HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM debunking needed)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 03:39:17 EST
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

> >Actually, the Vedas state that the Moon is 800,000 miles HIGHER than the
> >Sun, in the plane of the Bhu-mandala system, not that it is farther away
> >in terms of linear distance.
> 
> 	What's the "Bhu-mandala system"?

The Bhu-mandala system is a gigantic disk-shaped region in
higher-dimensional space. Its 3-dimensional projection is on the
ecliptic. Ordinary human beings cannot see the physical disk of
Bhu-mandala, because our senses are not sophisticated enough. But its
existence has been reported by demigods and advanced yogis.

>       And is the Moon _closer_ in linear distance, or isn't it?

Yes, the Moon is closer in linear distance, but higher than the sun in
the "z" coordinate. However, this is a 3-dimensional analogue of what is
actually a higher dimensional situation.

> >Eclipses are explained as the result of the planet Rahu passing
> >between the sun and the earth, or the moon and the earth. In modern
> >astronomy, the planet Rahu is identified as the moon's ascending node,
> >which is indeed in line with the sun-moon-earth system during an
> >eclipse.
> 
> 	There is no such thing as a planet separate from the Moon that
> causes eclipses.

So you say, but this is only your opinion. You cannot see Rahu, but that
does not mean it doesn't exist.

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      |
      |           (kalki@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
       ---------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: sschaff@roc.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Stephen F. Schaffner)
Subject: Re: tv & science education
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 23:11:43 GMT

In article <2517@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>, bouche2@server.uwindsor.ca (BOUCHER DAVID            ) writes:
|> In article <7112@tuegate.tue.nl> wsadjw@urc.tue.nl writes:
|> 
|> [in response to somebody who said that 50% of the population are 
|>  "below average, by definition]
|> 
|> >Only with a very liberal definition of "average" and "about 50%", or
|> >in case the quantity that's being averaged is symmetrically distributed
|> >around some value.  It certainly is not *by definition* that 50% is
|> >less than average.  By definition 50% is less than the median. This is
|> >not some theoretical point.  The distribution of many important things
|> >is very skewed.
|> 
|> absolutely correct, though i wouldn't bet that the "average" person 
|> would understand your argument.  however, general intelligence is one
|> of those things that is supposed to be symmetrically distributed, and
|> so the other guy was probably right even though he didn't understand
|> what he was talking about as well as you did... ;)

Sorry, but by *one* of the definitions of "average", 50% of the 
population is indeed below average, since one meaning of "average" 
is median (others include mean and mode); it seems reasonable to 
conclude that that's the meaning the original poster was using.  By 
"definition" I mean the sort of thing you can find in a dictionary
of English; there may be fields that use "average" with a technical 
meaning, but I can't think of any at the moment.  

-- 
Steve Schaffner        sschaff@unixhub.slac.stanford.edu
	The opinions expressed may be mine, and may not be those of SLAC, 
Stanford University, or the DOE.
Xref: sparky sci.skeptic:22975 alt.sci.physics.new-theories:2882
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: New Physics, Healing, Paranormal
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:38:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc.mcirvin.728170727

rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D. Nelson) writes:

>In article <C1H02x.K38@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> relipper@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Eric Lippert) writes:
>[snip]

>>Seriously now, I really do not understand psychic advocates.  The real world is a wondrously interesting place!  Weirdnesses like black holes, einstein-rosen wormholes, quasars, quantum wells, point particles, superconductors, etc, etc, etc are bizarre and interesting, and best of all, demonstrable!
>>
>I don't understand psychic advocates either, and by all means agree that the
>real world is interesting.  But I do wonder at your apparent conviction that
>the above list is "demonstrable!"

>Superconductors, yes, but the rest of the list?  In what way would you
>propose to demonstrate a black hole, or an "einstein-rosen wormhole" (a
>paradox worthy of podolsky), for example?  Demonstrations of the PK you
>deny are more likely.

The thing I've heard called the "einstein-rosen wormhole" is the one in
the Schwarzschild solution, and if you get your black holes by collapsing
stars, it's not really there.  And the question of whether there
is any such thing as a point particle is one that probably won't
be decided *experimentally* for a good long time (if string theory
turned out to be true, they'd be laid to rest).  But as for the rest...

Candidate black holes accumulate steadily; there are now many objects
identified by astronomers which, if they are not black holes, are something
completely unexplained by known physics-- within the confines of which
black holes, if not their singularities, comfortably rest.

Quasars are quite real.  They are seen in the sky all the time.  They
aren't theoretical constructs.  In fact, for a long time astrophysicists
were at a loss for decent theories to explain them.  Now there are some,
but the objects are still rather mysterious.

Quantum wells are objects made in laboratories.  They exist, and their
properties are both understandable and potentially technologically
useful.

More exotic physical phenomena have been demonstrated than most
people realize.  When counterintuitive physical theories are
described in the media, especially with the use of science-fictional
thought experiments, it is sometimes not sufficiently stressed that
this isn't just a bunch of blue-sky musings from crazed theorists.
I sometimes shock people when I tell them that antimatter and
time dilation are routinely observed in labs, and that I've seen 
evidence for both in undergraduate lab courses.
-- 
Matt McIrvin
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy)
Subject: Re: Eve Mitochondia?
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:49:25 GMT

gtclark@festival.ed.ac.uk (G T Clark) writes:


>	While the "Eve" hypothesis is not proven,and is in my view
>unprovable due to competition between mitochondria,I think I should
>point out that it states that all PEOPLE are descended from one woman.
>	It claims this because all you mitochondria,and therefore all
>your mitochondrial DNA,come from your mother.

The claim that all mitochondrial DNA is transmitted via females has
been known to be false since the 1970's. A small proportion is in fact
transmitted by patrilineal descent. My source is a recent issue of
Science et Vie (a French monthly which you might compare with
Scientific American), in which the Eve hypothesis was discussed.

Further, if all mitochondrial DNA was inherited matrilineally, the
proponents of the Eve hypothesis would still be guilty, this time
of circular reasoning and, again, of selective use of the data.
The circular reasoning and selected use of the data are this:

Let there be traits only transmissible via females.
Let us consider those traits in restituting the phylogeny of
the species.
Since those traits are transmitted only by females, the
nodes of the tree, and therefore its root, represent females.
Therefore, all individuals are descended from the same female.

Intellectual dishonesty and hocus pocus, nothing more.
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM debunking needed)
Keywords: sun, moon, Krishna
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:18:51 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1jnla5INNqr7@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> dayton@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Michael A Dayton) writes:

>In article <1993Jan22.014554.7281@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

: 	As to Vedic astronomy, I wouldn't be very surprised if it
: wasn't very sophisticated; apparently the Vedas teach explicitly that
: the Earth is flat, which may give pause to Hindu fundamentalists like
: the Hare Krishnas.

>I had a (rather weird) friend who was a Krishna for a short time, and
>he mentioned this to me as well.  While I don't remember the entire
>argument, a major part was the relative temperatures of the bodies
>involved.   Basically, the sun and the moon are both made of some 
>kind of celestial fire, the sun feels hotter therefore must be closer.

	This argument presupposes that the Sun and the Moon have the
same total luminosity; is that question addressed anywhere in the HK
literature? Actually, it is easy to see that the total luminosity per
unit surface area is _very_ different for the two bodies, since it
translates directly into total incoming flux per solid angle, which is
clearly different.

	With the Greek astrology and astronomy that was brought into
India, I wonder if the hypotheses that the Moon is a ball illuminated
by the Sun and that the Moon is much lower than the Sun made it there.

>He claimed the moon landings were fake because
>1) the moon is too far away
>2) it is made of fire anyway and would incinerate any moon walkers

>Don't remember how he accounted for craters, ...and, of course, the 
>eclipse question is compelling.

	Did you invite him to take a look through a small telescope?
Doing so makes the Moon's craters _very_ apparent. One can sometimes
see shadows of mountains, which completely destroys this "celestial
fire" theory.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
From: biow@cs.umd.edu (Christopher Biow)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Will the -REAL- Christians please stand up? Was: What did Judas be
Date: 26 Jan 93 03:07:50 GMT
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <728019093.AA05876@csource.oz.au> joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater) writes:
>Wednesday January 20 1993, ata@hfsi.UUCP writes to (crosspost 1) All:

>aU> I would be most greatful if you could point out to me the passages in
>aU> Scripture that support "treating gays badly".

>Um, you mean apart from killing them?

In hope of preventing a homosexuality flame war on sci.skeptic, 
here's probably the best answer that either side is going to get
on this question. First, the most quoted verse:

     Lev 20:13  If a man lies with a male as with a woman,
     both of them have committed an abomination; they shall
     be put to death, their blood is upon them.

That taken care of, we can find quite a lot of Old Testament rules
on sex, many of them with quite dire enforcement means. Yet the com-
mon thread in OT sexual rules is the need to produce offspring. 
Tribes that didn't do this well didn't survive to write scripture.
Thus, a man is required to keep his sister-in-law pregnant if 
his brother dies (regardless of the presence of his own wife(s)).

     Deu 25:5  "If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies
     and has no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married
     outside the family to a stranger; her husband's brother shall
     go in to her, and take her as his wife, and perform the duty 
     of a husband's brother to her.

Polygamy is fairly common in the OT, and would be almost necessary
after costly wars had reduced male populations. So how do we, today,
choose from among the OT sexual rules?

That, of course, is a decision made by each religion, each sect,
each person. Very few Christians consider all of the OT rules
to still be valid. Our 'tribe' is in little danger of dying out
through lack of births.

What did he just say? Did he say that the Bible calls for harassment
of gays today? No. Did he say that the whole OT can be casually 
discarded by modern Christians? No. Did he say that OT sexual rules
should be the basis of civil legislation in the US? No.

Now let's leave the flame wars to soc.*, and get back to debunking
falsifiable claims. Thanks.
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.atheism
From: phardie@nastar.uucp (Pete Hardie)
Subject: Re: Eve Mitochondia?
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems, Duluth, GA.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:43:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.234925.5246@trl.oz.au> jbm@hal.trl.OZ.AU (Jacques Guy) writes:
>The claim that all mitochondrial DNA is transmitted via females has
>been known to be false since the 1970's. A small proportion is in fact
>transmitted by patrilineal descent. My source is a recent issue of
>Science et Vie (a French monthly which you might compare with
>Scientific American), in which the Eve hypothesis was discussed.

What mechanism is proposed that gets paternal mitochrondial DNA into the zygote?

>Further, if all mitochondrial DNA was inherited matrilineally, the
>proponents of the Eve hypothesis would still be guilty, this time
>of circular reasoning and, again, of selective use of the data.
>The circular reasoning and selected use of the data are this:
>
>Let there be traits only transmissible via females.
>Let us consider those traits in restituting the phylogeny of
>the species.
>Since those traits are transmitted only by females, the
>nodes of the tree, and therefore its root, represent females.
>Therefore, all individuals are descended from the same female.
>
>Intellectual dishonesty and hocus pocus, nothing more.

I think you miss the point of the Eve studies.  Certainly they will point to
a female as the 'source' of all people, because they can only look at females
anyway.  They are looking for the number of 'family trees' in mankind - are
we ALL descended from one family, or did H. sapiens develop independently
in several areas of the world?  The Eve studies are an attempt to find if
all humans have a single common (hominid) ancestor.

-- 
Pete Hardie:  phardie@nastar  (voice) (404) 497-0101
Digital Transmission Systems, Inc., Duluth GA
Member, DTS Dart Team           |  cat * | egrep -v "signature virus|infection" 
Position:  Goalie               |
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,soc.culture.usa,talk.religion.misc
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Allan Bloom, Micheal Medved and Jack Chick
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 11:20:28 GMT

In article <23JAN199311150484@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>
lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:

>Not quite.  The argument (which Siano makes in another article which
>goes into some detail on Medved's book) is more like "Michael Medved
>misuses statistics to argue for a number of mutually inconsistent
>propositions, so he is a wacko like unto Jack Chick."

I found Medved's book annoying in some ways.  But I would be
interested to hear how any reasonably sane person would argue it is
like a Jack Chick comic book.  As to misusing statistics, statistics
are misused in 94.8 % of all cases where they are used at all.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: tv & science education
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:54:51 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1993Jan20.4286.31906@dosgate> "dan mckinnon" <dan.mckinnon@canrem.com> writes:
>PN>  Scientific American assumes a general undergraduate college
>PN>  -science level of understanding, that's all.  There are
>PN>  probably *millions* of people in the US who can handle it.
>
>PN>  TV has nothing like this.  The closest program is probably
>PN>  PBS's NOVA, and that's probably no better than high-school
>PN>  science.  NOVA is constantly interrupting itself to explain
>PN>  the meaning of some term or concept that I think a well-educated
>PN>  person should already understand.
>
>         Yes ----- but! Where does a well-educated person get his
>education, unless you insist on FORMAL education.
 
   How about books?   I keep college physics, geology, math, etc,
   texts on my bookshelf for easy reference.

>you, NOVA _is_ doing the educating, then you criticize it for that!

   What I'm criticizing is the fact that NOVA is as good as it gets
   on TV.

>         We could argue about how well informed "average" people can be
>expected to be. By definition, about 50% of people are less than
>average. It is a problem in our society - You can claim to belong to
>almost any "minority", and get sympathy, but say you are, as I am, a
>member of Mensa with an IQ of 140 or more, and people will attack you
>for asking for what we want - higher calibre programming. They also will
>attack you for being arrogant, for being elitist , for being prejudiced
>against non-gifted individuals, for even expressing any needs that
>affect you as a result of your abilities.

  True, but I don't mind; I'm admittedly an elitist and I'm used to it.

  Anyway if the market can support specialized TV programming on
  fly-fishing, Cajun cooking, or antique collecting, it might be
  able to support better science programming -- but nobody has 
  tried as far as I know.


---peter
From: system@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us (Kalki Dasa)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Krishnas, Vedas, and all that (was: TM debunking needed)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 11:00:40 EST
Organization: Kalki's Infoline BBS, Aiken, SC, USA

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

> And the Hare Krishnas are even sillier than THAT. Their publication "Back
> to Godhead" published sometime during 1977 an article titled "Man on the
> Moon, A case of mass brainwashing." The author, Satsvarupa dasa Goswami,
> argues in essence that since the Vedas proclaim space flight to be
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> impossible, therefore the moon landing could not possibly have happened.
  ^^^^^^^^^^

Now this is interesting. I'd like to know where you get the idea that
"the Vedas proclaim space flight to be impossible." This statement was
neither made nor implied by any of the quotes you presented.

In truth, the Vedas contain numerous accounts of "space flight" (i.e.
interplanetary travel by means of mechanical vehicles). Satsvarupa was
well aware of this fact when he wrote the article, and he never said
otherwise.

What he said was that the astronauts never went to the moon, and his
reason was that the moon is impossible to reach by mankind's present
technology, not that it is impossible to reach by space flight.

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      |
      |           (kalki@kalki33.lakes.trenton.sc.us)           |
       ---------------------------------------------------------
From: swf@tools3teradata.com (Stan Friesen)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Is there a FAQ or will you tell me of Nostradamus?
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:23:24 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1j777sINNobb@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, phydeaux@guru.med.cornell.edu (Dave Weingart) writes:
|> My prediction for the future (in English)
|> 
|> In a land between two seas
|> Shall there be strife of
|> Brother against brother and
|> Sister against sister.

Oh, I just *love* it!  Unless human nature changes radically you *can't* *miss*!

[For those of you that missed it - how many civil wars have occured so far
in the history of the world? - anyone want to bet there will never be another?]

-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
From: delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Scott C DeLancey)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Date: 26 Jan 1993 02:56:48 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: darkwing.uoregon.edu

In article <C1FK95.6J5@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dmcanzi@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi) writes:
>
>Nothing, as far as I know, prevents Satanists from infiltrating
>pro-life organizations, placing themselves in key positions, and using
>those positions to advance the cause of Satan.  They can even
>infiltrate your congregation and do a fine simulation of Christian
>fervor.  *Nothing* will prevent them from pretending to praise God
>without meaning it.  God won't stop them:  not all who say "Lord, Lord"
>are bound for the Kingdom of Heaven.  And the Father of Lies can be
>counted on to view their duplicity with approval.  It must be assumed
>that all large pro-life organizations and Christian congregations and
>many of the smaller ones have Satanist infiltrators.  But it will be
>very difficult, or perhaps impossible, to tell the Satanists from the
>true Christians.

"By their fruits you shall know them", right?  So you're right --
it's probably impossible to tell one from the other.

Scott DeLancey
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Kalki:  Krishna, or Borg?  You make the call
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:29:06 GMT
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University

In article <1k38s2INN29k@gap.caltech.edu>, carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J
Lydick) writes:
> In article <1993Jan25.151011@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A
Ashlock) writes:
> >Borg
> 
> Sorry, Dan.  The Borg were rational.  Try again.

   You're right, I fell into the trap of taking one of the two proffered
alternatives.  Kalki's method of arguing with those that disagree with him
simply reminded me of the one the Borg use:





              This space left blank intentionally.  





See?  Just like Kalki!  

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
(no argument, just a huge frontal assault).