On "Non-Supernatural Intelligent Design": Viable Epistemology/Probative Science Tool?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Mr. G, Aug 18, 2002.

  1. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    Well, you certainly are entitled to your opinion. So, too, was Percival Lowell.

    Time will tell. Maybe someday you and your fellows will have unambigous, actually convincing evidences supporting your hope for the end of the SCM.

    By then, not only will the SCM be unnecessary but so, too, will be Arp's Discordant Redshift Theory.

    DRT can't replace the SCM. It can only call SCM into question. Obviously, DRT has nothing to say about most of what SCM already says quite descriptively. Surely, the SCM is not the final theory of everything, but certainly the DRT is even less.

    So, are you DRT adherents unwilling to admit that DRT is just another provisional hypothesis, or are you too heavily invested?

    Little jackals bark, yet caravans continue to pass.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2002
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    The studies that determined that redshift is not an indicator of recession velocity are not theories, they are observations of identifiable phenomenon. Since the Ultimate Creation Theory was based on redshift being an indicator of recession velocity, then the Ultimate Creation Theory, or SCM or Big Bang, or whatever name anyone wishes to call it, has no scientific foundation. Therefore, it is not up to me or anyone else to announce that UCT is defunct, it just is. If you or anyone else does not wish to believe the scientific evidence, then that is entirely within your right to do so. The only one who will be behind in their thinking is you and whomever.

    The theory of the universe that I believe in is the one that Albert Einstein espoused until the day he died, the Unified Field Theory, which states that the universe is a working system that is the product of evolutionary processes. If this theory is correct, which is far more scientifically feasible than your chaos theory, then the age of the universe is no longer required to be regarded as limited to an age of less than twenty billion year. Having such an age restriction on the universe actually puts a default in the thought processes of young people and keeps them from thinking more deeply about a profound subject. I would actually postulate that the universe is much more likely to be in the trillions of year age category than it is in the billions of year age category.

    If we restrict ourselves to thinking of the universe on a timescale that is conducive to creationism, then we do not allow for evolutionary development time for a rational organization of observed phenomenon, or for the possibility of a science more advanced than ours. The trillions upon trillions of star that are observed to exist are sure to have abundant life around their solar systems. Most, if not all, the top scientific minds believe this and many are on record as having said so, including Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman. If we then think that we are the most advanced scientific race among those trillions upon trillions of planet, then we might as well begin thinking of ourselves as gods.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    John MacNeil:

    Okay, sure. The UCT is dead. Long live Stead State cosmology, Discordant Redshift Theory, the Alien Ark Hypothesis and the Selective Phylogenics Hypothesis.

    Long live the King.

    Eppur si mouve.

    You are correct. Your faith is unassailable by anyone, while it certainly slays mere mortals' ideas.

    Then he should arise from the dead any day now by shear force of will, and might of ideology.

    Einstein certainly was a great thinker, but he was human and thus fallible.

    Yes, all of us are. Precisely my point. No absolute frame of reference--to quote a great thinker.

    You did read my last link, did you not? You know, the one that started out saying "The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point."

    And this from the likes of the SCM/Big Bang crowd. What is going on here? Arpian Quixotic Cosmology?

    Long live the King.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    "At an infinitessimal instant after the big bang in the classical theory of big bang cosmology, the density of these vanishingly small neighborhoods of 3-d space increase to infinity" --Dr. Sten Odenwald, for NASA

    This is the description of the beginning of the Standard Cosmological Model from the first paragraph from your last accessible link before your last post. If something began as "vanishingly small", which is invisible, and increased to "infinity", which is larger than the human mind can comprehend, in an "infinitessimal instant", which is the same as appearing from nowhere, then what you are describing is Creationism, which, since you are talking about everything in the universe, is the Ultimate Creation Theory.

    There are voluminous references that you can call on to try and make your point, but what they all boil down to is the same thing, and that is that the Universe was created chaotically and then magically obtained a perfect mathematical order and just as magically kept expanding while keeping the perfect mathematical order. Einstein refuted that kind of nonsense in his day and never wavered in his assessment of UCT as being entirely the wrong direction for theoretical physics to be going.

    If all galaxy are expanding away from each other then they can't be in complementary orbits, which photographic evidence from HST prove they are. If all galaxy are expanding away from each other then there cannot be homogenous distribution of matter in the universe, which homogenenity has been proven to be true. If all galaxy are expanding away from each other, then there must be vast empty space in the center of the universe, which the deep field view from HST proves there is not.

    Einstein's Unified Field Theory predicts a complimentary universe and all scientific evidence gathered since his death corroborates his view. The UCT view is constantly reinforced by wild speculation and ever more outlandish theories to reinforce previous outlandish theories. The end result of the Ultimate Creation Theory can only be all matter in the universe ending up so far apart that eventually nothing will be visible from anywhere else. To try and solve that by a "Big Crunch" merely reinforces my previous observations on the validity of such theories. Why anyone would continue with such a farce can only be compared to religion in our limited human experience.

    The very nature of the order which we see in the universe supports Einstein's complementarity. Everywhere we look we see orbital regularity and no evidence of chaos. This is in keeping with a universal gravity field in which all objects have their place. For all objects in the universe to be constantly expanding away from each other, there would have to be a force attracting them from all around the outside of the universe or a force pushing them from inside the universe. We see no evidence of either kind of force. What we do see is evidence of gravitational force from central locations that keeps collections of bodies complementarily connected in orbiting systems. It is quite obvious that the Unified Field Theory is the map upon which we must place our other theories as we learn them.
     
  8. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    "Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?", responded the Cheshire cat. "I don't know." Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter." -- Louis Carrol

    "I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here, and what the question might mean. I might think about it a little bit and if I can't figure it out, then I go on to something else, but I don't have to know an answer, I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is so far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me." --Richard Feynman

    John MacNeil:

    Regarding your lengthly obituary on the death of the SCM and the ascendancy of the once-vanquished Steady State cosmology: fortunate is the one to whom all has been revealed for the certainty such knowledge affords.

    "Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty--some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain." -- Richard Feynman

    Your favored intreprations of data are no more certain than being possible.
     
  9. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    To a large degree it is true that you can't really know anything until you know everything. And it is highly unlikely that we will ever know everything, no matter how advanced our technology gets in the future or for however long our society lasts. That's the reason that I've never liked putting constraints on our conceptual thought by applying boundaries, such as giving the universe an age. Earlier, when I said I was much more inclined to age the universe in the trillions of year category, I really believe it's in a much, much older age category.

    When the Unified Field Theory is considered as a base, it, of course, is dependant on future discovery proving additional theories fit within the framework. But working with it is using a foundation on which we can apply some existing theories without having to resort to possible future theories to explain our keeping existing theories. One of the theories that I find the most irreconcilable is the 'Black Hole' theory. It's infinite density, resulting in a singularity, doesn't rely on the law of equivalence. The theoretical beginning of a black hole, when a giant star loses so much of it's energy that it's gravity collapses it, doesn't take into account that the strength of gravity is dependant on the orbital velocity of matter. The greater the mass, the greater the gravity in most cases. I say most cases because in some cases a smaller mass may be orbiting with such velocity that it is possible it would have greater gravity that a slightly larger mass that is orbiting somewhat slower.

    When a star is burning it is shedding it's mass in the form of photons and equally dispersing it's gravity, which morphs into the surrounding galactic gravity field. When the star finally burns off enough of it's reactive material, to the point where it can no longer sustain photon production, it will flame out and remain a burned out hulk in space or be torn apart by a complementary action and become asteroidal.

    The properties of light that we already know about indicate that light scatters in all direction. Each photon is closely surrounded by other photons that ensure it is carried along in the light stream. As each photon is activated at illumination, the point where reaction takes place on the star, and becomes radiant, it pushes the photon in front of it out of the way. It is photons illuminating at the speed of light which give light it's measured speed of 300,000 kilometer a second. Eventually, a star will reach a point where it can no longer sustain reaction and it will shed it's last photon. That last photon will almost instantly reverse course and follow the path of least resistence until it can come to a rest state. That is the self preservation principle that all matter is subject to. The second to last photon, no longer under pressure, will likewise reverse direction and seek a state of rest mass relative to it's environment. All of the photons that were closest to the star would exhibit similar behavior until the whole rear boundary of the light stream was dispersing back in the directions from which it originated. The same thing would be happening at the front of the light stream. Without the continuous pressure from behind, the front of the light stream would begin scattering back towards where the star once burned. With the front boundary of the light stream and the rear boundary of the light stream both scattering towards the mid-point of the light stream, the light stream would scatter at increasing speed until it reached cascade and would be dispersed. The maximun dispersal rate for a light stream without star support, would be the speed of light squared, or 90,000,000,000 kilometer a second.

    This result would mean that the notion of looking back along a stream of light and seeing something that burned out long ago cannot be correct. There is a property of light called photon transference which is the interaction of photons in succession which allow us to see objects. This photon transference can only be maintained over the entire length of the light stream as long as there is a source steadily producing photons that keeps the pressure on the photon stream. Without the source pressure the light stream will scatter in almost all direction so there couldn't be sufficient light to enter a telescope and register an image.

    The special property of photon transference occurs at the speed of light squared + the speed of light, or 90,000,000,000 kilometer a second +the speed of light and it is this property of light that allows us to see distant objects with long exsposure photographs. The speed of photon transference is extant of the speed of light since the action of photon transference occurs in a reference frame in which it is relative to the light stream.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2002
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,246
    John,

    I know you won't respond, but for the benefit of other readers I'd like to correct a few conceptual errors on your part:

    <i>If all galaxy are expanding away from each other then there cannot be homogenous distribution of matter in the universe, which homogenenity has been proven to be true.</i>

    The matter distribution of the universe is not homogeneous, and hasn't been from the time of the big bang onwards - as evidenced by COBE observations (among others).

    <i>If all galaxy are expanding away from each other, then there must be vast empty space in the center of the universe, which the deep field view from HST proves there is not.</i>

    The universe has no centre.

    <i>Einstein's Unified Field Theory predicts a complimentary universe and all scientific evidence gathered since his death corroborates his view.</i>

    Einstein failed to make a workable unified field theory.

    <i>The end result of the Ultimate Creation Theory can only be all matter in the universe ending up so far apart that eventually nothing will be visible from anywhere else.</i>

    That is only one of three possible endings.

    <i>For all objects in the universe to be constantly expanding away from each other, there would have to be a force attracting them from all around the outside of the universe or a force pushing them from inside the universe.</i>

    1. No force is required to keep an object in motion: Newton's first law.
    2. There may be a repulsive force (cosmological constant), though that is still debateable at present.

    <i>When the Unified Field Theory is considered as a base, it, of course, is dependant on future discovery proving additional theories fit within the framework.</i>

    No. It is based on past and current observation. It is the best match to observation we currently have. That doesn't mean it cannot change in future in the light of new findings. All good scientific theories do that.

    <i>One of the theories that I find the most irreconcilable is the 'Black Hole' theory. It's infinite density, resulting in a singularity, doesn't rely on the law of equivalence. The theoretical beginning of a black hole, when a giant star loses so much of it's energy that it's gravity collapses it, doesn't take into account that the strength of gravity is dependant on the orbital velocity of matter.</i>

    The strength of gravity does not depend on orbital velocity.

    <i>When the star finally burns off enough of it's reactive material, to the point where it can no longer sustain photon production, it will flame out and remain a burned out hulk in space or be torn apart by a complementary action and become asteroidal.</i>

    Other options are possible, depending on the star's initial mass. Very massive stars undergo catastrophic collapse under gravity to form neutron stars or black holes.

    <i>As each photon is activated at illumination, the point where reaction takes place on the star, and becomes radiant, it pushes the photon in front of it out of the way.</i>

    Photons do not interact with each other. In particular, they do not exert forces on each other.

    <i>The special property of photon transference occurs at the speed of light squared + the speed of light, or 90,000,000,000 kilometer a second +the speed of light and it is this property of light that allows us to see distant objects with long exsposure photographs.</i>

    Light cannot travel faster than the speed of light. It stands to reason, doesn't it?
     
  11. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    Precisely why it's easy to dismiss your protestations that modern science hasn't a clue, but you do.
     
  12. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    To dismiss modern science as not having a clue is not the point I am making. The point is that the corporate science is controlling what is published about science and they are preventing views based on Einstein's Unified Field Theory from being published in the mainstream press, which they control. As you have seen from the references I've been giving, there has always been a substantial segment of the scientific community that believes in UFT and who think the 'Big Bang' is nothing but propaganda. Einstein always worked on his Unified Field Theory, even when other scientists were following the fad of redshift=recession-velocity and he said that one day science would have to come back to reality and work within a framework that defines systems. All of the scientific evidence relates to a Unified Field Theory and no scientific evidence relates to the Ultimate Creation Theory. The only thing the creation theory has going for it is the conjecture of people who don't understand relativity and who use no science to substantiate their outrageous hypothesis. The whole 'big bang-creation' theory was begun by a catholic priest and substantiated by Hubble. Hubble was trained as a lawyer and switched to astronomy because of socialite contacts he befriended. He was given the first director's position at the brand new, and largest telescope of his day without ever having done anything in astronomy. He was a devout Cristian who used V.M. Slipher's observations to corroborate a catholic priest's Ultimate Creation Theory. As if the science refuting that theory isn't compelling enough, you should at least question the origin of it and wonder 'is that science? or religion?'

    A lot of the theoretical science that is presented to students is designed to keep them from thinking deeply about profound subjects. That is why corporate science puts fixed ages on things like the universe that they can extend by a couple of billion year or so every so often as it suits their development needs of technology. They feel that they can control science by keeping a firm grip on the reins and guiding it where they want it to go. The corporate/science and the corporate/government are all controlled by the same people. The pinnacle of corporate/science is in the development of weapons systems for the military and the military are already so far behind in their ability to understand the scientific makeup of the equipment that science gives them, that they direct resources to specific projects based on weapons systems, and not based on where science would develop in a free-thinking forum. This constraint of science is a development of the dangers of militarism that Einstein warned about.

    One such deployment of directed resource management is the Hubble Space Telescope. The HST is certainly a worthwhile tool and would have been built in any case, but the way it was proposed was so that scientists could look back along the path of light and see the beginning of the universe. All astronomers know that you can't look back in time and see somethng that has already happened, but the point of expressing it that way was to keep students from thinking independently for themselves. The corporate/government frowns on independent thought and instead promotes thinking within the herd so that they have control over as much of everything as they can. People who think independently would question the policies and motives of the corporate/government and that is anathema to the people in power.

    To see the simple truth of why the stated belief of corporate/science that we can look back along the path of light and see back in time cannot be true, you only have to realize that light is not projected off of objects in continuously sustained holographic images. For us to look back along the path of light and see a galaxy that has long ceased to exist would require that the last light coming off of the burned out galaxy was a perfect picture of it that sustained itself all the way from the galaxy and until it reached the mirrors in our telescopes. That would belie what we already know about the scattering property of light. A stream of light must have a constant source to energize it to account for the photons lost due to it's scattering property. This scattering takes place all along the light steam, from front to back and on every side. Therefore there must be another property of light that enables us to see distant objects by using long time exposures. That other property is photon transference whereby each photon is physically touching the photons in front and behind and all around it and making light a visible phenomena. If the radient photons were not in contact with each other then light would be recorded as a constant series of flashes. When photons are travelling in a uniform field they are in a reference frame in which they do not perceive their speed of light as motion. That speed of light is what we perceive from a reference frame in which we, as large objects, move much slower. In a uniform field of photons, where photons perceive of themselves as motionless, there are properties of photons that are relative to them that are not measureable or observable by us. But we know such transference property of photons must exist the same as we know gravity exists, even though we cannot physically account for either one. All we can do is measure and record the effects of both.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2002
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    John speculates:

    That other property is photon transference whereby each photon is physically touching the photons in front and behind and all around it and making light a visible phenomena.

    Interesting theory, can you provide some evidence, perhaps a little math ? Of course, like James R, I'm not to hopeful you'll respond by backing up your rather extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence.

    If the radient photons were not in contact with each other then light would be recorded as a constant series of flashes.

    Tom2 has recently helped me to understand photons somewhat better then before. It is clear from your statement you do not understand.

    ...there are properties of photons that are relative to them that are not measureable or observable by us.

    Of which properties do you refer, aside from alleged photon transference ?
     
  14. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
  15. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    Well, Q, if you have such a complete understanding of photons, tell us what that is so we can incorporate it into our discussion.
     
  16. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
  17. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    I'm sorry, Q, but I can't access that page that Tom was referencing. I have read extensively so if you just give a concise version of what it is you mean, I'm sure we will be able to sort this out in short order.
     
  18. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    John,

    I'm sorry, Q, but I can't access that page that Tom was referencing.

    How convenient.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I have read extensively so if you just give a concise version of what it is you mean, I'm sure we will be able to sort this out in short order.

    Certainly, one need only to find the dynamical coordinates, identify the conjugate momentum, and impose canonical commutation relations between them. One would then use polarization vectors to form an orthonormal basis for 3-vector polarization, where the polarization behaves like an independent scalar field. Photons are not in "contact with each other."
     
  19. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    I got the impression by your "how convenient" that you think I was avoiding reading a drudge report when I said I couldn't access the page referenced by Tom. I'm sure with your cray computer you have access to everything on the web, but that is not the case with me. I have the internet through a cable television box and I have it hooked up to a thirteen inch television. Many thing on the web are of a print size that are too small for me to read and many other page can't be accessed by this cable box because it lacks storage and computing power. However, I do get a fair amount of quality connections. I assure you I do read the references I can access.

    I can tell we have a different understanding of the properties of light so I will briefly describe the classical mechanical view of light quanta as having both quanta and wave properties, as first proposed by Einstein. On a star, before there is a reaction that results in the production of photons, there must be sub-photonic particles that are subsequently acted upon by a force to become radient. The instant of those sub-photonic particles being acted upon by a force and becoming radient is described as the action of illumination, the point when a sub-photonic particle becomes a photon. Photons are illuminated at the speed of light and are physically pushed into the light stream by the next photon behind it being iluminated and being pushed out of the way by the photon behind it being illuminated. This endless procession of photons being illuminated at the speed of light is what constitutes a light stream. All of the light streams from a given star are what constitute a photon field. A photon field, where every photon is pressed on every side by other photons, behaves as waves.

    For a photon that is activated at illuminaion to move to a coordinate point one photon's distance from illumination means that photon is in flux, which means that photon is in a changing state. All matter follows the preservation principle which states that matter will assume a stable posture as soonest as is possible and for a photon to achieve that preservation state it must exit the photon field and disengage from other photons. This could only happen if a light stream is interupted, at which point the disconnected portion of the light stream would scatter until it was dispersed, or if the photons reached the very front of the light stream and scattered into empty space. When photons reach a point in space where they are no longer in contact with and being agitated by other photons, the self preservation principle forces them to assume a stable state and they will then become non-radient and sub-photonic. As they will have lost some energy while being activated in their radient state, the sub-photons will be a different particle than they were when they were a pre-photonic sub-photonic particle.

    As Einstein's elegant equation e=mc squared proves that energy can be altered but it cannot be destroyed, those post-radient sub-photnic particles must occupy space in some manner and are what some scientists rather obliquely refer to as dark matter.
     
  20. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    John

    I have the internet through a cable television box and I have it hooked up to a thirteen inch television. Many thing on the web are of a print size that are too small for me to read and many other page can't be accessed by this cable box because it lacks storage and computing power.

    Or perhaps your cable box is unable to access files with the extension .pdf for which Adobe Acrobat is required (free download). If so, I apologize for the "how convenient."

    I can tell we have a different understanding of the properties of light...

    Your understanding however, is a serious misunderstanding.

    ...so I will briefly describe the classical mechanical view of light quanta as having both quanta and wave properties, as first proposed by Einstein.

    Quanta is not a property of light. Quanta is a measurement. You probably mean wave/particle properties of light, which was first proposed by de Broglie who theorized that not just light, but everything can exhibit wave/particle duality. Einstein proposed that light consists of particles, or quanta, each with an energy of Planck's constant times its frequency. Einstein actually won a Nobel prize with his work on the photoelectric effect.

    On a star, before there is a reaction that results in the production of photons, there must be sub-photonic particles that are subsequently acted upon by a force to become radient.

    Sub-photonic particles ? I'm feeling a bout of pseudo-babble coming on.

    The instant of those sub-photonic particles being acted upon by a force and becoming radient is described as the action of illumination, the point when a sub-photonic particle becomes a photon. Photons are illuminated at the speed of light and are physically pushed into the light stream by the next photon behind it being iluminated and being pushed out of the way by the photon behind it being illuminated.

    Complete hogwash. The propagation of one photon has nothing to do with another's. They do not push each other out of the way.

    All of the light streams from a given star are what constitute a photon field. A photon field, where every photon is pressed on every side by other photons, behaves as waves.

    Nonsense. Photons do not press up against each other, especially to behave like a wave.

    For a photon that is activated at illuminaion to move to a coordinate point one photon's distance from illumination means that photon is in flux, which means that photon is in a changing state. All matter follows the preservation principle which states that matter will assume a stable posture as soonest as is possible and for a photon to achieve that preservation state it must exit the photon field and disengage from other photons.

    Photon is in flux ? Preservation state ? Exit the photon field ? Disengage from other photons ? You're certainly cranking up the pseudo-babble, or are you just making this up as you go along ?

    When photons reach a point in space where they are no longer in contact with and being agitated by other photons, the self preservation principle forces them to assume a stable state and they will then become non-radient and sub-photonic.

    My balderdash/poppycock indicator gauge just went off the scale.

    As they will have lost some energy while being activated in their radient state, the sub-photons will be a different particle than they were when they were a pre-photonic sub-photonic particle.

    So much nonsense, so few words.

    As Einstein's elegant equation e=mc squared proves that energy can be altered but it cannot be destroyed...

    Actually, Einstein showed that mass and energy are the same thing.

    those post-radient sub-photnic particles must occupy space in some manner and are what some scientists rather obliquely refer to as dark matter.

    Yeah, sure. You may want to consider reading those so-called "drudge reports" and also perhaps a few books. Clearly, if you're going to attempt explanation, you should learn something about the topic in question. The 'baffle-them-with-bullshit' approach does not work, especially on a science forum.

    And since this is getting completely off-topic and I do not wish to high-jack this thread further, I'll not continue this discussion here but will be happy to disembowel your pseudo-babble claims in a more appropriate thread.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. John MacNeil Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    345
    "All these fifty years of concious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question "What are light quanta?" Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken."--Albert Einstein

    One sure way of detecting someone of a low intelligence is by their immature response when confronted with a topic that is way over their heads. Their classic way of not having to think about subjects that are too deep for them is to brandish it as hogwash. These type of simple-minded people have been doing the same thing all through history whenever they read anything they couldn't understand, and then when it's finally proven to be true, they're usually the ones who bray the loudest that they were among the first to understand it. These type of self-serving people desire to make themselves seem intelligent in other people's eyes by denouncing something that their limited thought processes cannot compute. What they offer as denunciation is not discussion and is not worthy of a response.
     
  22. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    [Q]:
    Au Contraire. The thread continues serving its purpose quite adequately. Carry on.

    50 years later and Q is just stating the very same thing about every John, too.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2002
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,246
    I think John has put me on his "ignore" list. How flattering!

    There's nothing quite like shutting your eyes to things you don't want to see.
     

Share This Page