Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Unbended Curved Bar Space Slugout Thread
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 121 of 413 (482040)
09-14-2008 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Buzsaw
09-14-2008 12:06 AM


Re: More GR Obfuscation Of 3D Reality
For the purpose of the hypothesis it is hypothetically absolutely straight with enough energy to extend infinitely. It is a model (as in doing science ).
"Hypothetically straight"? What on Earth does that mean? That is not a "model". It's meaningless. If the bar is straight in 3D space then it will be curved in 4D curved spacetime.
You're getting unreal on me again. In the 3D real world our eyes see 2D since our eyes are not 3D.
Actually the reason we have two eyes is to add depth of vision. We are "designed" () to see a 3D world and do indeeed see in 3D. Have you not seen Jaws 3?
4D adds a time or additional bonus (unreal) space dimension for more freedom in teaching the GR POV of space, etc.
No Buz. No extra spatial dimensions are added in GR. 3 spatial dimensions and time. Time is the 4th dimension. It has nothing to do with teaching GR. 4 dimensions are used because time exists.
It stacks the real 3 altitude, latitude and longitude dimensions along with the bonus dimension into 4 (abe: geometric) unreal parallel dimensions which essentially transform the real 3D space into a geometric 2D for purposes of science when in reality space has 3 dimensions, altitude, latitude and longitude.
No Buz. No extra spatial dimensions are added in GR. 3 spatial dimensions and time. Time is the 4th dimension. Your ongoing insistence that GR is inventing unevidenced dimensions is just plain wrong.
Do you deny time exists?
How many dimensions, including time, do you think there are?
3 spatial dimensions + time = 4 dimensions.
Thus spacetime geometry is 4D
So we're back to square one, so far as refutation of my 3D reality bar model.
You never even made it to square one Buz. You still think we see the physical world in 2D. You still think a 3D straight bar can be defined as straight without reference to anything but a meaningless concept of "hypothetical straightness". You still fail to even understand why 3 spatial dimensions + time might require 4D models.
The alleged curve property of space is hypothetical and debatable.
It is utterly evidenced by means of specific measurable prediction. Practical applications of these measuremenst are used every day, all over the world by GPS users.
The only people who doubt the veracity of this are those, such as yourself, with philosophical reasons of their own making to insist it is untrue regardless of evidence.
Space cannot allow for my model to bend or curve.
Your 3D bar is stratight in 3D. Nobody is disputing that.
However in 4D curved spacetime it is necessarily curved.
It's ends will never meet.
In a 4D spherical universe - Yes they would.
Given enough energy it would extend straight out into space infinitely in one real spacial direction.
OK. But in 4D spacetime it would still curve.
Space is infinite, static and unbounded, but having no outside of.
The crux of this issue comes down to spacetime curvature.
A "hypothetically straight" bar in curved spacetime would have to pop out of space somehow. Even you are not suggesting that.
Question: On what basis do you declare that 4D spacetime (i.e. 3 spatial dimensions + time) does not curve given all of the mass of evidence that says that it does?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Buzsaw, posted 09-14-2008 12:06 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by johnfolton, posted 09-14-2008 11:00 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 145 by Buzsaw, posted 09-15-2008 11:01 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 150 by cavediver, posted 09-16-2008 3:05 AM Straggler has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 413 (482042)
09-14-2008 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by AdminNosy
09-14-2008 2:21 AM


Re: Note for Nemisis
AdminNosy writes:
See? Some predictions are easy.
AdminNosy, this forum is the Freeforall. Why don't you either put on the gloves and come in here without your admin armour on if you wish to participate in this slugout or bug out of the ring?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by AdminNosy, posted 09-14-2008 2:21 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by NosyNed, posted 09-14-2008 9:46 AM Buzsaw has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 123 of 413 (482043)
09-14-2008 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Buzsaw
09-14-2008 9:28 AM


piling on
You won't listen to others telling you that you are why should you listen to me? I can't think of a new way to explain it to you and my conjecture to NJ is that there doesn't exist a any such way to help you "get it".
NJ hasn't actually attempted to suggest either that you are right or will ever understand. He just thinks it isn't fair to point it out that you aren't and won't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Buzsaw, posted 09-14-2008 9:28 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Buzsaw, posted 09-14-2008 10:45 AM NosyNed has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 413 (482049)
09-14-2008 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by kuresu
09-14-2008 6:37 AM


Re: At the heart of the matter...
kuresu writes:
a model has to explain how it works. You can't just claim "hypothetically straight, hypothetically straight" without giving up the details.
Ok, admittedly, the word hypothetically was a poor choice of words. I should have stuck to my original description of straight. I will get to how my 4D argument stands.
kuresu writes:
Oh, and our eyes certainly see in three dimensions. 2D would mean that we only see in length and breadth (or length and height, or breadth and height). We see breadth(I can see how wide my room is), we can see length (I can determine this in my room as well), and height (again, I can tell this about my room). I can see the 3D space that I live in. If it was only one of the 2D models, My room would have no height, or no breadth, or no length.
1. The 3 dimensions of things in your room are not height, breadth and length. They are height, breadth and depth.
2. We have 2D retinas. The 3D things we see are inferred by our brains. Below is a link which explains this. I don't remember where I saw it but Wikipedia also supports my position on this.
All the information we use is detected on the 2D retina, therefore any sense of three dimensions we have is constructed by the brain. The brain can reconstruct the 3D world incorrectly at times (for instance with the pseudo-3D advertisements painted on sports fields, and with Wheatstone's stereoscope). In reality, we do not really perceive the 3D world at all - we infer it.
kuresu writes:
Time is not an unreal dimension either, unless you are suggesting that there is no time. We are moving forward in time, though this is the only dimension I'm aware of that is not spatial (cavediver or someone knowledgeable please correct me if I'm wrong) My understanding of 4D is that the the dimension can either be applied as a time dimension or a geometric spatial dimension.
Our universe is literally 3D with the fourth dimension added to afford science more freedom/leeway for their various purposes.
4D skews the 3D dimensions of longitude, latitude and altitude by stacking them parallel so as to visualize 3D as 2D. Like 2D models, 4D models do not address my 3D model which relates realistically to the universe.
ABE: If he 4th dimension is time, it is not a geometric spatial dimension applicable to my model for the purpose of this debate. If the 4th dimension is an added GR spatial dimension, as I have shown, the 4th dimension obfuscates reality.
Edited by Buzsaw, : as noted

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by kuresu, posted 09-14-2008 6:37 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Straggler, posted 09-14-2008 11:19 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 128 by kuresu, posted 09-14-2008 11:36 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 134 by Blue Jay, posted 09-14-2008 4:35 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 413 (482050)
09-14-2008 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by NosyNed
09-14-2008 9:46 AM


Re: piling on
NoseyNed writes:
You won't listen to others telling you that you are why should you listen to me? I can't think of a new way to explain it to you and my conjecture to NJ is that there doesn't exist a any such way to help you "get it".
NJ hasn't actually attempted to suggest either that you are right or will ever understand. He just thinks it isn't fair to point it out that you aren't and won't.
Ok, Nosey N. Fair enough. You're welcome to your opinion and to express it here. Perhaps when all is said and done here, I can help you and others realize that there are legitimate debatable alternatives to the conventional scientific POV.
I appreciate that the debate ended up here in Freeforall and not in the science fora so that I can have the opportunity to fully aire my points in depth without the usual restrictions relative to acceptable prevailing science views.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by NosyNed, posted 09-14-2008 9:46 AM NosyNed has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 126 of 413 (482053)
09-14-2008 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Straggler
09-14-2008 8:54 AM


Re: More GR Obfuscation Of 3D Reality
It's ends will never meet.
In a 4D spherical universe - Yes they would.
However the problem being the universe has been proven to be a straight flat universe so your bringing in myth to suggest the universe is a curved spherical universe.
If you hypothetically picture a perfectly straight 3D rod stretching infinitely coming out from the east side of a non closed infinite universe to the west side of a non closed infinite universe its ends will never touch because the universe itself is has it not been proven to be near as straight as 3D rod stretching infinitely from the east side to the west side of our known visible universe meaning the universe that is visible is not a curved spherical universe.
Math is hypothetical too but seems scientific opinion has moved toward the non closed flat universe that Buzz flat straight infinite rod too espouses due the scientific data confirms the universe is not a curved spherical universe but believed to be a non closed straight flat universe.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Scientific opinion has moved towards a flat Universe and the latest data confirm this with greater certainty than ever before.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/727073.stm
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Straggler, posted 09-14-2008 8:54 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by ramoss, posted 09-15-2008 11:18 PM johnfolton has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 127 of 413 (482056)
09-14-2008 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Buzsaw
09-14-2008 10:31 AM


Simple Graphs
There appears to be no hope for you regarding some of these issues but I am determined to get you to understand something as part of this discussion.
I want to demonstrate to you why 4D models are used. You don't have to agree with their use. You don't have to accept GR, space-time curvature, "bent" straight bars or anything else.
Just please for the love of God try and listen.
I just want to try and show you why a 4D model is legitimately used.
Ready..........? Let’s take one step at a time in familiar language. Drawing the graphs on a piece of paper might help
ONE SPATIAL DIMENSION + TIME
Consider one of the spatial dimensions in question. "Height" for example.
If we want to draw a graph showing how the height of a ball (or whatever) changes in time we can draw height as one axis (the vertical axis) and time as the other (the horizontal axis). We can plot the height of the ball against time using this model. Thus we can model the path of a ball in terms of it's height as time progresses. A ball thrown straight up in the air and landing again would look much like a hill shaped curve on our graph. The top of the "hill" would be the point that the ball reached its maximum height.
Do you agree with this simple model?
TWO SPATIAL DIMENSIONS + TIME
Now let’s consider a ball thrown between two people. Imagine each of the two people stands at either end of a 20 foot straight metal bar laid on the ground of a park. Normal Earth gravity still applies. How can we graphically plot the path of the ball now? Well we still need to be able to plot the height of the ball. We still need to be able to plot the progression of time. But now we also need to be able to plot the position of the ball along the length of the bar as well. We need an extra axis on our graph.
Take your graph from the one spatial dimension example above. Where can we add an extra axis to plot length? This axis would have to come out of the page. The three axes would therefore form the corner of a cube.
Thus with a co-ordinate for height, a co-ordinate for length and a co-ordinate for time we could plot the position of the ball at any point. Three co-ordinates. Three axes.
Do you agree with this simple model?
THREE SPATIAL DIMENSIONS + TIME
OK. Now lets make a 20 foot by 20 foot metal square plate and lay this on the ground of our park. We now have a person standing at each corner of the metal plate. They can all throw the ball to each other.
How can we graphically represent this on a graph? Well we still need to be able to plot the height of the ball. We still need to be able to plot the progression of time. We still need to be able to plot the position of the ball in terms of length. However we now need an extra axis on our graph to represent breadth.
To fully plot the position of the ball we now need a co-ordinate for height, a co-ordinate for length, a co-ordinate for breadth and a co-ordinate for time. With these 4 co-ordinates we can describe the motion of the ball at any point in 3 spatial dimensions and time. Four co-ordinates. Four axes.
Do you agree?
THE POINT
Now Buz surely you can see the problem here. The two spatial dimensions + time scenario required a 3D graph shaped like the corner of a cube in order to fully represent the motion of the ball.
In the case of the three spatial dimensions + time scenario we effectively need a set of axes that form the corner of a 4D cube.
Try adding this onto your graph formed in the previous examples!!!!
4 co-ordinates. 4 axes. 4D graphical representation.
QUESTION: Can you now see why modelling 3 spatial dimensions + time requires a 4D model?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Buzsaw, posted 09-14-2008 10:31 AM Buzsaw has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 128 of 413 (482059)
09-14-2008 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Buzsaw
09-14-2008 10:31 AM


Re: At the heart of the matter...
The point still stands. We experience three spatial dimensions. We percieve (even if slightly incorrect) 3 spatial dimensions with our eyes. If 3 spatial dimensions did not exist, our eyes could not even trick us into percieving 3 spatial dimensions.
Our universe is literally 3D with the fourth dimension added to afford science more freedom/leeway for their various purposes.
The fourth dimension isn't added willy-nilly. Even religion makes use of four dimensions. After all, there is a past right? Jesus Christ died for your sins 2000 years ago, right? He died in 3 spatial dimensions, but the time dimension tells us when. There is a future, right? The second coming of christ, right? He will exist in 3 spatial dimensions when he comes, but the 4th dimension of time is needed to say when he will come.
Without time, there is no passage of events. Everything would be frozen. Christ's death and second coming would be at the same instant, completely unseperated. The universe without time would be incomprehensible. Genesis, the Exodus, and the entirety of the bible would be incomprehensible without time.
The fourth dimension of time does not obfuscate reality, it is reality.
Your 3D model, because you cannot refute the existence of time, would be a model that is (H=height, B=breadth, D=depth, T=time) either H*B*T;H*D*T; or B*D*T. Without time, your model does not correlate to reality, and thus is useless as a scientific model.
read straggler's following post for some really basic (and well-put) insight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Buzsaw, posted 09-14-2008 10:31 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 09-14-2008 1:26 PM kuresu has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 413 (482069)
09-14-2008 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by kuresu
09-14-2008 11:36 AM


Re: At the heart of the matter...
The point still stands. We experience three spatial dimensions. We perceive (even if slightly incorrect) 3 spatial dimensions with our eyes. If 3 spatial dimensions did not exist, our eyes could not even trick us into perceiving 3 spatial dimensions.
See, Kuresu, this is why it's taken you people five pages before even one of you would admit that in the reality dimension of 3D my model remains uncurved. It's fine and dandy for you people to be slightly incorrect when your argument is insufficient, but there's no such leeway for the minority folks here.
Our universe is literally 3D with the fourth dimension added to afford science more freedom/leeway for their various purposes.
kuresu writes:
The fourth dimension isn't added willy-nilly.
I didn't say it was. I said it is added to afford science more freedom/leeway for their various purposes. Nevertheless it skews/obfuscates the 3d model argument which I've been debating.
kuresu writes:
The fourth dimension of time does not obfuscate reality, it is reality.
It obfuscates that the reality of a basic 3D universe, without adding the freedom GR 4th dimension and my model applies to that basic reality as well as my argument. Your argument is relative to parallel plane 2D dimensions Mine is relative to actual real dimensions of things we observe.
4D affords the ability to revert 3D back to a 2D plane, thus obfuscating my valid 3D argument.
Either you people are doggedly denying the facts or lack the intelligence to understand and comprehend. You MO is to insult, demean and belittle so as to avoid admitting that the logical, sensible ole guy is right.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by kuresu, posted 09-14-2008 11:36 AM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by kuresu, posted 09-14-2008 3:07 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 131 by cavediver, posted 09-14-2008 3:08 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 132 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2008 3:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 133 by Straggler, posted 09-14-2008 3:37 PM Buzsaw has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 130 of 413 (482078)
09-14-2008 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Buzsaw
09-14-2008 1:26 PM


Re: At the heart of the matter...
Buz, you are, in effect, saying that time does not exist. That there is no past, present, or future. That there is only one moment, but you can't call it moment because that word describes time.
Read what I wrote. I wrote "3 spatial dimensions", not "3 dimensions".
Time isn't added as a dimension to give GR more leeway, time is added because it is part of our reality.
A 3D universe would have two spatial dimensions plus time. Didn't you read straggler's post?
Either you people are doggedly denying the facts or lack the intelligence to understand and comprehend
Given that you are denying the existence of time, I'd say you are the one who is doggedly denying the facts. Whether or not you have the ability to comprehend is almost no longer a question--you simply can't if you deny the existence of time. Give it up buz. Your model doesn't even come close to describing reality, except for the one in your head that says time doesn't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 09-14-2008 1:26 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Buzsaw, posted 09-14-2008 8:50 PM kuresu has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 131 of 413 (482080)
09-14-2008 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Buzsaw
09-14-2008 1:26 PM


Re: At the heart of the matter...
Either you people are doggedly denying the facts or lack the intelligence to understand and comprehend.
Yeah, wahtever Buz. You think you're the little boy, crying that the emperor has no clothes, but actually you're that piss-stained drunk at London Heathrow claiming that planes cannot fly. You think we're the ones dealing out the insults, but read the quote above. This subject is my fucking LIFE, Buz. And I have to put up with the mad bleating of an old man, who has had some 'ideas', and claiming that either I have no intelligence, or am denying the facts, despite the fact that I have spent my life, both professionally and socially, explaining this subject to students, other scientists, and the general public. Fuck you, Buz. Fuck you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 09-14-2008 1:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 132 of 413 (482083)
09-14-2008 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Buzsaw
09-14-2008 1:26 PM


Re: At the heart of the matter...
quote:
Our universe is literally 3D with the fourth dimension added to afford science more freedom/leeway for their various purposes.
Their purpose is understanding how our universe operates. General Relativity works better than Newtonian gravity, so General Relativity took over. And it continues to work so well that nothing has replaced it.
quote:
Either you people are doggedly denying the facts or lack the intelligence to understand and comprehend
Seems to me that you are doggedly denying the facts and failing to understand. Sometimes failing to understand even your own assertions or their consequences.
quote:
You MO is to insult, demean and belittle so as to avoid admitting that the logical, sensible ole guy is right.
Again this seems to describe your own posts. A "logical, sensible" guy would admit the possibility that people who know something about the subject might just have a better understanding than somebody who hasn't bothered to study the subject. A "sensible logical" person might try to understand the analogies offered as explanation rather than using them as an excuse to slander people who disagree with him. A "logical sensible" person wouldn't babble nonsense in an attempt to "prove" his point.
You are not a "logical sensible ole guy", Buzsaw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 09-14-2008 1:26 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 133 of 413 (482084)
09-14-2008 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Buzsaw
09-14-2008 1:26 PM


Re: At the heart of the matter...
The fourth dimension isn't added willy-nilly.
I didn't say it was. I said it is added to afford science more freedom/leeway for their various purposes. Nevertheless it skews/obfuscates the 3d model argument which I've been debating.
AAAAArrrrrRRRRRgggggHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
Nobody is denying 3D space. GR does not deny 3D space. GR inherently assumes 3 spatial dimensions.
Nobody is creating extra spatial dimensions. GR is not based on the need for extra spatial dimensions.
Your whole argument is based on a complete misapprehension of everything that everybody is saying to you
The whole reason the maths of GR is done in 4D is because there are 3 spatial dimensions. Plus time.
One axis for each spatial dimension. Plus one axis for time. Hence 4D geometry. Not to obfuscate. Not to confuse.
4D GEOMETRY BECAUSE 3 SPATIAL DIMENSIONS PLUS TIME REQUIRES A 4 DIMENSIONAL GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION
I have explained this to you in Message 127. You have ignored this. If you don't understand it ask and I will explain.
It seems that in this thread your only aim is to insist that you are right regardless of what is said. To this end you seem intent on ignoring anything that might cause you to question your assertions. Even those outrageaous assertions that you are repeatedly making regarding the motivation of scientists in choosing the mathematical model used.
Frankly Buz this is willful ignorance at best and verging on the dishonest at worst...............
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 09-14-2008 1:26 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Buzsaw, posted 09-14-2008 9:47 PM Straggler has replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 134 of 413 (482088)
09-14-2008 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Buzsaw
09-14-2008 10:31 AM


Re: At the heart of the matter...
Hi Buzz.
Buzsaw writes:
We have 2D retinas.
Yes, as Mr Hook from your link says, the image received by the retina is essentially two-dimensional and flat. What's really crazy, though, is that the "screen" that the image is projected onto (i.e., the retina) is actually curved in three dimensions!!! Look!
A flat 2D image on a curved 3D screen!!! Wow!
Wrap your head around that, and you just might understand the argument yet!
Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Buzsaw, posted 09-14-2008 10:31 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by subbie, posted 09-14-2008 5:38 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 139 by Buzsaw, posted 09-14-2008 9:27 PM Blue Jay has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 135 of 413 (482093)
09-14-2008 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Blue Jay
09-14-2008 4:35 PM


Re: At the heart of the matter...
quote:
Wrap your head around that, and you just might understand the argument yet!
I'd be willing to lay very long odds against that happening.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Blue Jay, posted 09-14-2008 4:35 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024