HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Speed of Light and Relativity
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:34:30 GMT
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Dec11.090340.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>m is the rest mass, c is the speed of light, G is the universal
>gravitaion constant (assumed to be constant), M is the rest mass of the 
>universe, and R is the radius of the universe.  Divide each side by m,
>     c^2=GM/R.
>If G and M are constants, and R is increasing, then c must be decreasing.  I
>want to reiterate that this is pure theory.  To the best of my knowledge there
>is no evidence for it.
>
>--The Cotera

I won't comment on the physics of your equation, but on the "constants".
I think we'd all agree that mass is a constant (for the purposes we're
using here).  If we know that R is changing, (and the equation is
valid), then *one* of the two remaining would need to change with time.
The accuracy of the measurement of the speed of light, and it's
precision over time is about 10 decimal places better than the
Gravitational constant.  One would tend to think the Gravitational "constant"
is the one that varies, if one does need to change.  Look at all the
fuss over a possible 5th force.  Much of it was due to the difficulties
of measuring the exact value of G.

I know this could lead to trouble with people accepting this as gospel,
but I had a physics professor say that we really don't know how constant
G is.  Please, no crackpots quoting me that physics "tells us" that the
constants aren't!  It's just a bit of uncertainty folks.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: MANDTBACKA@FINABO.ABO.FI (Mats Andtbacka)
Subject: Re: Doesn't it seem logical?
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:19:24 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <1992Dec16.204839.37771@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> jsg1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu writes:

> I am new to this whole conversation here, but I think that it seems rather odd
> that people can make comments about man being created from mud when if you
> look at the theory of evolution, we all just evolved from some "primordial"
> soup.

      I'd comment on this, but my newsreader coughs when one tries to
post articles more than 1,000 lines long... :-)

>  It just takes a bit of faith to believe in Creation!  What does it take
> to believe in evolution?

      That might differ; for me, it takes logic and reasoning. The whole
concept of "faith" always seemed very alien to me, OTOH.

>  The fact that we might have evolved from some lower
> creatures wouldn't give me a heck of a lot of self-confidence.

      Uh... You're not trying to say that you'll believe in whatever
seems to give you the biggest ego, are you? No, 'course not.

>  I guess the
> fact that I was brought up in a church has a lot to do with why I think the
> way that I do, but I have seen both sides of the issue and it still seems so
> illogical that anyone could believe in such a crazy theory!

      One could - and many have - turn that around for another set of
ideas, and get just as far; that is, nowhere.

-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
 If you think I'm gonna be responsible for this crap, you're madder than I am.
    "No logic here today / Do as you got to, Go your own way..." -- G 'n' R
     ===>The Truth is still the Truth, even if you choose to ignore it.<===
From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Request Denied (Like that's a big surprise)
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:28:21 GMT


   In article <MAGUIRE.92Dec10115128@signal.clarkson.edu> 
maguire@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Bill Maguire) misses an explanation...

>In article <728gVB1w165w@kalki33> kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:

>>To all the people who were too lazy or cheap to get hold of the
>>book Mechanistic and Nonmechanistic Science, here's some news: Dr.
>>Richard Thompson will not give permission to copy the chapter on
>>information theory.

   Shucks, that means my provious contest-dealy proposal is off.

>I'm sorry, I can't resist...

>I can think of three reason's for Dr. Thompson's refusal:

>1)  He's simply protecting his copyright.

>2)  He knows how Creationists quote people, all out of context.  After
>    all he is one.

>3)  He knows he is preaching to the choir, and if his work was reviewed
>    by an actual knowledgable source how bad it would fare.

   Bill, you missed the most obvious answer, and one that Kalki already
provided for explaining such mystifying actions...

4) Dr Thompson is afraid to take any action that may shake his most cherished
   beliefs.  This so-called scientist is just a big chicken.  Bwaack-bwaack!

   In relation to another thread, let me just state that like Bill I couldn't
resist.  I love being able to claim that I am not responsible for my reactions.
It must be the theory of evilution's fault.	8^}

>-Bill Maguire

--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun)
Subject: Re: On God and Science
Organization: City University, London
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 13:05:53 GMT

In article <1gr8nhINNl5@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.140135.28343@city.cs>, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk (Lionel Tun) writes:
>|> In article <1gp0riINNi86@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>|> >In article <Z2XuVB2w165w@kalki33>, kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>|> >>
>|> >> O'Keefe accepts that life developed on earth entirely through physical
>|> >> processes of the kind envisioned by Darwin. He stresses, however, that
>|> >> many features of the laws of physics have just the right values to allow
>|> >> for life as we know it. He concludes from this that God created the
>|> >> universe for man to live in -- more precisely, God did this at the
>|> >> moment of the Big Bang, when the universe and its physical laws sprang
>|> >> out of nothing.
>|> >
>|> >Or, out of many alternative Universes, we happen to be in the one
>|> >whose physical laws have the right chracteristics for us to be alive.
>|> 
>|> Hahahahaha!
>
>Would you care to be more specific?

I laughed out of amazement and amusement at the tenacity of
evolutionists in coming up with outrageous ideas in an
effort to convince themselves of the non-creation of the
world and of themselves.

I am a little sad too, that so much effort is used to avoid
the Creator, when the same effort could equally be used to
seek Him.

--
  ________  Lionel Tun, lionel@cs.city.ac.uk  ________
 / /_  __/\       Computer Vision Group      /\ \__  _\
/___/_/_/\/ City University, London EC1V 0HB \ \___\_\_\
\___\_\_\/        071-477 8000 ext 3889       \/___/_/_/
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: stone@cwis.unomaha.edu (Travis Stone)
Subject: Re: c decay and Special Relativity
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:37:48 GMT

kck+@cs.cmu.edu (Karl Kluge) writes:

>I
>can't think of any way to patch things without sliding an absolute space in
>through the back door at the same time. I don't know if there is one, and
>have no particular interest in wasting time trying to derive such a theory.

Interesting idea, Karl...

Can't you just picture it: Newton and Einstein sitting on the same cloud
in Heaven, with Issac pointing at Albert in an "I-told-you-so" manner,
gleefully shouting "See? See?  Hahahahahahaha!  Toldeth you so!"  And
then, Albert replying by blowing a raspberry...

...T.R. Stone
From: justinf@cco.caltech.edu (Justin Fang)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Uniformity:  miniscule cause and monstrous effect
Followup-To: talk.origins
Date: 12 Dec 1992 09:18:53 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: macintosh25.cco.caltech.edu

In article <170@fedfil.UUCP>, news@fedfil.UUCP (news) wrote:
> In brief, the doctrine of uniformity is forcing natural scientists into
																												catastrophism         Ted Holden

> a tighter and tighter intellectual corner.  Amongst other problems, they are
> continually forced to ascribe giant effects to piss-ant causes.
																																tiny             huge
 
> For instance, the assumption that the 900 F surface temperature on Venus
> is caused by the tiny to non-existant modicum of solar energy which reaches
> the surface as uv and then, supposedly, cannot escape as ir, despite there
> being no lid on Venus' atmosphere at any level.

Ted, do you have a real grasp of ANY area of science? The greenhouse effect
on Venus comes about because of Venus's extremely dense CO2 atmosphere. The
solar radiation which reaches the surface (mostly short wave IR) is
absorbed by the ground and reemitted as long wave IR, which CO2 absorbs,
thus heating up the planet. Photons check in but they don't check out.
 
> [Ted's complaint about orbital shifts and climate changes]
This is a different thread, so I won't point out Ted's errors AGAIN.

> A little kid once did an emperor a favor by telling him that he was naked, so
> that he would realize his predicament.  The emperor had cause to be angry at
> the swindlers who had caused his predicament, rather than at the little kid.
> 
> Likewise, Hyde and others, you have cause to be angry at whoever had sold
> you this doctrine of uniformity, but not at me.  Like the little kid, I've
> ultimately done you a favor.
> 

In the same spirit, I hope you won't be angry at me for pointing out that
it is YOU who has been swindled, and by Velikovsky et al, not the
scientific establishment. I'm doing you a favor :)

> -- 
> Ted Holden
> HTE
From: onar@hsr.no (Onar Aam)
Subject: Re: Doesn't it seem logical?
Organization: Rogaland University Centre
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:58:09 GMT

> It just takes a bit of faith to believe in Creation!  What does it take
>to believe in evolution? 

What it takes is a) faith in the millions of scientists who have spent
enormuous efforts for centuries to come up with certain facts and answers and b)
a lot of reading on the subject. The more you read on evolutionary biology the
more you will realize that it is not a matter of faith. In fact, most
creationists I have encountered have read little or nothing on evolution. 


>The fact that we might have evolved from some lower
>creatures wouldn't give me a heck of a lot of self-confidence.

Why not? Just because you're not the center of the universe? I feel urged to
quote the sig. of Chris Colby:

   "'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
   resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
    	   --Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"


Personally nothing depresses me more than the thought of a Created world,
perfectly designed. For years I have heard this rambling about the ugliness of
evolution etc. and that a Created world makes one feel soooo much better. I
simply cannot comprehend that. To me such a world is unaesthetic. If someone is
divine, what is so fantastic about him being able to create things -BANG- out of 
nothing??? How simple! How primitive! To me the beauty of the infinite complexity
of nature is much more relieving. But on the other hand, one should not be lead
by primitive feelings and instincts in one's choices of truth. They should be
based on the firm grasp of rationale. 





Onar.
From: brinkman@si151a.llnl.gov
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Ignorance and Spelling Flames (was: Evilutionary Biology)
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:26:25 GMT


   In article <1992Dec10.121018.1@woods.ulowell.edu> cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
writes...

   Spelling flames are amongst the most banal methods of communication that
grace the net.  Having said as much, it should be noted that if one is going
to stoop to that distinct level of triteness, one should endeavor, at minimum,
to be correct.  Let the following be a demonstration of the old adage that "It
is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and
remove all doubt."

>BTW, you know how everyone was saying how stupid Dan Quayle was for misspelling
>potato.  Well Andy misspelled "complete" 4 times.  What does that make him?

   Actually, this entire episode just demonstrates that you, Ray Cote, are
lacking in any refinement in the compleat art of literacy.  "Compleat" is a
perfectly legitimate, albeit archaic, spelling of the word "complete".  Andy
demonstrated complete cognizance of this fact by coupling the archaic spelling
of the word to a slightly archaic definition of the same, compleat--
accomplished, skilled, consummate.  That you believe "compleat" to be a
misspelling adds immensely to the joy one finds in the subtlety of Andy's
ironic wit, as it clearly demonstrates that you are none of these things.

   Unfortunately, however, you, like all those who provide the bases for such
sublime humor, lack the refined wit necessary to partake in the essences of
satire that arise at your expense.  Sadly, such bon mots still remain as
"pearls before swine."

>--Ray Cote 

P.S.  In case you missed it, Ray, we are laughing AT you, not with you.

P.P.S.  If you need me to explain to you any of the other jokes made at your
	expense, feel free to ask.

P.P.P.S.  If I were the scorekeeper of talk.origins, I would grant Andy an
	  immediate 10 bonus points.  Like a scimitar of the finest Damascus
	  steel, Andy slipped in and sliced Ray open, without Mr. Cote even
	  feeling the sting.  Surely such dexterity in debate deserves to be
	  rewarded.  Call it a "Schick-Gillette-Wilkinson bonus", or some such.
--
Matt Brinkman
brinkman@edseq1.llnl.gov
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: a message from Asgard
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:41:48 GMT
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome

In article <1992Dec11.073220.23714@smds.com> rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>In article <n10e0t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Rice@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>>Both Kalki(s) and Lionel Tun will be VERY surprised when Odin,
>>whom is the One True Creator, comes down and collects warriors
>>to help Him fight Ragnarok, and Kalki(s) and Lionel find out
>>they BOTH picked the wrong Gods!

>>(Of course if one DOES pick the correct God, i.e. Odin, one is
>>still equally screwed--- you're Giant bait no matter what.)

>Yeah, it's going to be very sad.  I predict that they will
>turn out to be thor losers.  How unloki for them.

Richard,
Odin is not amused. To make amends for your tomfoolerly, you
may post a humble paean to the Norse gods. But beware, any
further misuse of their sacred names may take you out the 
frying pan and into the Freyr 8-)

>Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 

Chris Colby 	---	 email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu	---
Cheerful Norse mythology quote o' the day:
"Fearlessness is better than a faint heart for any man who puts
his nose out of doors. The length of my life and the day of my
death were fated long ago." - Anonymous (and before you ask, Ray,
no, Anonymous is not a Norse god.)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Speed of Light *NOT* Constant
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 02:59:31 EST
Reply-To: kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna Watson) writes:

> Does this have anything to do with the fast-disappearing
> photograph of God that Kalki claims to have? ;)

Your local public library probably has a photograph of God.

Sincerely,
Kalki Dasa


       -------------------------------------------------------
      |  Don't forget to chant:   Hare Krishna Hare Krishna   |
      |                           Krishna Krishna Hare Hare   |
      |                           Hare Rama Hare Rama         |
      |                           Rama Rama Hare Hare         |
      |                                                       |
      |   Kalki's Infoline BBS Aiken, South Carolina, USA     |
      |        (kalki33!kalki@lakes.trenton.sc.us)            |
       -------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: aus.netstatus
From: Richard Moss <moss_r@summer.chem.su.oz.au>
Subject: Re: US-AUS net link is lousy.  Cure?
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A757B9A819014C0C@sushi.chem.su.oz.au>
X-Xxdate: Fri, 18 Dec 92 19:23:52 GMT
Organization: School of Chemistry, Sydney University
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:15:33 GMT

US-AUS net link is lousy.  Cure?

	I've noticed this too, just in the last couple of days.

	Does anyone have any ideas, increased Xmas phone traffic for instance ?


------------------------------------------------------------------- 

	Richard Moss
	Department of Theoretical Chemistry	
	University of Sydney  
	Australia                     
	moss_r@summer.chem.su.oz.au    
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
From: daemon@jatz.aarnet.edu.au ()
Newsgroups: aus.netstatus
Subject: Tasmania off the net
Date: 17 Dec 1992 04:08:44 GMT
Organization: Australian Academic and Research Network (AARNet)
Reply-To: Douglas Ray <ray@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.130.204.4


The link between the university of tasmania, hobart, and the
university of melbourne dropped sometime around 14:00 today
(thursday 17th).

The problem appears to be in the telecom line or the NTU at
U-Tas;   telecom are checking.   More will be posted when
more is known.

						- douglas ray
						doug@unimelb.edu.au
						networks & comms

Xref: sparky aus.netstatus:247 aus.aarnet:1250
From: bobm@agsm.unsw.oz.au (Robert Marks)
Subject: US-AUS net link is lousy.  Cure?
Summary: drops my telnet every few minutes or so.
Originator: bobm@mummy.agsm.unsw.OZ.AU
Keywords:  link drops out cure when
Organization: The Australian Graduate School of Management
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:13:32 GMT

I'm sending this by telnetting to a machine in Sydney from one in the San
Francisco Bay Area.  But for the last few days the link has been dropping out
more and more frequently, which means I'll be lucky to finish this.  This
must be affecting others adversely too.  Any ideas on causes, cures? (Geoff?)
It's almost become unacceptable, rather than just inconvenient.

Bob (bobm@agsm.unsw.oz.au, fmarks@gsb-peso.stanford.edu)
Xref: sparky aus.netstatus:249 aus.aarnet:1252
From: C.Chaundy@its.unimelb.EDU.AU
Newsgroups: aus.netstatus,aus.aarnet
Subject: Re: US-AUS net link is lousy.  Cure?
Date: 19 Dec 92 14:01:04 +1100
Distribution: aus
Organization: The University of Melbourne

In article <1992Dec18.222754.27625@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU>,
 bobm@mummy.agsm.unsw.OZ.AU (Robert Marks) writes:

>...
> 
> To open a slightly different thread, even with double the bandwidth (in
> August) Australia's single link to the outside world is just that -- a single
> link -- which raises issues of reliability and robustness for me.  Is there
> any reason why instead of a single 1 Meg link we can't have two 512k links,
> so that if one has technical trouble, the whole thing doesn't fall over?

This discussion has come up many times.  With the Internet engineered as it
is currently, there are extreme technical difficulties in providing multiple
points of connection for an Australian (or any other) network.  So this goes
back to providing redundent paths from A to B.  Assuming load balancing was
enabled to make the most of the links while all are available, multiple
links will still be much more expensive than a single link with a bandwidth
equal to the sum of multiple links and finally the real crux: on past
experience, any event that knocks out one link will more than likely knock
out all links and what does redundency get you then - SFA!  The modems and
routers at each end of the link are not the problem points.  Believe that
this discussion has been considered by people who really know what goes on
(a whole lot more than me :-).

With future engineering changes to the Internet, such developments may be
possible, but *only* if they are done in conjunction with Telecoms at both
ends of the link to ensure that you are getting *real* redundency and not
just *apparent* redundency.

Chris Chaundy (Technical Manager, Networks)

Information Technology Services, Thomas Cherry Building,
The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052 Australia
Phone:    +61 3 344 7045                Fax:   +61 3 347 4803
Internet: C.Chaundy@its.unimelb.EDU.AU 	(X.121 505233430003)
From: daemon@jatz.aarnet.edu.au ()
Newsgroups: aus.netstatus
Subject: Tasmania off the net
Date: 17 Dec 1992 04:08:44 GMT
Organization: Australian Academic and Research Network (AARNet)
Reply-To: Douglas Ray <ray@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.130.204.4


The link between the university of tasmania, hobart, and the
university of melbourne dropped sometime around 14:00 today
(thursday 17th).

The problem appears to be in the telecom line or the NTU at
U-Tas;   telecom are checking.   More will be posted when
more is known.

						- douglas ray
						doug@unimelb.edu.au
						networks & comms

Xref: sparky aus.netstatus:251 aus.aarnet:1255
From: emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
Newsgroups: aus.netstatus,aus.aarnet
Subject: Re: US-AUS net link is lousy.  Cure?
Followup-To: aus.netstatus,aus.aarnet
Date: 20 Dec 1992 07:07:04 GMT
Organization: Msen, Inc. -- Ann Arbor, Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.msen.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Peter Elford (pte900@jatz.aarnet.edu.au) wrote:

: What can be done ? Upgrade the US link. To do this requires money and the
: agreement of those that control the network - the Vice Chancellors. 

I would guess that the US-Australia link will be continually underfunded
so long as there is but one network connection into Australia.

What I have seen of educational / academic network policies toward
international link bandwidth (and also to some extent the import and
export of Usenet news) is that a competetive source of networking
to the region stimulates investment and liberalizes traffic restrictions.
To cite some particular examples -
- in Canada, the US-Canada academic link from ONET (Ontario) to NSFNET
  was deathly slow with no immediate prospects for improvement; but,
  not long after UUNET Canada opened a parallel link from Toronto to
  Washington somehow funds materialized for an upgrade.
- in Germany, the import of Usenet news and the export of news from
  non-DNET sites was severely taxed until parallel and unrestricted
  news feeds were found and imported into the country over independently
  operated links
- in the UK, the appearance of a non-UKnet commercial provider (Pipex)
  stimulated not just a liberalization of network traffic flows into
  Britain but also a flurry of software development of people working
  on codes for dialup IP lines previously unavailable at UKnet tarriffs.

The most important goal that I can see for the Internet community in
Australia is the development of competetive sources of supply for
transPacific networking bandwidth.  From the net.perspective in Michigan
(admittedly rather far away :) you are seriously handicapped by 
neither having obvious alternatives to begging the Vice Chancellors
for more bandwidth nor any sensible way to offer public access Internet
to the (paying) general public.  You are never likely to find enough
support strictly from the academic community to expand the net wide
enough in Australia to meet the demands of all of those people who
learned it in school and want to carry it on to their first job.

  Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com
        Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI  48103 +1 313 998 GLOB

Xref: sparky aus.netstatus:250 aus.aarnet:1253