-state.
[/quote]
.... like oil, the right to form your own society, or wimmun ...

[quote]But until somehow these people are forced
to wear Nazi-style patches identifying which
group they belong to, "trust" is a pretty
foolish thing to try.
[/quote]
It is all we have, however. There is no way to judge a man>s soul...
all we can hope for is his deeds... aka. "credit history", "military
service record", "driving record", ... abstractions in use today for
that purpose.

[quote]And of course, business is really just an
analog for war. Hence one has the problem
of predators believing that the rich and
intelligent have a divine duty to take everything
the poor and dumb own, while we also have
an idealistic group trying to promote logic,
fairness, the scientific method and civilization
in the face of all this opposition.
[/quote]
Well, the company I am working for is tripping all over itself to be
otherwise, and one of our competitor continues to sell lies about what
his equipment will do.. and takes the loss from another column in the
spreadsheet. But he gets sales.

[quote]It>s not a particularly hopeful situation. Until
one group or the other gains the upper hand,
the situation is not likely to be resolved.

Nevertheless I>m still rooting for the side of
civilization no matter how it turns out.
[/quote]
And that requires *trust*. There is no "guarantee" a civilization
will reward each of its citizens equally. Socialism and communism
didn>t. Police states don>t.

[quote]Now. If we could just mathematically model
these ideas and sell them to Wall Street! :-)
[/quote]
Yes, but who would buy it? Good chatting with you.

David A. Smith

Androcles · Guest

"dlzc" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:758a48d6-0d89-4fb7-b996-a9cca7fa4f7b@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Hello Androcles:

On Oct 7, 3:14 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
[quote]"dlzc" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:d7e7e9ca-640f-4231-b362-3eadd92f4e11@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Howdy hanson:

On Oct 7, 10:27 am, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:

The boom and the bust are both part of the system
of shells (as in shell game). Money is a unit of
trust, just as any other non-food commodity is.
We go looking for "real value" in assets... and you
find the "trust me" eyes of the guy offering you the
goods.

We are all living in castles in the air, and are
support staff for the very few farmers and miners.
Love it or change it. And if you change it, be
prepared for a major shift dwonwards in the
Earth>s population density.

===========================================
A change in density is a good thing. 150 years
ago the population density of Europe fell as the
population density of the USA rose. As to
miners, they are the support staff for manufacturing.
Who needs raw materials if you don>t make
anything with it?
[/quote]

Smiffy:
Glazing for windows. Metals for plows, hinges, and dinnerware.
Fertilizers. Salt. (Other) dietary mineral supplements. Mining is
not only for manufacturing "fluffware" for support staff.

==============================================
Androcles:
Chimpanzees and polar bears don>t live in glass houses. Nor do they
make anything.
What is the first obvious difference between man and any other animal?
His clothes.
Take them away and be prepared for a major shift downwards in the
Earth>s population density (and population). First to go is the eskimo,
who is no farmer or miner.
Neither were North American aboriginals until farming was forced on
them by Europeans.

I repeat:
Who needs raw materials if you don>t make anything?
Naming the things you do make doesn>t answer that question.

[quote]And if you have no manufacturing you might
as well grow your own food. The real problem
is as the Leader of your House put it: you can>t
buy a new car because you need a loan to
pay for it and the dealer can>t sell you a car
because he needs a loan to buy his inventory.
Tough shit. Cut the banker out, cut the civil
servant out, they are taking too big a slice of
the pie. But what did you need a new car
for anyway? Maintain the old one properly,
buy the new when you can afford it and you
WILL cut the banker out.
[/quote]
Smiffy:
Where do tires come from?
=========================================
Androcles:
Unlike money, they grow on trees.
http://www.bio.ilstu.edu/Armstrong/syllabi/rubber/rubber.htm

Nylon shirts are mined, silk panties
are farmed, cotton blouses are farmed.

Miners and farmers are the support staff for manufacturing.

Smiffy:
Spare parts? The oil to run / lubricate
it? Cars and tractors have to go, if you are going to eliminate
mining.

=========================================
Androcles:
I>m talking about eliminating bankers and lawyers. Where did I
say I>d eliminate mining, you clown?
The politically correct buzzword for keeping an old car running
nowadays is "recycling". That means washing used containers
like milk churns instead of using them once and melting them
down, which is what your banker has persuaded you that you
need so that he can lend you (sell you) money to waste on packaging.
Sheesh, I live alone and I still throw out a full trash bag every week,
full of food packaging.
You don>t throw your house away when it gets old, do you?
No, the bankers and lawyers are all over that like flies on shit.
Money is vapourware (like relativity).
Big financial crisis - cut interest rate by 0.5% and get the economy
going again. Trust me, its a shell game as cha-cha says.

spudnik · Guest

know, I don>t mind,
depending on his definition of "its."

[quote]Mind trying to explain its own existence.
[/quote]
thus:
what, compared to HW, as previewed a)
in '92>s publication
of http://tarpley.net/bushb.htm., or b)
just because he had a British tutor,
who knew some achaic spellings?

the veep is now the head of government de jure,
since GHWB>s first months, and especially
since Gore during the impeachment;
he is running the Darfur policy,
per Hollywood cheerleading.

well, not *all* of Hollywood, and
maybe more of "Hollywood" that is in a)
Santa Monica & Playa Vista, b)
Burbank, c)
Canada, d)
in the ATM voting machines and e)
et al ad vomitorium.

[quote]its worse : Vice president Dan " potatoe" Quayle !
Yeah, but a waiter has more responsibilities.[/quote]

Androcles · Guest

"dlzc" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:7eb3bcb8-b6e7-49a5-a30f-1352728ba987@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Dear Benj:

On Oct 8, 10:00 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
....
[quote]So now ask yourself, WHY do you need a loan
for a new car? Do you NEED a new car or simply
WANT one?
[/quote]
Somehow we have to get this back to physics.
----------------------------------------------------------
Ok. Relativity is like money - vapourware.
=================================

Cars are 2-20,000 pounds of personal jewelry. Some folks live far
from "distribution centers" and horses or bicycles or walking simply
take too long. A new car is less problematic than a used one, and
spare parts are easier to get. Additionally, they help support the
guy next door (essentially).

....
[quote]There is only ONE valid reason for loans. That
would be to get the capital to purchase
"something" that will eventually pay back the
money you borrowed plus (hopefully) a
reasonable profit. If your car is not going to be
used to earn back the money you borrowed to
buy it, then you should have never had that
loan! Think about it.
[/quote]
Less than 10% of the *average* person>s income is spent on
subsistence. The balance is voluntary / optional, and strictly
speaking keeps your neighbors employed. A loan simply provides income
for (ultimately) retired folks (and the occasional fat cat).
Insurance on the other hand...

We are members of a group. We decide how many members that includes,
by what we do *now*. We know how to collapse back to ruin, it is
built into the animal. Can we learn how to *trust*; or must
contagion, famine, and conflagration (the animal programming) take
over?

David A. Smith

spudnik · Guest

the curvature of space was uncovered by Gauss
in the 19th cce, measuring a part of France
that was in dyspute, on the ground, and
by Kepler above it. whereas,
the unfortunate notion of "bent space" is rather
a delectation of Minkowski>s dumb-ass space-time --
and he was a pretty-good math-guy,
otherwise, for most of his 31 years!

the other notions are dependent upon "the" big bang,
and upon Hubble>s interpretation of the redshift,
thereby, and the Michelson-Morley alleged null,
furthered further away from null by others, but
Einstein said, Oy vey -- no way,
from my stylish office view at Caltechay! (or,
he>d have, if he spoke Yiddish and English .-)

[quote]=1= If matter, energy and force-fields are supposed
to bend space, then what is this bent or curled space
is embedded in?
[/quote]
thus:
"the consortium" of newspapers reported,
a full year after the fact, that Gore would have won
*in a full recount.* what I don>t recall, if any
of those three papers, bothered to note that
Gore could have *asked* for a full recount
-- it was that close --
instead of bringing the first suit for a partial birth choice....
when the desideratum is the actual "intent of the voters,"
as legislated in Texas under His Shrubness,
the condition of the chad shall be fully noted -- a-hem!

[quote]Uh, who carried Florida?
[/quote]
thus:
here is an etymology of THE PHOTON:
photoelectrical effect "hits" measuring device,
"ballistically" imparting its momentum
of one quantum (per Planck h-bar) at some frequency;
the bug is a feature, proven statistically by Bose
(lies, polls, statistics !-)

[quote]where did you ever refute Uncle Al>s experiments?
[/quote]
--USA out of Darfur Cruizade!
http://larouchepub.com/other/2008/3537willl_zardari_survive.html

--ROTC, your summer vacation in the Sahara Desert ( S u d a n ) ;
presage the Draft for your middleschool class of '12 --
brought to you by Allstate (tm) and Oxford U.Press!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2008/080813moloch_brown.html
http://wlym.com

--Wikipedia deletes notice of nullification
of "preclearance rule" of Voting Rights Act
in LaRouche v. Fowler, March 27, 2000;
is the VRAo1965 a dead letter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act#Pre-Clearance_2

Benj · Guest

On Oct 8, 6:42 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

[quote]Why should we "learn" to "trust" anyone?

Why should you not live next door to:
- someone that has a military arsenal, and practices some arcane
ritual you don>t personally believe in (say cannibalism)?
- some family that squirts out a kid or two every nine months, neither
of them has a job, and they never (can afford to) go to the doctor?
... can you trust them?

Why should I "trust" anyone?

You do and must. You trust your NSP to deliver your posts, for
example.
[/quote]
No most certainly do not! I EXPECT them to deliver them, but since I
use Google, I certainly don>t TRUST them to do so! And in fact, they
regularly don>t. And why shouldn>t I live next door to someone with a
military "arsenal"? Should I trust my neighbor more than I trust G.W.
Bush? I think I would. And that would be true even if they practice
arcane rituals I don>t personally believe in like say driving new SUVs
or voting Democrat. Why should I "trust" anyone? When I do business
it sure would be nice to operate old school with a handshake and
mutual trust. But those days (if they ever existed and I doubt they
did) are long gone. We write out contracts in detail precisely because
people can NOT be trusted.

Money is the IDEAL example. People say, if you have lots of money
your are wealthy! BZZZTTT! Wrong! Money is the opposite of wealth. It
is only a piece of worthless paper with a promise to pay written on
it. And how much can I "trust" that promise? Well, bunky, I had this
5 dollar bill that said Silver Certificate on it. The government
PROMISED me that that this piece of paper could be exchanged for
silver. Guess what, even though I expected them to hand over a few
worthless sandwich quarter tokens and say, "there you go", they
wouldn>t even do THAT! Nope. It can only be exchanged for other
worthless pieces of paper with NO promises on them! Oh sure, I should
TRUST everybody. Even when there is a written contract they won>t
honor it. That>s evolution! If you can get away with something then
it>s OK. If you can>t and get caught, that>s OK too. Either way
society "progresses"!

[quote]Nevertheless I>m still rooting for the side of
civilization no matter how it turns out.

And that requires *trust*. There is no "guarantee" a civilization
will reward each of its citizens equally. Socialism and communism
didn>t. Police states don>t.
[/quote]
Does not require trust. But it does require a certain equality.
Equality before the law is not an equal reward. It>s only the pursuit
of happiness, not a guarantee of it. And since most other forms of
government like monarchy or democratic republics are pretty much no
longer viable, I>d say the chances for human civilization at present
are pretty slim.

Eric Gisse · Guest

On Oct 8, 11:28 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf <Jeff_R...@Seattle.Invalid> wrote:
[quote]4 oz of gold invested in Nasdaq at the start of 2000,
almost 9 years ago, is now worth only 1 oz.
[/quote]
Gold has gone up a factor of 3 in price since Jan of 2000.

idiot.

[snip]

Jeffâ–²Relf · Guest

4 oz of gold invested in Nasdaq at the start of 2000,
almost 9 years ago, is now worth only 1 oz.
Millions of homes now lay idle for sqautters to plunder.

That>s why I invest in myself, not others, not stock or houses.
For example, I pay Individual.NET 10 Euros per year;
so I never have problems posting to Usenet.

I never fully plonk anyone, instead I keep a list of nyms to â€œ watch â€;
the rest are â€œ Muffled â€, so I only see their 3 most recent posts.

However, I read All replies to me, no matter who,
and I Always see the â€œ Heritage â€, e.g. the parent post; like this:
â€œ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/UnVisted.PNG â€.

hanson · Guest

<mitchsperkins@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8159cc2c-416c-45ec-b26b-f9793e39e51d@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
[quote]
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:[/quote]
Like air, sound & heat that you can>t see neither
it>s all around and it>s called Aether.... [more here]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.chem/msg/4f4685f5cfaad8f5?hl=en
[quote]
Mitch wrote:[/quote]
lungs evolved to exploit air, ears evolved to exploit
sound, eyes to exploit light - phenomena existed
before apparatus to exploit said phenomena -
could the brain not have evolved to exploit a
preexisting phenomenon, "thought"?
[quote]
thus "thought" could equal "aether", but not in the[/quote]
descartes way; thought existed prior to mind.
[quote]
three things -[/quote]
i>m not really serious
it>s very late where i am exploit is a smashing
example of a word that sounds funny when repeated
[quote]
hanson wrote:[/quote]
..... ahahahaha.. good very late night stuff... ahahaha..
However your notion has been explained by classical
physics, of thought simply being a concatenation of
el. charge movemnts in the brain...
[quote]
OTOH, if your initial thought had *evolved* into a[/quote]
different direction then you are hinting at the core
of the issue, and you may ask:
---------------------------
What "Aethereal thing" is it that
has "Space" has evolved from?
What "Aethereal thing" is it that
that "Space" has exploited?
---------------------------
=1= If matter, energy and force-fields are supposed
to bend space, then what is this bent or curled space
is embedded in?
IOW what is the underlying medium or matrix that
gives that 3D space these alleged properties?...
[quote]
=2= If the space of the universe expands, then what[/quote]
does it expand into?... IOW,
what is this 2nd order emptiness, this void underneath?
or
=3= if the universe is expanding into a larger space
then where does this new "more space" come from?...
[quote]
Whether you wanna call it Aether or something else is[/quote]
immaterial... ahahahahaha... ... ahahaha... ahahanson

Eric Gisse · Guest

On Oct 9, 12:41 am, Jeff$B"%(BRelf <Jeff_R...@Seattle.Invalid> wrote:
[quote]You told me:
" Gold has gone up a factor of 3 in price since Jan of 2000. "

Had you invested in the Nasdaq [snip]
[/quote]
NASDAQ is not gold. idiot.

Guest

On Oct 8, 1:00 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
[quote]That would be because someone TOLD you that you should.
So they sell you and you buy it.
[/quote]
Maybe you are that stupid, but I buy a new car because it works
better, not because some crook like Honest Eric told me so. It>s not
worth my time to fix them up. You can put the dealership in Fargo,
I>ll still buy one.

Guest

On Oct 9, 4:58 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 9, 12:41 am, Jeff$B"%(BRelf <Jeff_R...@Seattle.Invalid> wrote:

You told me:
" Gold has gone up a factor of 3 in price since Jan of 2000. "

Had you invested in the Nasdaq [snip]

NASDAQ is not gold.
[/quote]
What does Eric know? His only asset is the watch he lifted from
Walmart.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Chemistry Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 36, 37, 38 Next
Page 23 of 38