speed of light

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
You didn't say "the leaders" were a$$holes; you reserved that epithet for me. So don't tell me to "lighten up". Mind your own.

I called you that because you come into the science forum with a religious agenda and say if you don't like it stick it up your nose. That seems to me to be as arrogant as any of the other religious dudes around. You can be sure we will never be friends. I didn't like you when you first posted and I for sure dislike you even more now. I am being upfront about this, I won't be making PM's to other people knocking you down, I can do that right to your face. You are violating the subject of this forum by being so arrogant about your religious views.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm telling you I'm happy when I can test something see the results
make an assumption it means X, and if I can verify X by actually
seeing it occur the way I thought or said it was going to proves the
test is correct. If I can never do that, that is actually see X the way
I think it is, I really don't care to call my tests anything more than
an as ...[text shortened]... you'd see I have never
made the attempt either to prove God. Only God can do that!
Kelly[/b]

Can you tell me a test you made that That made you happy? I remember one little experiment, just to relate an experience of mine.
I used to work and live with my family in Jerusalem. I had a buddy there, Ray Scudero, a genuine genius, IQ of 180 and it showed in everything he did. Singer songwriter, luthier. Anyway one summer in '95, my family went back to the states on holiday but I was still working at Intel and had to stay, so we basically bached. So we were experimenting with Piezo pickups, sonalerts, the little noise buttons that make annoying sounds when you do something wrong on a computer and stuff. We knew we could use them for acoustic pickups for our guitars and so forth but the buttons were round, about the size of a dime and the big ones the size of a quarter. The shape was wrong for a pickup so one day, I just picked up a pair of scissors and cut the sucker down the middle and saw something totally unexpected. One side made a nice totally clean cut but the other half shattered into a thousand shards. I'm going, wow, that was interesting. So I thought about that, figured if I turned the good piece around 180 and cut it again I should be left with a nice piece in good shape but shaped long and thin like you would need for an acoustic instrument. Lo and behold, it worked like a charm. I had my maybe 2 mm by 12 mm piece and soldered wires to it, temp pasted it to a guitar and hooked it up to an amp and BOING, instant pickup, it sounded great! In Tel Aviv, there was a used electronics goods store with bins and bins full of these things for a dime a pop, so we had a whole bag full for experimentation. I then looked at the side that shattered, and saw there were individual pieces the size of a grain of rice, I very carefully soldered wires to it and tacked it down to a violin and hooked THAT up to an amp. Ho and belode, it worked too! A bit low on the volume and a bit high on the noise but it was definitely picking up the sound and converting it to electricity. Great fun that summer.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I called you that because you come into the science forum with a religious agenda and say if you don't like it stick it up your nose. That seems to me to be as arrogant as any of the other religious dudes around. You can be sure we will never be friends. I didn't like you when you first posted and I for sure dislike you even more now. I am being upfront abo ...[text shortened]... You are violating the subject of this forum by being so arrogant about your religious views.

You are nuts--I don't prosyletize. If asked, I answer questions, and I sure don't want to "convert" anybody to my way of thinking or my religion, whicj is more than I can say for you. IYou constantly belittle others who don't agree with you, whereas I don't give a damn- if somebody wants to go to hell, be my guest. I have no religious agenda. My agenda is to follow your every post and make sure you are called out every time you are obnoxious, boorish, condescending or just plain mean.
And you can't "do anything to my face"; you can only hurl insults from the safe anonymity of your little keyboard. For which you should thank whatever god you worship.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I'm telling you I'm happy when I can test something see the results
make an assumption it means X, and if I can verify X by actually
seeing it occur the way I thought or said it was going to proves the
test is correct….

I am not sure what you mean here: what do you mean by “it was going to proves the
TEST is correct” in the above s this all-powerful “god” failed to prove that he exists to me despite being “all-powerful” ?[/b]

edit
Kelly

Originally posted by MattP
Thank you for responding to my points in a reasoned way, some real progress has been made with the last few posts.

I am afraid that we get back to my old point about any change in understanding just improving our accuracy of measurements. Radiactiviy is very well understood and if we do discover new things about it they must conform to the existing obervat ...[text shortened]... ons (mainly that you are religious and you are a Christian), I apologise if these are incorrect.

Thank you for responding to my points in a reasoned way, some real progress has been made with the last few posts.

Wow, are you trying to be nice here? I'll get back to your post a little
later in the day, but this is really as bad as the other stuff you do,
but I don't think you see it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
edit
Kelly

What does that mean?

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]Thank you for responding to my points in a reasoned way, some real progress has been made with the last few posts.

Wow, are you trying to be nice here? I'll get back to your post a little
later in the day, but this is really as bad as the other stuff you do,
but I don't think you see it.
Kelly[/b]

Thank you, I shall await your reply...

For the record, I was being objective. I am awear that sometimes things that are read seem more hostile then the are, as cold hard text can seem harsh when people read more into it then is actually there. So I was trying to convey the the fact that I was not having a go at you, but was asking genuine questions.

I do not see anything wrong with my post, if it offended you then please point out why so that I can avoid it in the future. Most people would have read it as a perfectly reasonable post, it is prehaps a bit of topic for the thread but I mentioned that.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
What does that mean?

It means I thought better of my reply, and did not really have time
to fix it.
Kelly

Originally posted by MattP
Thank you, I shall await your reply...

For the record, I was being objective. I am awear that sometimes things that are read seem more hostile then the are, as cold hard text can seem harsh when people read more into it then is actually there. So I was trying to convey the the fact that I was not having a go at you, but was asking genuine questions.

I ...[text shortened]... s a perfectly reasonable post, it is prehaps a bit of topic for the thread but I mentioned that.

MattP, I want to say I'm sorry too, you are quite right.
Kelly

Originally posted by MattP
Thank you, I shall await your reply...

For the record, I was being objective. I am awear that sometimes things that are read seem more hostile then the are, as cold hard text can seem harsh when people read more into it then is actually there. So I was trying to convey the the fact that I was not having a go at you, but was asking genuine questions.

I ...[text shortened]... s a perfectly reasonable post, it is prehaps a bit of topic for the thread but I mentioned that.

I think our history colored it for me more than the post itself if that
is understandable. Some times it is easy to read into something that
isn't there once a line has been crossed before, giving the benefit of
the doubt isn't as easy. Will come back to the posting later, right now
it is burgers and hot dogs on the grill time.
Kelly
😉

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think our history colored it for me more than the post itself if that
is understandable. Some times it is easy to read into something that
isn't there once a line has been crossed before, giving the benefit of
the doubt isn't as easy. Will come back to the posting later, right now
it is burgers and hot dogs on the grill time.
Kelly
😉

It is prefectly understandable, dont worry about it.

Enjoy your BBQ, Matt 🙂

Originally posted by MattP
Thank you for responding to my points in a reasoned way, some real progress has been made with the last few posts.

I am afraid that we get back to my old point about any change in understanding just improving our accuracy of measurements. Radiactiviy is very well understood and if we do discover new things about it they must conform to the existing obervat ...[text shortened]... ons (mainly that you are religious and you are a Christian), I apologise if these are incorrect.

"Radiactiviy is very well understood and if we do discover new things about it they must conform to the existing obervations so they will simply be very small changes which apply only in the cases which we cannot observe at the moment. "

They must conform to the existing observations? Really, you discover
something new it must line of with what you think you know or what?
I accept our understanding of this subject has a small window of time
behind it, it isn't like we were measuring this stuff 3000 years ago, so
everything we have seen has been seen of late, we have only really been
observing it in the short time we have been looking into it. My point
in dating is that we know by observations that it always behaves this
way, but our observations have only been going on for how many
years? Does that mean our views about it are wrong, of course not,
but they are still assumptions, we believe it will behave the way we
think over time. I’m limiting this to radioactivity each dating method
must be looked at as a stand alone means of measuring if they are to
be accepted as factual on their own merits.
Kelly

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
You are nuts--I don't prosyletize. If asked, I answer questions, and I sure don't want to "convert" anybody to my way of thinking or my religion, whicj is more than I can say for you. IYou constantly belittle others who don't agree with you, whereas I don't give a damn- if somebody wants to go to hell, be my guest. I have no religious agenda. My agenda ...[text shortened]... nonymity of your little keyboard. For which you should thank whatever god you worship.

Here's my "blind" opinion: Once saved, always saved.
Here's another: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
A third: I don't trust the various age-determining radioactive tests either; they've been wrong many times, (and I DON'T have to cite a reference either).
Another: The only way to the Father in heaven is through his son, Jesus Christ.

Does it bother you that this is appearing in the sacred science forum? TOUGH! It's here and you can't stop me. Or KJ. Or anyone.
Did you see any supporting evidence for my blind opinions? Funny, it LOOKS like I've got the right to say them...it's right in front of you in black and white.

Looks like preaching religion to me no matter how you slice it.
Oh, the bit about I should be glad we are not face to face, sounds like bullying to me, not very subtle threat. Sounds like you are a reactionary, one who cannot control one's emotions, maybe the emotional level of a 12 yo. I have seen you ilk before and don't want anything to do with them and you are no exception. You call people out for what you call bullying and then pursue an even worse moral path. Not once did I threaten you with physical violence. I just thing you and a billion other people have been duped by the biggest scam in 2000 years and for that I am sorry for your mind, but don't think for one minute I actually would threaten violence like you just did.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here's my "blind" opinion: Once saved, always saved.
Here's another: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
A third: I don't trust the various age-determining radioactive tests either; they've been wrong many times, (and I DON'T have to cite a reference either).
Another: The only way to the Father in heaven is through his son, Jesus Chr ...[text shortened]... t don't think for one minute I actually would threaten violence like you just did.

First up, I owe you an apology. I didn't think. Being both a professed pacifist and a devout coward, I'd never threaten anyone, but my words in that last post betray me. I still don't think stating opinions about anything amounts to preaching, but that's not important. You're right, and I'm wrong. And I'm sorry.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
First up, I owe you an apology. I didn't think. Being both a professed pacifist and a devout coward, I'd never threaten anyone, but my words in that last post betray me. I still don't think stating opinions about anything amounts to preaching, but that's not important. You're right, and I'm wrong. And I'm sorry.

Hey, *shakes hands*