frankie, I never heard of the Bell theory. I really haven't got a clue. I didn't do well in physics. I mean, I didn't flunk, but I was really faking it the whole time and I never could get my mind around the concept of, for example, light being both a wave and a particle. I like the idea that there is a consciousness of subatomic particles that transcends time, but that idea isn't going to get a look-in in any scientific discussion. I just wondered how that fact of simultaneous response, if it is a fact, is reconciled with the speed of light by conventional scientific views that are prevailing now.
myauntfanny
JoinedPosts by myauntfanny
-
73
Einstein Theory of Relativity
by VM44 inlong ago, in 1969, awake!
published the one and only article they ever published about einstein's theory of relativity.. einstein's theory is in the news now as the gravity probe b has recently been launched in order to measure the "frame dragging" predicted by general relativity theory as the probe orbits the earth.. if i remember correctly the 1969 awake article questioned whether einstein's theory was correct.
i doubt very much that there was anyone then, or even now, at bethel who was even remotely qualified to question einstein's theory, but, then again, lack of qualifications hasn't ever held the wt back from writing articles.. the wt library cds only have awakes going back to 1970, so i will have to find a bound volume if i want to read that article again.. anyone else here interested in einstein's theory of gravitation?.
-
-
-
54
Friends is Ending
by simplesally infriends is over.
the last episode will be tonight.
will ross and rachel end up together?
-
-
myauntfanny
Thanks, desi.
-
73
Einstein Theory of Relativity
by VM44 inlong ago, in 1969, awake!
published the one and only article they ever published about einstein's theory of relativity.. einstein's theory is in the news now as the gravity probe b has recently been launched in order to measure the "frame dragging" predicted by general relativity theory as the probe orbits the earth.. if i remember correctly the 1969 awake article questioned whether einstein's theory was correct.
i doubt very much that there was anyone then, or even now, at bethel who was even remotely qualified to question einstein's theory, but, then again, lack of qualifications hasn't ever held the wt back from writing articles.. the wt library cds only have awakes going back to 1970, so i will have to find a bound volume if i want to read that article again.. anyone else here interested in einstein's theory of gravitation?.
-
-
myauntfanny
See, now what I never understood is this simultaneous action at a distance thing. I read somewhere that a particle of matter and its anti-matter partner will react simultaneously to each other. Or something like that. (Damn I wish I could ever retain all of what I read, instead of just enough to leave me confused all the time.) If they are actually reacting simultaneously to the same stimulus, then isn't SOMETHING travelling faster than light?
-
54
Friends is Ending
by simplesally infriends is over.
the last episode will be tonight.
will ross and rachel end up together?
-
-
myauntfanny
So could someone tell me what happened? I got that Monica and Chandler had twins. Did Ross and Rachel end up together?
-
73
Einstein Theory of Relativity
by VM44 inlong ago, in 1969, awake!
published the one and only article they ever published about einstein's theory of relativity.. einstein's theory is in the news now as the gravity probe b has recently been launched in order to measure the "frame dragging" predicted by general relativity theory as the probe orbits the earth.. if i remember correctly the 1969 awake article questioned whether einstein's theory was correct.
i doubt very much that there was anyone then, or even now, at bethel who was even remotely qualified to question einstein's theory, but, then again, lack of qualifications hasn't ever held the wt back from writing articles.. the wt library cds only have awakes going back to 1970, so i will have to find a bound volume if i want to read that article again.. anyone else here interested in einstein's theory of gravitation?.
-
-
myauntfanny
OH...MY....GOD. I never expected to see anything like that on here. This board is awesome.
So does this mean that light cannot travel faster than light, after all? Just wondering.
-
73
Einstein Theory of Relativity
by VM44 inlong ago, in 1969, awake!
published the one and only article they ever published about einstein's theory of relativity.. einstein's theory is in the news now as the gravity probe b has recently been launched in order to measure the "frame dragging" predicted by general relativity theory as the probe orbits the earth.. if i remember correctly the 1969 awake article questioned whether einstein's theory was correct.
i doubt very much that there was anyone then, or even now, at bethel who was even remotely qualified to question einstein's theory, but, then again, lack of qualifications hasn't ever held the wt back from writing articles.. the wt library cds only have awakes going back to 1970, so i will have to find a bound volume if i want to read that article again.. anyone else here interested in einstein's theory of gravitation?.
-
-
myauntfanny
Heehee, that was funny, danny, I hope I get a chance to use it one of these days.
-
11
WAR.My View Of It.
by Blueblades inwar.
a state of hostility accompanied by actions designed to subjugate or to destroy those viewed as the enemy.. god - ordained warfare, jesus foretold warfare,ever since the turning of the flaming sword at the entrance to the garden of eden ( if you believe the bible ).. the two opposing sides have always believed in their own cause, that they were right, holy, etc.mankind's inhumanity to man has always been with us.the list of whom did what to who is endless as history testifies.we do not need the particulars here, for again the history list goes on and on.from god at the entrance to the garden to the present time war has been inescapeable for most of humanity.. when and how will this madness end?
please, you tell me.. blueblades
-
-
myauntfanny
Yeru
Saddam was a bully, he tried to bully Iran, he bullied Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, and in general said F*CK OFF to the UN...that's been fixed now.
I know that Saddam was a bully to other countries and his own people, but so are lots of other people we didn't invade. China ran over demostrators with tanks in Tianemen square and we didn't invade China. Also, the UN had been getting free access for quite some time to various Iraqi sites before the invasion. One of the reasons they didn't support the invasion was because Saddam Hussein had complied with their requirements. Hans Blix said they were prepared to support a war if there had been any funny business with compliance.
That you don't think Saddam was a threat and I do just shows there are not as many solid answers in this as we'd like.
I don't think Saddam was a threat to us at all. His people had been dying of starvation and lack of medical supplies for years due to our embargoes, and he was having trouble with his own military, who had tried to stage a coup against him already. He was a definite threat to his own people, and possibly to his neighbors. But if we cared so much about nasty dictators who torture their citizens, why did we support the Shah of Iran for years? Just for one example. America has often ignored dictators who torture, kill and disappear their own people.
Saddam funded, aided and abetted terrorists....that's just a fact
I don't know the facts, and possibly you are right. I don't know about this. What terrorists did he fund, aid and abet? Is there any evidence at all that he funded Al-Quaida? If it wasn't Al-Quaida, then how is he different from other governments that fund terrorism? Why didn't we invade one of them? Chechnia, maybe.
Saddam violated the cease fire agreement time and time again...that's also a fact and that fact alone justified the resumption of hostilities...
Wasn't the ceasefire a UN agreement? If the body with whom the agreement was made didn't want to start a war, why did we? Everybody in the UN was keeping an eye an Iraq, inspectors were going in continuously. It's not like they were ignoring the situation. And if that was the only reason necessary, why did Bush and company keeping drumming on other reasons, one simply false and the other rather weak in view of our foreign policy history? An emotional connection was made between 911 and the invasion, though indirectly, and as a result many people still think that we invaded Iraq to get revenge for 911, although no Iraqis were involved and I have not heard anyone say that Iraqi money in any way funded the attack. (If you know of a credible source that actually provides evidence that the Iraqis were in any way involved in 911, please tell me.) The other reason given over and over again was that he was a brutal dictator who needed to be killed and Iraq needed democracy. Undoubtedly true but not that strong a reason when you think of all the non-democratic countries we haven't invaded and set straight. If Bush and his people thought that the violation of the ceasefire was a good enough reason, why didn't they just stick with that?
We'd all have been MUCH better off if Bush 41 would have taken Saddam out the first time around.
You may well be right. I don't understand why we didn't, and also why we didn't support a local military coup when it was brewing.
-
11
WAR.My View Of It.
by Blueblades inwar.
a state of hostility accompanied by actions designed to subjugate or to destroy those viewed as the enemy.. god - ordained warfare, jesus foretold warfare,ever since the turning of the flaming sword at the entrance to the garden of eden ( if you believe the bible ).. the two opposing sides have always believed in their own cause, that they were right, holy, etc.mankind's inhumanity to man has always been with us.the list of whom did what to who is endless as history testifies.we do not need the particulars here, for again the history list goes on and on.from god at the entrance to the garden to the present time war has been inescapeable for most of humanity.. when and how will this madness end?
please, you tell me.. blueblades
-
-
myauntfanny
Yeru
We just disagree, I thin what Bush is doing will, in the long run, bring peace. Nothing spurs on a bully more than meekness. Not to do what we're doing would be a signal to those in the world that would do us harm that we are vulnerable.
The thing is that this seems to imply that Iraq was bullying us, and that we invaded to show the world that we couldn't be bullied. I am NOT a pacifist, I believe if someone hits you, hit back as hard as you can. But Iraq was not bullying us. No Iraqis were involved in 911. In fact, Iraq was extremely vulnerable when we invaded due to years of embargoes. I think it very likely that Saddam Hussein could have been removed by his own people with US support, probably with far less loss of life on both sides. There had in fact been a previous attempt to overthrow him by his own people, who had begged in vain for help from the US. Although the US had been urging them to do it, the US then withheld the support when it came to the crunch.
-
10
Political word for the day: Simulacra
by SixofNine inshaken, but apparently not stirred.
yesterday in a q & a with editors from detroit area newspapers president bush said he was "shaken" by reports of abuse of prisoners in us military custody in iraq.
yet, according to his press secretary this morning, he hasn't even looked at the taguba report, the one people around the world are buzzing about in disappointment and outrage and half of washington seems already to be reading.
-
-
myauntfanny
Hi scotsman
I don't Baudrillard all that much. I also thought that book was kind of snide, it irritated me, but I thought that idea about living in the simulacrum was kind of interesting. It spoke to me on a personal level because when I read this idea, it struck me that I was sort of doing that myself at the time I read it. But I think you're right, it could be applied to many countries in Europe. I think he probably just picked America for the dubious fun of irritating us.
-
19
I let a friend know I was having problems......
by nemo inhello everyone nemo here...just keep swimming, swimming, swimming.. anyway, i let my closest friend know how i felt currently about the organization and what affect it has had on me.
she has agreed to not share it with anyone, she won't, but these are the questions she possed to me.
i need to reply soon but my mind is overwhelmed with everything i have learned so i would like help formulating some answers.
-
-
myauntfanny
Oops, the rest of my message got lost. Let's try that again.
Hi nemo
If I were in your position I would try not to think about these questions for a while. I think they are designed to get you back into a sort of automatic trance state ruled by anxiety and mental confusion. I'm sure your friend isn't deliberately trying to manipulate you, it's just the JW drill. This seems like a good time to step back and just try to listen to your own inner voice. JWs don't listen to their inner voices much, everything about their activities is IMO designed to drown it out. JWs tend to have a tape running in their heads all the time about these things, the new system and god's organisation and all the other stuff. Maybe it's time to shut the tape off and just listen to what's going on inside yourself.