[FairfieldLife] The Nature Of Obsession
Yesterday I made three -- count them, three -- posts about the somewhat obsessive nature of a few FFLers. In the first two posts, I used a somewhat objective measure (the Yahoo Groups Search Engine) to document the obsession; in the third, I theorized as to what the cause of this obsession might be. Then I just went about my day, neither mentioning (nor, truth be told, thinking about) any of these people again. From the side of the obsessives I mentioned (and a few I didn't mention), my three posts seem to have provoked a number of reactive, defensive, and above all button-pushed posts. How many? 31, by my count. In terms of making my point about obsession, I think I can safely rest my case. Do less, accomplish more. :-) The guy who claims to be enlightened and thus all line on water and all is the clear winner of the How Pushed Were My Buttons Contest, at 11 posts, followed by the person who claims she isn't obsessed with Barry at all, at 7 posts. They never learn that when someone calls them obsessive, the way to rebut or disprove this is NOT to demonstrate exactly how obsessed they are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Anyone from here going ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: http://www.maharishismarak.org/videos/maharishi_smarak_2012_12_31.html Wonder if Mr. Harri Aalto (Harry Wave) is related to famous Finnish architect Alvar Aalto... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvar_Aalto
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jubilee today.
Happy Birthday dear Obba - hope you had a grand Silver jubilee celebration !!! P.S. Please date age appropriately, even 36 is too old :-) On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:21 PM, obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: ** 65-36=29. 29 years is the last time Shani was near the similar point as it is now in Libra. Something interesting happened back then. I am going to hold out for the same now. ;) If this transit leads to this reunion in a more complete way, as the Jubilee supposedly brings back all that was lost, as what is written in old scriptures, then I will live by that fairy tale and wait as a scientific experiment to this fairy tale theory. Hot is the love, cold is the wait of Saturn. I stand in between. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Thank you sister Raunchy! Ha! Soup at home, dinner with neighbors, and turning down sex with a hot 36 year old and a horny 65 year old! ...and enjoying it! LOL Somewhere between hot and old, make a wish. Enjoy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog wrote: Happy, happy birthday, Sista Obba! What are you doing to celebrate? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Say, Happy Birthday, Obba. :) -obba
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: TurquoiseB Doggie Treats
for being a good sport (-: From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 1:16 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TurquoiseB Doggie Treats --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey wrote: I've always wanted a dog with opposable thumbs. Calming biscuits sounds like the old SNL routine about Puppy Uppers and Doggie Downers. Justa 'nother Dharma Burger, folks. Ooo. Paris and Pippin want some. :-) http://s1143.beta.photobucket.com/user/azgrey/media/zendogthumbs_zps0edfc373.jpg.html
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Re- John M Knapp - Johnny Profane + TV reviews
I had to google black beauties. The last time I stayed up all night was at an Ammachi event. That was about 5 years ago and the next day I knew that my staying up all night days were long gone. I'd like to think I'd have written: just because. But more than likely I would have had a crush on the professor and God only knows what I would have written to him. Socrates and Diotima dontcha know. From: emilymae.reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 9:20 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Re- John M Knapp - Johnny Profane + TV reviews I would have been in panic mode and stressed out, probably would have taken black beauties and stayed up all night - so that I really couldn't think at all and then would have written enough BS to get at least a C. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Love it Doc. Here's another: the students entered the classroom for their final exam in Philosophy 101. On the board was one word: Why? The only student who received an A+ for the course was the student who wrote: Why not? There must have been at least half the class who would have written that, it is so obvious. I would have, wouldn't you? From: doctordumbass@ To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 6, 2013 11:02 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Re- John M Knapp - Johnny Profane + TV reviews  I was inspired by a story I read years ago about the world's shortest written conversation, and I think it was between Proust and his publisher. Proust sent a telegram to his publisher, inquiring about the success of a book, consisting of the single character, ?. The publisher then replied, !. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: Fe-ic!:-) ??? My guess: of or pertaining to iron, i.e., irony Smart man. I didn't get it either until you just pointed it out. Nor did I. I refer to the version of it that afflicts Barry as inadvertent Fe-y, but that's giving him the benefit of the doubt, which I suspect he doesn't deserve. I think he knows when he's being hypocritical and simply hopes nobody else will notice. The real Fe-y is that it's so painfully obvious.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Quantum Language
Well John I've got Sun at 14 Gemini, Venus and Merc retro at 6 Gemini all in 9th house. Guru in 2nd house. How could I not find all this fascinating? Thanks for posting. Now if one could figure out how to use this knowledge online, that would be something (-: From: John jr_...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 9:50 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Quantum Language Find out how Bill Clinton was able to dismiss his impeachment trial in Congress. Or, find out how the Freemasons control the entire world economy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br_9lZcTFVMplaynext=1list=PL8AAB1E9B8D1786F8
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jubilee today.
(-: From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:55 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Jubilee today. Happy Birthday dear Obba - hope you had a grand Silver jubilee celebration !!! P.S. Please date age appropriately, even 36 is too old :-) On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:21 PM, obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote: 65-36=29. 29 years is the last time Shani was near the similar point as it is now in Libra. Something interesting happened back then. I am going to hold out for the same now. ;) If this transit leads to this reunion in a more complete way, as the Jubilee supposedly brings back all that was lost, as what is written in old scriptures, then I will live by that fairy tale and wait as a scientific experiment to this fairy tale theory. Hot is the love, cold is the wait of Saturn. I stand in between. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Thank you sister Raunchy! Ha! Soup at home, dinner with neighbors, and turning down sex with a hot 36 year old and a horny 65 year old! ...and enjoying it! LOL Somewhere between hot and old, make a wish. Enjoy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog wrote: Happy, happy birthday, Sista Obba! What are you doing to celebrate? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, obbajeeba wrote: Say, Happy Birthday, Obba. :) -obba
Re: [FairfieldLife] Interactive Campus Map of MUM
Buck, I LOVE this map. Beautiful picture of Bagambhrini and the tennis twins whose Mom looks young enough to be their sister. She often sits near me on the stacked foam. Thank you so much for posting this. I'd not seen it. From: Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 4:02 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Interactive Campus Map of MUM New map showing campus. Lot of you lurk from a distance and have not been to Fairfield in a while. Here's a really nice map that you can scroll in to. If you have not been to campus in a while, a lot has been invested in the community there. You can get an idea of the place looking at this. It's a busy campus. http://www.mum.edu/HTML/interactivemap/interactivemap.html -Buck
[FairfieldLife] The Millennarian's Hymn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: You are a judgmental fool Buck. You are missing so much of life and, with luck, one day before you are dead you will realize it. You are a quitter of reality. You have chosen to hide your silly head in the sand of some mediocre imagined utopia. Dream and proselytize away. In the end, you will be just some dogmatic guy who missed the train which could have actually taken you away from your small, dogmatic world. No one is a quitter in the sense you mean here but you are well on the way to becoming a loser. Take heed, buddy. Oh, if poor sinners did but know, How much for them I undergo, They would not treat me with contempt, Nor curse me when I say repent. For lo, a heav'nly voice I hear: Go preach my gospel to the poor. Bid mourning souls on the Unified Field believe. Bid all the world free grace receive. And when my work is done below, I trust to glory I shall go, Meet all my Father's children there, And in God's kingdom have a share. -Buck --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om, a non-practitioner both a TM and a TMorg apostate. A quitter. No longer a practitioner both a TM and a TMorg apostate. The non-meditator quitter. The Fallen Away: Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied. Long have ye sat beneath the sound of thy salvation loud, And still how weak thy faith is found And knowledge of thy Self. How cold and feeble is thy love! How negligent thy fears! How long thy hope of joys abound, How few affections here. Show thy forgetful feet the way That lead to joys on high, Where knowledge grows with out decay And love shall never die. -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Nature Of Obsession
Barry, when you make a ridiculous spectacle of yourself as you did yesterday, you have to expect that people are going to gather round and point at you and snicker, enjoying themselves at your expense. Suck it up, dude. Find your man panties, as Ann suggested. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: Yesterday I made three -- count them, three -- posts about the somewhat obsessive nature of a few FFLers. In the first two posts, I used a somewhat objective measure (the Yahoo Groups Search Engine) to document the obsession; in the third, I theorized as to what the cause of this obsession might be. Then I just went about my day, neither mentioning (nor, truth be told, thinking about) any of these people again. From the side of the obsessives I mentioned (and a few I didn't mention), my three posts seem to have provoked a number of reactive, defensive, and above all button-pushed posts. How many? 31, by my count. In terms of making my point about obsession, I think I can safely rest my case. Do less, accomplish more. :-) The guy who claims to be enlightened and thus all line on water and all is the clear winner of the How Pushed Were My Buttons Contest, at 11 posts, followed by the person who claims she isn't obsessed with Barry at all, at 7 posts. They never learn that when someone calls them obsessive, the way to rebut or disprove this is NOT to demonstrate exactly how obsessed they are.
[FairfieldLife] Grand Inauguration Maharishi Smarak February 15, 2013
http://maharishismarak.org/construction.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Anyone from here going ?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: http://www.maharishismarak.org/videos/maharishi_smarak_2012_12_31.html Wonder if Mr. Harri Aalto (Harry Wave) is related to famous Finnish architect Alvar Aalto... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvar_Aalto All finns are related :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Millennarian's Hymn
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: You are a judgmental fool Buck. You are missing so much of life and, with luck, one day before you are dead you will realize it. You are a quitter of reality. You have chosen to hide your silly head in the sand of some mediocre imagined utopia. Dream and proselytize away. In the end, you will be just some dogmatic guy who missed the train which could have actually taken you away from your small, dogmatic world. No one is a quitter in the sense you mean here but you are well on the way to becoming a loser. Take heed, buddy. Oh, if poor sinners did but know, How much for them I undergo, They would not treat me with contempt, Nor curse me when I say repent. For lo, a heav'nly voice I hear: Go preach my gospel to the poor. Bid mourning souls on the Unified Field believe. Bid all the world free grace receive. And when my work is done below, I trust to glory I shall go, Meet all my Father's children there, And in God's kingdom have a share. -Buck John Colby Hymn 108 http://youtu.be/E3gloFH82FE --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: Om, a non-practitioner both a TM and a TMorg apostate. A quitter. No longer a practitioner both a TM and a TMorg apostate. The non-meditator quitter. The Fallen Away: Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied. Long have ye sat beneath the sound of thy salvation loud, And still how weak thy faith is found And knowledge of thy Self. How cold and feeble is thy love! How negligent thy fears! How long thy hope of joys abound, How few affections here. Show thy forgetful feet the way That lead to joys on high, Where knowledge grows with out decay And love shall never die. -Buck Congregational Church Hymnal George Slayter Barrett, Josiah Booth
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Nature Of Obsession
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: Yesterday I made three -- count them, three -- posts about the somewhat obsessive nature of a few FFLers. In the first two posts, I used a somewhat objective measure (the Yahoo Groups Search Engine) to document the obsession; in the third, I theorized as to what the cause of this obsession might be. Then I just went about my day, neither mentioning (nor, truth be told, thinking about) any of these people again. From the side of the obsessives I mentioned (and a few I didn't mention), my three posts seem to have provoked a number of reactive, defensive, and above all button-pushed posts. How many? 31, by my count. You are glad of the attention I can tell. Well, I think I made one post back to you. Was it not enough, too much? It doesn't appear you found that undergarment I was mentioning. Keep looking, they have to be there somewhere. In terms of making my point about obsession, I think I can safely rest my case. Do less, accomplish more. :-) The guy who claims to be enlightened and thus all line on water and all is the clear winner of the How Pushed Were My Buttons Contest, at 11 posts, followed by the person who claims she isn't obsessed with Barry at all, at 7 posts. They never learn that when someone calls them obsessive, the way to rebut or disprove this is NOT to demonstrate exactly how obsessed they are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: TurquoiseB Doggie Treats
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: for being a good sport (-: Really?? From: turquoiseb To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 1:16 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: TurquoiseB Doggie Treats  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, azgrey wrote: I've always wanted a dog with opposable thumbs. Calming biscuits sounds like the old SNL routine about Puppy Uppers and Doggie Downers. Justa 'nother Dharma Burger, folks. Ooo. Paris and Pippin want some. :-) http://s1143.beta.photobucket.com/user/azgrey/media/zendogthumbs_zps0edfc373.jpg.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Nature Of Obsession
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: Barry, when you make a ridiculous spectacle of yourself as you did yesterday, you have to expect that people are going to gather round and point at you and snicker, enjoying themselves at your expense. Suck it up, dude. Find your man panties, as Ann suggested. You'll notice, if you bother to take the time and attention, that Barry rarely uses people's names in posts although it is abundantly clear who he is referring to. I think that is his ploy to avoid the post count thingy he does when searching. So if others were to engage in the same efforts he does to count how many times someone mentions someone else the accuracy of the count is off because Barry often does not use the person's name. Voila, in his little game of 'count 'em' his count is 'off' because he has not put the name in the post so it only looks like he obsesses less on others when, in fact, his count is over the moon. Just an observation since he likes to keep track so often, as if this validates any points he's trying to make. (Oh Barry, here's another one about you, count it! I even mentioned your name to make it easier.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: Yesterday I made three -- count them, three -- posts about the somewhat obsessive nature of a few FFLers. In the first two posts, I used a somewhat objective measure (the Yahoo Groups Search Engine) to document the obsession; in the third, I theorized as to what the cause of this obsession might be. Then I just went about my day, neither mentioning (nor, truth be told, thinking about) any of these people again. From the side of the obsessives I mentioned (and a few I didn't mention), my three posts seem to have provoked a number of reactive, defensive, and above all button-pushed posts. How many? 31, by my count. In terms of making my point about obsession, I think I can safely rest my case. Do less, accomplish more. :-) The guy who claims to be enlightened and thus all line on water and all is the clear winner of the How Pushed Were My Buttons Contest, at 11 posts, followed by the person who claims she isn't obsessed with Barry at all, at 7 posts. They never learn that when someone calls them obsessive, the way to rebut or disprove this is NOT to demonstrate exactly how obsessed they are.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Cyberstalker Trainees (Turq's Occult Theory Of What Motivates Cyberstalkers)
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com wrote: ** WTF?LOL(to channel the traveling RC - same initials as RC - this must be a sign). Dear Em - traveling RC here - one hell of a channeling :-) but what do you mean by same initials as RC? - what am I missing? -- *From:* Bob Price bobpri...@yahoo.com *To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Monday, January 7, 2013 11:21 AM *Subject:* Re: [FairfieldLife] Cyberstalker Trainees (Turq's Occult Theory Of What Motivates Cyberstalkers) Barry, You must know how hurtful is was for you to neglect to include me on your list, you of all people know how hard I've worked to be close to you; it was a bit of a challenge for me, but I gave it shot, and it appears 89% of my posts have been about you (unfortunately, I tried the same search with Robin and hit 96%); in any event, with your help, I'm going to work harder in 2013 to be the kind of person you think I am. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lafu642uq8Q From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 2:42:48 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Cyberstalker Trainees (Turq's Occult Theory Of What Motivates Cyberstalkers) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: I can remember when you [Judy] used to work out what time Barry made his first post of the day, you'd then triumphantly post this fact as though it proved some point. Dead creepy behaviour, kind of worrying you don't have the self-awareness to realise it. Maybe Carol shouldn't take your analyses at face value? Hmmm...besides the tracking of what time I get up in the morning, what *else* might indicate that Judy is a...uh...bit of a cyberstalker? Let's see... Oh, I've got it. In her 7.7 years on Fairfield Life, Judy has made around 22,600 posts, an average of over eight posts a day. Of those posts, the number that contain either Barry OR Turq OR TurquoiseB, meaning that she was either talking about me or replying to something I posted or replying to something that someone else posted about me was 7,626 posts. That means that she's spent 33.74% of her entire history of posts on FFL obsessing about me. Nope...certainly no evidence of stalking there, eh? :-) Speaking of Fun With Statistics :-), here are some about a few of Judy's trainees in her ongoing course, called How To Become An Obsessed Cyberstalker. So far, Jim (doctordumbass) is winning, but Ann is a close second. The first number is the total number of posts they've made to FFL, at least under their current ID. The second is the number of those posts that contain Barry OR Turq OR TurquoiseB. The third number is the percentage of their overall posts that seem a tad...uh...obsessed (or at the very least overfocused) on Barry, just as their trainer intended them to be: Jim -- 330 posts / 181 mention me -- 54.8% Ann -- 1172 posts / 586 mention me -- 50% Ravi -- 2276 posts / 907 mention me -- 39.8% Emily -- 1805 posts / 683 mention me -- 37.8% Raunchy -- 3847 posts / 909 mention me -- 23.6%
[FairfieldLife] Maharishi Smarak update
[Maharishi Smarak] * HOME http://maharishismarak.org/ * | * PLANS http://maharishismarak.org/plans.html * Location http://maharishismarak.org/location.html * Hall of Silence http://maharishismarak.org/hall_of_silence.html * Maharishi Mandaps http://maharishismarak.org/maharishi_mandaps.html * | * CONSTRUCTION UPDATE http://maharishismarak.org/construction.html * | * PARTICIPATE http://maharishismarak.org/participation.html * | * VIDEOS http://maharishismarak.org/videos.html Update Grand Inauguration Maharishi Smarak February 15, 2013 * photos/slide43.jpg 1. A rendering of two of the 40 marble panels of knowledge which will be displayed on the interior walls of the Smarak * photos/slide50.jpg 2. Placing of the 192 Kalashes on top of entrance domes. Each entrance will have 192 golden Kalashes on its dome. (September 14, 2011) * photos/slide51.jpg 3. Carved corner wall and entrance way on the right under construction. (September 14, 2011) * photos/slide46.jpg 4. Placing of the 192 Kalashes on top of entrance domes. Each entrance will have 192 golden Kalashes on its dome. (August 1, 2011) * photos/slide47.jpg 5. Placing of the 192 Kalashes on top of entrance domes. Each entrance will have 192 golden Kalashes on its dome. (August 1, 2011) * photos/slide48.jpg 6. The interior white marble columns are rising up at the Maharishi Smarak (August 1, 2011) * photos/slide49.jpg 7. The interior white marble columns are rising up at the Maharishi Smarak (August 1, 2011) * photos/slide42.jpg 8. Maharishi Smarak and Gopuram (entry gate) rendering view from the main Kumbh Mela grounds across from the Sangham (confluence) in Prayag * photos/slide37.jpg 9. Partial view of the temporary marble memorial altar within the Smarak under construction. (January 21, 2011) * photos/slide38.jpg 10. Architects and planners are reviewing the architectural plans and designs (January 21, 2011) * photos/slide39.jpg 11. Architects and Dr. Bevan Morris are reviewing the architectural plans and designs. (January 21, 2011) * photos/slide40.jpg 12. North Elevation of the Smarak is being displayed to the planners at the site (January 21, 2011) * photos/slide13a.jpg 13. Crystal Model of the Smarak and the 12 Mandaps * photos/slide14a.jpg 14. Crystal Model of the Smarak and the 12 Mandaps * photos/slide15a.jpg 15. 1008 golden Kalashes on top of the Maharishi Smarak * photos/slide16a.jpg 16. Crystal Model of the Smarak and the 12 Mandaps 12. North Elevation of the Smarak is being displayed to the planners at the site (January 21, 2011) Marble Panels of Knowledge The Maharishi Smarak is steadily rising on the banks of holy Ganga. The beautiful Maharishi Hall of Silence, with its traditionally hand-carved pillars of golden Jaisalmer stone is taking shape and already filling the whole surroundings with a feeling of profound silence and deep spirituality. Our team of scholars and artists are designing the marble panels that will be displayed on the interior walls of the Hall of Silence. The panels will provide a glimpse of the wide range of knowledge capable of raising life everywhere to the perfection of Heaven on Earth. The knowledge displayed on the eight walls of the Hall of Silence will give a glimpse of the knowledge and application of Vedic Wisdom, from Maharishi's favorite Vedic quotes, to his discovery of the Apaurusheya Bhashya, to his gifts of Transcendental Meditation and creating coherence in world consciousness through the group practice of the TM and TM Sidhi Program. A world-renowned marble-etching company is creating these magnificent marble displays where visitors can enjoy an overview of Maharishi's programmes for every area of life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Nature Of Obsession
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: Yesterday I made three -- count them, three -- posts about the somewhat obsessive nature of a few FFLers. In the first two posts, I used a somewhat objective measure (the Yahoo Groups Search Engine) to document the obsession; in the third, I theorized as to what the cause of this obsession might be. Then I just went about my day, neither mentioning (nor, truth be told, thinking about) any of these people again. From the side of the obsessives I mentioned (and a few I didn't mention), my three posts seem to have provoked a number of reactive, defensive, and above all button-pushed posts. How many? 31, by my count. You are glad of the attention I can tell. Well, I think I made one post back to you. Was it not enough, too much? It doesn't appear you found that undergarment I was mentioning. Keep looking, they have to be there somewhere. http://blog.rateyourburn.com/blog/Uploads/borat-mankini-c.jpg In terms of making my point about obsession, I think I can safely rest my case. Do less, accomplish more. :-) The guy who claims to be enlightened and thus all line on water and all is the clear winner of the How Pushed Were My Buttons Contest, at 11 posts, followed by the person who claims she isn't obsessed with Barry at all, at 7 posts. They never learn that when someone calls them obsessive, the way to rebut or disprove this is NOT to demonstrate exactly how obsessed they are.
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Nature Of Obsession
turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com snip They never learn that when someone calls them obsessive, the way to rebut or disprove this is NOT to demonstrate exactly how obsessed they are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJpPsUEnRwY
Re: [FairfieldLife] Jubilee today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yyofgq2l30 From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 7:38:41 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Jubilee today. Say, Happy Birthday, Obba. :) -obba
Re: [FairfieldLife] Cyberstalker Trainees (Turq's Occult Theory Of What Motivates Cyberstalkers)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH97lImrr0Q From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 6:59:46 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Cyberstalker Trainees (Turq's Occult Theory Of What Motivates Cyberstalkers) On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com wrote: WTF?LOL(to channel the traveling RC - same initials as RC - this must be a sign). Dear Em - traveling RC here - one hell of a channeling :-) but what do you mean by same initials as RC? - what am I missing? From: Bob Price bobpri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Cyberstalker Trainees (Turq's Occult Theory Of What Motivates Cyberstalkers) Barry, You must know how hurtful is was for you to neglect to include me on your list, you of all people know how hard I've worked to be close to you; it was a bit of a challenge for me, but I gave it shot, and it appears 89% of my posts have been about you (unfortunately, I tried the same search with Robin and hit 96%); in any event, with your help, I'm going to work harder in 2013 to be the kind of person you think I am. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lafu642uq8Q From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 2:42:48 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Cyberstalker Trainees (Turq's Occult Theory Of What Motivates Cyberstalkers) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: I can remember when you [Judy] used to work out what time Barry made his first post of the day, you'd then triumphantly post this fact as though it proved some point. Dead creepy behaviour, kind of worrying you don't have the self-awareness to realise it. Maybe Carol shouldn't take your analyses at face value? Hmmm...besides the tracking of what time I get up in the morning, what *else* might indicate that Judy is a...uh...bit of a cyberstalker? Let's see... Oh, I've got it. In her 7.7 years on Fairfield Life, Judy has made around 22,600 posts, an average of over eight posts a day. Of those posts, the number that contain either Barry OR Turq OR TurquoiseB, meaning that she was either talking about me or replying to something I posted or replying to something that someone else posted about me was 7,626 posts. That means that she's spent 33.74% of her entire history of posts on FFL obsessing about me. Nope...certainly no evidence of stalking there, eh? :-) Speaking of Fun With Statistics :-), here are some about a few of Judy's trainees in her ongoing course, called How To Become An Obsessed Cyberstalker. So far, Jim (doctordumbass) is winning, but Ann is a close second. The first number is the total number of posts they've made to FFL, at least under their current ID. The second is the number of those posts that contain Barry OR Turq OR TurquoiseB. The third number is the percentage of their overall posts that seem a tad...uh...obsessed (or at the very least overfocused) on Barry, just as their trainer intended them to be: Jim -- 330 posts / 181 mention me -- 54.8% Ann -- 1172 posts / 586 mention me -- 50% Ravi -- 2276 posts / 907 mention me -- 39.8% Emily -- 1805 posts / 683 mention me -- 37.8% Raunchy -- 3847 posts / 909 mention me -- 23.6%
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cyberstalker Trainees (Turq's Occult Theory Of What Motivates Cyberstalkers)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ravi Chivukula wrote: On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Emily Reyn wrote: ** WTF?LOL(to channel the traveling RC - same initials as RC - this must be a sign). Dear Em - traveling RC here - one hell of a channeling :-) but what do you mean by same initials as RC? - what am I missing? I always get Robin Chivukula and Ravi Carlsen confused.
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Nature Of Obsession
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: Yesterday I made three -- count them, three -- posts about the somewhat obsessive nature of a few FFLers. In the first two posts, I used a somewhat objective measure (the Yahoo Groups Search Engine) to document the obsession; in the third, I theorized as to what the cause of this obsession might be. Then I just went about my day, neither mentioning (nor, truth be told, thinking about) any of these people again. From the side of the obsessives I mentioned (and a few I didn't mention), my three posts seem to have provoked a number of reactive, defensive, and above all button-pushed posts. How many? 31, by my count. You are glad of the attention I can tell. Well, I think I made one post back to you. Was it not enough, too much? It doesn't appear you found that undergarment I was mentioning. Keep looking, they have to be there somewhere. http://blog.rateyourburn.com/blog/Uploads/borat-mankini-c.jpg Lordy, lordy, lordy. In terms of making my point about obsession, I think I can safely rest my case. Do less, accomplish more. :-) The guy who claims to be enlightened and thus all line on water and all is the clear winner of the How Pushed Were My Buttons Contest, at 11 posts, followed by the person who claims she isn't obsessed with Barry at all, at 7 posts. They never learn that when someone calls them obsessive, the way to rebut or disprove this is NOT to demonstrate exactly how obsessed they are.
[FairfieldLife] No god required.....
Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldno gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonwith a good dose of intuitionto decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testin other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universeand its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain. The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elementsespecially carboncould be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe. Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly formed heavy elements. By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe
[FairfieldLife] Re: Cave of Forgoten Dreams
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: Wow, how did I miss this? Oldest cave art EVER, and perfectly preserved and SACRED. I was deeply moved. And the ending is pure worship. This is amazing stuff. I watched it first as an acolyte, then as a priest, and in the end I had a personal epiphany -- about which I might yet write, but it was a holy moment by any definition. Edg http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cave_of_forgotten_dreams/ Would love to see this, I've been googling pics from the ice age all afternoon! I know you're familiar with all this Edg but they have a nice site about the cave here, including the story of its discovery: http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/arcnat/chauvet/en/index.html But strangely without any of the pictures. ...but plenty of those here for anyone with a love of this sort of thing: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/chauvet/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Jubilee today.
Obba! It was your birthday! Happy birthday! I thought it was a celebration of the Hindu variety that I was ignorant of - my bad. I wish you a wonderful year. Love, Em From: Bob Price bobpri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Jubilee today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yyofgq2l30 From: obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 7:38:41 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Jubilee today. Say, Happy Birthday, Obba. :) -obba
Re: [FairfieldLife] Cyberstalker Trainees (Turq's Occult Theory Of What Motivates Cyberstalkers)
Think hard Ravi :). He is away as well. And don't forget to send more pictures. Love, Em From: Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 6:59 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Cyberstalker Trainees (Turq's Occult Theory Of What Motivates Cyberstalkers) On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com wrote: WTF?LOL(to channel the traveling RC - same initials as RC - this must be a sign). Dear Em - traveling RC here - one hell of a channeling :-) but what do you mean by same initials as RC? - what am I missing? From: Bob Price bobpri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 11:21 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Cyberstalker Trainees (Turq's Occult Theory Of What Motivates Cyberstalkers) Barry, You must know how hurtful is was for you to neglect to include me on your list, you of all people know how hard I've worked to be close to you; it was a bit of a challenge for me, but I gave it shot, and it appears 89% of my posts have been about you (unfortunately, I tried the same search with Robin and hit 96%); in any event, with your help, I'm going to work harder in 2013 to be the kind of person you think I am. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lafu642uq8Q From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 2:42:48 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Cyberstalker Trainees (Turq's Occult Theory Of What Motivates Cyberstalkers) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: I can remember when you [Judy] used to work out what time Barry made his first post of the day, you'd then triumphantly post this fact as though it proved some point. Dead creepy behaviour, kind of worrying you don't have the self-awareness to realise it. Maybe Carol shouldn't take your analyses at face value? Hmmm...besides the tracking of what time I get up in the morning, what *else* might indicate that Judy is a...uh...bit of a cyberstalker? Let's see... Oh, I've got it. In her 7.7 years on Fairfield Life, Judy has made around 22,600 posts, an average of over eight posts a day. Of those posts, the number that contain either Barry OR Turq OR TurquoiseB, meaning that she was either talking about me or replying to something I posted or replying to something that someone else posted about me was 7,626 posts. That means that she's spent 33.74% of her entire history of posts on FFL obsessing about me. Nope...certainly no evidence of stalking there, eh? :-) Speaking of Fun With Statistics :-), here are some about a few of Judy's trainees in her ongoing course, called How To Become An Obsessed Cyberstalker. So far, Jim (doctordumbass) is winning, but Ann is a close second. The first number is the total number of posts they've made to FFL, at least under their current ID. The second is the number of those posts that contain Barry OR Turq OR TurquoiseB. The third number is the percentage of their overall posts that seem a tad...uh...obsessed (or at the very least overfocused) on Barry, just as their trainer intended them to be: Jim -- 330 posts / 181 mention me -- 54.8% Ann -- 1172 posts / 586 mention me -- 50% Ravi -- 2276 posts / 907 mention me -- 39.8% Emily -- 1805 posts / 683 mention me -- 37.8% Raunchy -- 3847 posts / 909 mention me -- 23.6%
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Nature Of Obsession
The guy who claims to be enlightened and thus all line on water and all is the clear winner of the How Pushed Were My Buttons Contest, at 11 posts,... That would be me! btw, its line through air, dipstick.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: Yesterday I made three -- count them, three -- posts about the somewhat obsessive nature of a few FFLers. In the first two posts, I used a somewhat objective measure (the Yahoo Groups Search Engine) to document the obsession; in the third, I theorized as to what the cause of this obsession might be. Then I just went about my day, neither mentioning (nor, truth be told, thinking about) any of these people again. From the side of the obsessives I mentioned (and a few I didn't mention), my three posts seem to have provoked a number of reactive, defensive, and above all button-pushed posts. How many? 31, by my count. In terms of making my point about obsession, I think I can safely rest my case. Do less, accomplish more. :-) The guy who claims to be enlightened and thus all line on water and all is the clear winner of the How Pushed Were My Buttons Contest, at 11 posts, followed by the person who claims she isn't obsessed with Barry at all, at 7 posts. They never learn that when someone calls them obsessive, the way to rebut or disprove this is NOT to demonstrate exactly how obsessed they are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
Thanks for posting this. The most interesting part of the article was, for me, this excerpt. Also the most exciting: As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldno gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonwith a good dose of intuitionto decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testin other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universeand its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain. The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elementsespecially carboncould be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe. Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly formed heavy elements. By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Nature Of Obsession
Damn, that looks just like the one Barry used to wear in Spain, except his was hot pink and lace trimmed, with the special order *thong* back - eww. Terrified his dogs with it, as well as the other beachgoers. Er, regarding my supposed enlightenment, I guess it is all for nought, since I cannot stop laughing at the image I have described - A SURE SIGN of my attachment!! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Ann wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: Yesterday I made three -- count them, three -- posts about the somewhat obsessive nature of a few FFLers. In the first two posts, I used a somewhat objective measure (the Yahoo Groups Search Engine) to document the obsession; in the third, I theorized as to what the cause of this obsession might be. Then I just went about my day, neither mentioning (nor, truth be told, thinking about) any of these people again. From the side of the obsessives I mentioned (and a few I didn't mention), my three posts seem to have provoked a number of reactive, defensive, and above all button-pushed posts. How many? 31, by my count. You are glad of the attention I can tell. Well, I think I made one post back to you. Was it not enough, too much? It doesn't appear you found that undergarment I was mentioning. Keep looking, they have to be there somewhere. http://blog.rateyourburn.com/blog/Uploads/borat-mankini-c.jpg In terms of making my point about obsession, I think I can safely rest my case. Do less, accomplish more. :-) The guy who claims to be enlightened and thus all line on water and all is the clear winner of the How Pushed Were My Buttons Contest, at 11 posts, followed by the person who claims she isn't obsessed with Barry at all, at 7 posts. They never learn that when someone calls them obsessive, the way to rebut or disprove this is NOT to demonstrate exactly how obsessed they are.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
Article should've been titled, Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The Universe, thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldno gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonwith a good dose of intuitionto decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testin other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universeand its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain. The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elementsespecially carboncould be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe. Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly formed heavy elements. By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as
Re: [FairfieldLife] No god required.....
Salya, I do wonder why they say this in the last paragraph: Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. I wonder why they think only a few would allow creatures like us to exist. Especially given the sentence just before! As Spock would say: Their logic is flawed. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:39 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] No god required. Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain. The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elements—especially carbon—could be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe. Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
Kinda like the immaculate conception? From: Ann awoelfleba...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:15 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required. Thanks for posting this. The most interesting part of the article was, for me, this excerpt. Also the most exciting: As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain. The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elements—especially carbon—could be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe. Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: Article should've been titled, Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The Universe, Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been a creator *before* the universe because there was no such thing as time for him/her/it to exist in. Unless you know something that no-one else does. thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-) Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldno gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonwith a good dose of intuitionto decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testin other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universeand its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain. The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elementsespecially carboncould be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe. Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Anyone from here going ?
I'm part Finnish - of the Saari lineage. Arvo, Selma, Helmi, Velma, Ina, etc..the last in the Finnish speaking generation died a couple of years ago. Great-grandpa migrated to Minnesota and built a cabin. From: nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:54 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Anyone from here going ? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: http://www.maharishismarak.org/videos/maharishi_smarak_2012_12_31.html Wonder if Mr. Harri Aalto (Harry Wave) is related to famous Finnish architect Alvar Aalto... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvar_Aalto All finns are related :-)
[FairfieldLife] Justfied tonight
Got DVR? Tonight is the new season of Justified. We know Alex will be there will baited breathe. ;-) Last night's Untold History of the United States on Showtime was especially good as Oliver Stone filled in some of the holes earlier episodes left. Of course the ratings winner last night was the Morgan vs Jones fight on CNN. Alex Jones was indeed a little wound up, too much Tangy Tangerine? He's actually admitted that the stuff makes him hyper and even Ben Fuchs who developed it suggested he take an additional magnesium supplement to calm a bit. But it was all good theater: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Salya, I do wonder why they say this in the last paragraph: Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. I wonder why they think only a few would allow creatures like us to exist. Especially given the sentence just before! As Spock would say: Their logic is flawed. I don't think it's their logic that is flawed. The many possible states and histories refers to the amount of possible universes that could exist but be incapable of supporting life like us (carbon based- far and away the most likely) because of possible variations in gravity and atomic weights certain elements couldn't form inside stars. Forgot to mention it's Stephen Hawking's birthday today, which is why I posted this. He's 71 years young, not bad for someone who wasn't expected to survive beyond his 20's! Clever guy, he earned his place in the physics hall of fame by being the first person to work out how the quantum world might interact with the classical one. And in doing so discovered that black holes are not only not black* but that they evaporate! It's all to do with spontaneous particle creation and dissolution at the event horizon. I'd say it's the best bit of his book A brief history of time but only because the bits about quarks twist my head inside too much for comfort! *They glow very, very faintly from the subatomic particles exploding on the event horizon, not something you'd notice with even the most powerful microscope and standing a few feet away, which I wouldn't recommend. From: salyavin808 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:39 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] No god required.  Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldâno gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonâwith a good dose of intuitionâto decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testâin other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of
Re: [FairfieldLife] No god required.....
On 01/08/2013 08:39 AM, salyavin808 wrote: Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain. The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elements—especially carbon—could be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe. Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly formed heavy elements. By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of the fundamental constants
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Salya, I do wonder why they say this in the last paragraph: Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. I wonder why they think only a few would allow creatures like us to exist. Especially given the sentence just before! As Spock would say: Their logic is flawed. I don't think it's their logic that is flawed. The many possible states and histories refers to the amount of possible universes that could exist but be incapable of supporting life like us (carbon based- far and away the most likely) because of possible variations in gravity and atomic weights certain elements couldn't form inside stars. I'm assuming you knew that all matter heavier than hydrogen was formed inside stars and when they explode at the end of their lives? You, me and everyone here are made of billion year old star dust. Cool eh? Forgot to mention it's Stephen Hawking's birthday today, which is why I posted this. He's 71 years young, not bad for someone who wasn't expected to survive beyond his 20's! Clever guy, he earned his place in the physics hall of fame by being the first person to work out how the quantum world might interact with the classical one. And in doing so discovered that black holes are not only not black* but that they evaporate! It's all to do with spontaneous particle creation and dissolution at the event horizon. I'd say it's the best bit of his book A brief history of time but only because the bits about quarks twist my head inside too much for comfort! *They glow very, very faintly from the subatomic particles exploding on the event horizon, not something you'd notice with even the most powerful microscope and standing a few feet away, which I wouldn't recommend. From: salyavin808 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:39 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] No god required.  Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldâno gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonâwith a good dose of intuitionâto decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testâin other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: So if God did not create the universe, who did? So who said it was created? Some chemist or physicist somewhere? Who created them? If no Creation took place, there is no need to look for a Creator. Seriously, why can't the universe be eternal? Never created, never ending? Or maybe perhaps the brightest of the human species aren't even smart enough to figure it out. I go with the latter. :-D Nonsense. Man is rated the highest animal, at least among all the animals that returned the questionnaire. - Robert Brault :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
I don't think this article by stephen hawking takes into consideration different concepts of God. I think it only takes into consideration a very elementary authoritarian version of God where God is an old man with a beard standing in a kitchen baking up the recipe of the universe and staring down at us in a judgmental state. Such an elementary concept is clearly laughable and deserves its ridicule. But I also think he is lacking a great depth of education on various theological and philosophical studies that explain God in much better terms that coincides with more recent discoveries in physics. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldno gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonwith a good dose of intuitionto decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testin other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universeand its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain. The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elementsespecially carboncould be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe. Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation wrote: I don't think this article by stephen hawking takes into consideration different concepts of God. I think it only takes into consideration a very elementary authoritarian version of God where God is an old man with a beard standing in a kitchen baking up the recipe of the universe and staring down at us in a judgmental state. Such an elementary concept is clearly laughable and deserves its ridicule. But I also think he is lacking a great depth of education on various theological and philosophical studies that explain God in much better terms that coincides with more recent discoveries in physics. Please explain. Do any of these different concepts of God believe that what they call God is sentient, and capable of creating the universe? If so, I don't see how they're that much different than the image of the old man with the beard.
[FairfieldLife] Foogic flying in metro!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI8oDTEtgpo
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: So if God did not create the universe, who did? So who said it was created? Some chemist or physicist somewhere? Who created them? If no Creation took place, there is no need to look for a Creator. Seriously, why can't the universe be eternal? Never created, never ending? Or maybe perhaps the brightest of the human species aren't even smart enough to figure it out. I go with the latter. :-D Nonsense. Man is rated the highest animal, at least among all the animals that returned the questionnaire. - Robert Brault :-) FWIW, oldies but goldies? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJAH4ZJBiN8 Recently saw an even faster version of that. Slowed it down 8 times, still could see only one or two numbers before they were covered!
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seekliberation wrote: I don't think this article by stephen hawking takes into consideration different concepts of God. I think it only takes into consideration a very elementary authoritarian version of God where God is an old man with a beard standing in a kitchen baking up the recipe of the universe and staring down at us in a judgmental state. Such an elementary concept is clearly laughable and deserves its ridicule. But I also think he is lacking a great depth of education on various theological and philosophical studies that explain God in much better terms that coincides with more recent discoveries in physics. Go on then, give us a concept of god that fits in with what Hawking is saying here. Or can you explain what more recent discoveries means, some sort of Hagelin-ish idea? Really, what Hawking is saying is that it is *unnecessary* to have a creator, any sort. Universes seem quite capable of throwing themselves into existence and this one has clearly done so or we wouldn't have all the evidence lying around. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldno gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonwith a good dose of intuitionto decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testin other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universeand its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain. The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be
[FairfieldLife] Re: Quantum Language
Share, It's interesting to note that many of the US Founding Fathers were Masons, including George Washington. So, there is a definite connection between the USA and the Masons. If you look at the US natal chart, I believe you can see the connection, just as the video clip has presented. If all of these are true, there is a very possiblity that the US and the entire world economy will be run through the internet. I suspect that this has already happened. IOW, the US is run by the Federal Reserve Bank Chairman and the network of world banks. And, I would not rule out that the various Post Masters in the world are involved as well. JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Well John I've got Sun at 14 Gemini, Venus and Merc retro at 6 Gemini all in 9th house. Guru in 2nd house. How could I not find all this fascinating? Thanks for posting. Now if one could figure out how to use this knowledge online, that would be something (-: From: John To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 9:50 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Quantum Language  Find out how Bill Clinton was able to dismiss his impeachment trial in Congress. Or, find out how the Freemasons control the entire world economy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br_9lZcTFVMplaynext=1list=PL8AAB1E9B8D1786F8
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
On 01/08/2013 10:30 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu wrote: So if God did not create the universe, who did? So who said it was created? Then it must not exist. I must be imagining things. :-D Some chemist or physicist somewhere? Who created them? If no Creation took place, there is no need to look for a Creator. Seriously, why can't the universe be eternal? Never created, never ending? That means we aren't really.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
I think you're right. Hawking would only think that broader concepts of God such as everything that ever was, is and will ever be like one big machine would only be understood by a very tiny minority so he is addressing instead the great unwashed. ;-) On 01/08/2013 10:33 AM, seekliberation wrote: I don't think this article by stephen hawking takes into consideration different concepts of God. I think it only takes into consideration a very elementary authoritarian version of God where God is an old man with a beard standing in a kitchen baking up the recipe of the universe and staring down at us in a judgmental state. Such an elementary concept is clearly laughable and deserves its ridicule. But I also think he is lacking a great depth of education on various theological and philosophical studies that explain God in much better terms that coincides with more recent discoveries in physics. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain. The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elements—especially carbon—could be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: Go on then, give us a concept of god that fits in with what Hawking is saying here. Or can you explain what more recent discoveries means, some sort of Hagelin-ish idea? From everything i've read, and everything i've listened to over the years from various philosophers, our concept of God seems to be an ego-driven impulse to assign a creator for creation. Therefore the concept that the universe just 'IS' is a very frightening concept. But it is that very experience of 'ISness' that is the basis of all our creation, and the basis of our concsiousness as well. From the attitude of your post, you will most likely not like this answer, being as it is VERY 'Hagelin-ish'. Really, what Hawking is saying is that it is *unnecessary* to have a creator, any sort. Universes seem quite capable of throwing themselves into existence and this one has clearly done so or we wouldn't have all the evidence lying around. If the Universe is capable of 'throwing itself' into existence, then that would mean the 'universe' is 'God' if it creates itself. In other words if A=B and B=C, then A=C. If God is what created the Universe, and the Universe created itself, then the Universe is God. That is of course if you define 'God' as that which created 'all that is'. I truly think a lot of people here on FFL are disturbed by the concept that God created the universe because of the vast ego-driven explanations of God over the past few thousand years. Therefore, we would probably prefer to do away with the concept just to avoid the stupidity that comes along with believing in these concepts. A problem I see is that we don't know if there is or isn't a God, and moreover, in order to determine whether there is or isn't one, we would have to place a definition of what God is in the first place. So in other words, we're trying to define something we don't even know if it exists in the first place in order to find out if 'it' exists. An oxymoron from the start. Of course, who are any of us to argue with Stephen Hawking regarding the existence of the Universe? But just because his thinking, which is much more vast and deeper than damn near anyone else on the planet, doesn't see God is no guarantee that there is no God. Nor is a belief system that says there is a God capable of proving it either. In other words, we all have our own egotistical need to provide answers NOW. We just can't live our lives peacefully and admit that we just don't fucking know. So anyone who's even involved in this argument is simply projecting their ego. I think we could be thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years from truly being able to answer this question. Enough thoughts. I'm going to go eat some Cinammon Toast Crunch now. seekliberation --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldno gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonwith a good dose of intuitionto decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testin other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interactive Campus Map of MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Buck, I LOVE this map. Beautiful picture of Bagambhrini and the tennis twins whose Mom looks young enough to be their sister. She often sits near me on the stacked foam. Thank you so much for posting this. I'd not seen it. Actually there is an inaccuracy about the Men's Dome that is mis-leading in fact. Well, it has been some long time since 2,000 meditated or done the TM-Sidhis program there with any regularity. Scroll over and click the men's dome and a little description comes up that implies that 2,000 people meditate there.Yes, the men's dome was built to house 2,000 or so meditators but there has not been 2,000 meditating in the Dome with any regularly in a long time. At best there are around 325-50 in the mornings and 375- in the evenings meditating there. Occasionally more. The discrepancy is a loong sorry story about the President's Office and Maharishi aggravating and antagonizing the larger meditating community. It would be more accurate to say that a few hundred get together to meditate every day twice a day there in the men's dome as a place to meditate together doing the TM's. Best Regards, -Buck From: Buck To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 4:02 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Interactive Campus Map of MUM  New map showing campus. Lot of you lurk from a distance and have not been to Fairfield in a while. Here's a really nice map that you can scroll in to. If you have not been to campus in a while, a lot has been invested in the community there. You can get an idea of the place looking at this. It's a busy campus. http://www.mum.edu/HTML/interactivemap/interactivemap.html -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
You are agreeing with me - no *concept* of God can create the universe. Yes, there are other worlds and beings not subscribed to the same laws of time and space as we are. They can't be accessed with physical instrumentation. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: Article should've been titled, Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The Universe, Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been a creator *before* the universe because there was no such thing as time for him/her/it to exist in. Unless you know something that no-one else does. thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-) Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldno gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonwith a good dose of intuitionto decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testin other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universeand its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain. The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elementsespecially carboncould be produced from the primordial elements,
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: Article should've been titled, Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The Universe, Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been a creator *before* the universe because there was no such thing as time for him/her/it to exist in. Unless you know something that no-one else does. thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-) Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking? Leonard Susskind, a physics professor from Stanford University. For the record, he collected on a bet with Hawking by theorizing that information of matter going into a Black Hole is not lost. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldno gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonwith a good dose of intuitionto decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testin other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universeand its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain. The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elementsespecially carboncould be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-) Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking? Its a very long list, no offense to him.:-) He just happens to fit the socially acceptable profile of the [disabled] genius, and everyone loves him for it. Nearly as weird as the Kardashian phenomenon. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: Article should've been titled, Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The Universe, Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been a creator *before* the universe because there was no such thing as time for him/her/it to exist in. Unless you know something that no-one else does. thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-) Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote:
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
IMO, Hawking was becoming senile when he wrote this essay. It should be noted that he retired as the chairman of the physics department in Oxford University soon after he wrote his book which states the same information contained in this essay. He should have known that his ideas will not be received well by university's officials since Oxford is a historically and predominantly Christian institution. Or, it could have been his way of saying, Take this job and shove it! JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldno gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonwith a good dose of intuitionto decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testin other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universeand its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain. The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elementsespecially carboncould be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe. Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating
[FairfieldLife] Afgan vimaana??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBlwhVyZxmQ
vimAna 3 mf(%{I})n. (for 1. see p. 951 , col. 3 ; for 2 , under %{vi-man})
measuring out , traversing RV. AV. MBh. ; m. n. a car or chariot of the gods ,
any mythical self-moving aerial car (sometimes serving as a seat or throne ,
sometimes self-moving and carrying its occupant through the air ; other
descriptions make the Vima1na more like a house or palace , and one kind is
said to be 7 stories high ; that of Ra1van2a was called %{puSpaka} q.v. ; the
%{nau-v-} [Ragh. xvi , 68] is thought to resemble a ship) MBh. Ka1v. c. ; any
car or vehicle (esp. a bier) Ra1jat. vii , 446 ; the palace of an emperor or
supreme monarch (esp. one with 7 stories) MBh. Ka1v. c. ; a temple or shrine
of a partic. form VarBr2S. ; a kind of tower (?) R. v , 52 , 8 ; a grove
Ja1takam. ; a ship , boat L. ; a horse L. ; n. measure RV. ; extension ib. ;
(in med.) the science of (right) measure or proportion (e.g. of the right
relation between the humours of the body , of medicines and remedies c.) Car.
; %{-gamana} n. ` going in a car 'N. of a ch. of the Gan2P. ; %{cArin} mfn.
travelling in a celestial car MW. ; %{-cyuta} mfn. fallen from a celñcelestial
car Ra1jat. ; %{-tA} f. %{-tva} n. the state or condition of a celñcelestial
car Ka1v. Katha1s. ; %{-nirvyUha} m. a partic. Samidhi Ka1ran2d2. ; %{-pAla} m.
the guardian of a celñcelestial car MBh. ; %{-pratima} mfn. resembling a
celñcelestial car MBh. ; %{-prabhu-tA} f. the ownership of a celñcelestial car
MW. ; %{-mAhAtmya} n. N. of a ch. of the VP. ; %{-yAna} mf(%{A})n. going or
driving in a celñcelestial car BhP. ; %{-rAja} m. the driver of a celestial car
MW. ; %{-lakSaNa} n. N. of wk. on architecture ; %{-vat} ind. like a
self-moving car Kir. ; %{-vidyA} f. %{-suddhi-pUjA} f. N. of wks. ; %{-stha}
mfn. standing on a celñcelestial car MW. ; %{-sthAna} n. N. of awk. on medicine.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, John wrote: IMO, Hawking was becoming senile when he wrote this essay. It should be noted that he retired as the chairman of the physics department in Oxford University soon after he wrote his book which states the same information contained in this essay. He should have known that his ideas will not be received well by university's officials since Oxford is a historically and predominantly Christian institution. You think Hawking is senile because he doesn't believe god made the universe? hmm. Oxford is a scientific institution John, they don't care if christians are offended by any inconvenient things they uncover. Can you imagine the likes of Richard Dawkins (Oxford professor) having to edit their work so as not to offend the religious? Or, it could have been his way of saying, Take this job and shove it! JR --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldno gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonwith a good dose of intuitionto decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testin other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator. Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth's human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist. It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the weak anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universeand its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain. The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elementsespecially carboncould be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-) Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking? Its a very long list, no offense to him.:-) He just happens to fit the socially acceptable profile of the [disabled] genius, and everyone loves him for it. Nearly as weird as the Kardashian phenomenon. So you think a disabled professor's groundbreaking work on quantum physics and black holes got promoted as some sort of positive discrimination? That's a really astonishingly stupid and offensive idea. I also notice you don't publish any names from your very long list --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: Article should've been titled, Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The Universe, Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been a creator *before* the universe because there was no such thing as time for him/her/it to exist in. Unless you know something that no-one else does. thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-) Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote:
[FairfieldLife] Samsara
As a term, samsara has become associated with the idea that the relative existence that we live in and perceive each day is an illusion. *As* an illusion, say those who coined the term, it is not worth pursuing or paying that much attention to. I suggest humbly to people who believe this that they are fuckin' crazy. Samsara (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770802/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770802/ ) the 2011 film by Ron Fricke, should not be confused with Samsara (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0196069/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0196069/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2 ), the 2001 film by Pan Nalin, also excellent, but in a different way. The new Samsara is basically nothing more (nor less) than a series of images of the relative existence that we live in and perceive each day, set to music. And those images are beautiful. Stunningly beautiful. Breathtakingly beautiful. As is relative existence itself, whatever its ups and downs. Life. Death. Rebirth. LIFE. I really *feel* for those who believe that the relative is somehow inferior to what they consider the Absolute, and thus is something to be avoided or shunned. They're really missing out. This film shows you how much they're missing out ON. There were just so many scenes in which my initial reaction was Whoa! Where the FUCK is that on planet Earth? And why haven't I been there yet? I exceeded my Whoa! quotient within the first fifteen minutes of watching Samsara. I simply don't understand the drive that some people feel to get off the wheel and end incarnation on this rock. What whiners. This rock rocks. I simply don't get anyone who doesn't get that. See this one in a theatre or in the highest definition you can afford, because it was originally filmed in 70mm, and it shows.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
It is TOTALLY cool that we are all star dust! And Happy Birthday day Prof. Hawkings! So glad you outlived all their predictions. Would LOVE to see his jyotish chart! Ok, I googled event horizon and I read it twice. But I still do not understand. The part I understand least is the part about how from the observer's POV the object never makes it past the event horizon. But from the object's POV it does, and at regular time. Anyway, here's what comes to mind, having just listened to interview about vimanas, about universe not having a creator, from Veda: Curving back onto myself I create again and again. For several years now I have been using God and Universe and Life interchangeably. I don't think they are separate. So yes, I think Universe is God and is creating itself again and again. Fabulous post, thank you. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 12:14 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Salya, I do wonder why they say this in the last paragraph: Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. I wonder why they think only a few would allow creatures like us to exist. Especially given the sentence just before! As Spock would say: Their logic is flawed. I don't think it's their logic that is flawed. The many possible states and histories refers to the amount of possible universes that could exist but be incapable of supporting life like us (carbon based- far and away the most likely) because of possible variations in gravity and atomic weights certain elements couldn't form inside stars. I'm assuming you knew that all matter heavier than hydrogen was formed inside stars and when they explode at the end of their lives? You, me and everyone here are made of billion year old star dust. Cool eh? Forgot to mention it's Stephen Hawking's birthday today, which is why I posted this. He's 71 years young, not bad for someone who wasn't expected to survive beyond his 20's! Clever guy, he earned his place in the physics hall of fame by being the first person to work out how the quantum world might interact with the classical one. And in doing so discovered that black holes are not only not black* but that they evaporate! It's all to do with spontaneous particle creation and dissolution at the event horizon. I'd say it's the best bit of his book A brief history of time but only because the bits about quarks twist my head inside too much for comfort! *They glow very, very faintly from the subatomic particles exploding on the event horizon, not something you'd notice with even the most powerful microscope and standing a few feet away, which I wouldn't recommend. From: salyavin808 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:39 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] No god required.  Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldâ€no gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonâ€with a good dose of intuitionâ€to decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testâ€in other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition. The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
Yes, I've posted this before...Stardust.Joni Mitchell...I came upon a child of godwalkin' down a roadI asked him, where are you goin'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a24wVSVLtLQfeature=related From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required. It is TOTALLY cool that we are all star dust! And Happy Birthday day Prof. Hawkings! So glad you outlived all their predictions. Would LOVE to see his jyotish chart! Ok, I googled event horizon and I read it twice. But I still do not understand. The part I understand least is the part about how from the observer's POV the object never makes it past the event horizon. But from the object's POV it does, and at regular time. Anyway, here's what comes to mind, having just listened to interview about vimanas, about universe not having a creator, from Veda: Curving back onto myself I create again and again. For several years now I have been using God and Universe and Life interchangeably. I don't think they are separate. So yes, I think Universe is God and is creating itself again and again. Fabulous post, thank you. From: salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 12:14 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: No god required. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Salya, I do wonder why they say this in the last paragraph: Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. I wonder why they think only a few would allow creatures like us to exist. Especially given the sentence just before! As Spock would say: Their logic is flawed. I don't think it's their logic that is flawed. The many possible states and histories refers to the amount of possible universes that could exist but be incapable of supporting life like us (carbon based- far and away the most likely) because of possible variations in gravity and atomic weights certain elements couldn't form inside stars. I'm assuming you knew that all matter heavier than hydrogen was formed inside stars and when they explode at the end of their lives? You, me and everyone here are made of billion year old star dust. Cool eh? Forgot to mention it's Stephen Hawking's birthday today, which is why I posted this. He's 71 years young, not bad for someone who wasn't expected to survive beyond his 20's! Clever guy, he earned his place in the physics hall of fame by being the first person to work out how the quantum world might interact with the classical one. And in doing so discovered that black holes are not only not black* but that they evaporate! It's all to do with spontaneous particle creation and dissolution at the event horizon. I'd say it's the best bit of his book A brief history of time but only because the bits about quarks twist my head inside too much for comfort! *They glow very, very faintly from the subatomic particles exploding on the event horizon, not something you'd notice with even the most powerful microscope and standing a few feet away, which I wouldn't recommend. From: salyavin808 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:39 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] No god required.  Why God Did Not Create the Universe. There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our worldâ€no gods required By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots. Ignorance of nature's ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reasonâ€with a good dose of intuitionâ€to decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental testâ€in other words, modern science. Albert Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception. Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature. Instead, he maintained that
Re: [FairfieldLife] Samsara
Well, I hope to see this. I agree with the idea that I can't figure out why one wants to be done with their karma and not have the blessing of reincarnating again. But, if hell is here on earth, because I think that's fuckin' awsome, I can't imagine anything better than a life here. I'm not trying to *go* anywhere, really...I am trying to *be* here though... From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 1:26 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Samsara As a term, samsara has become associated with the idea that the relative existence that we live in and perceive each day is an illusion. *As* an illusion, say those who coined the term, it is not worth pursuing or paying that much attention to. I suggest humbly to people who believe this that they are fuckin' crazy. Samsara (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770802/ ) the 2011 film by Ron Fricke, should not be confused with Samsara (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0196069/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2 ), the 2001 film by Pan Nalin, also excellent, but in a different way. The new Samsara is basically nothing more (nor less) than a series of images of the relative existence that we live in and perceive each day, set to music. And those images are beautiful. Stunningly beautiful. Breathtakingly beautiful. As is relative existence itself, whatever its ups and downs. Life. Death. Rebirth. LIFE. I really *feel* for those who believe that the relative is somehow inferior to what they consider the Absolute, and thus is something to be avoided or shunned. They're really missing out. This film shows you how much they're missing out ON. There were just so many scenes in which my initial reaction was Whoa! Where the FUCK is that on planet Earth? And why haven't I been there yet? I exceeded my Whoa! quotient within the first fifteen minutes of watching Samsara. I simply don't understand the drive that some people feel to get off the wheel and end incarnation on this rock. What whiners. This rock rocks. I simply don't get anyone who doesn't get that. See this one in a theatre or in the highest definition you can afford, because it was originally filmed in 70mm, and it shows.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Afgan vimaana??
Carde what do you think causes the soldiers to disappear when they try to
extract the vimana? I'm thinking it must have something to do with curvature
of space time. Do you know that one aspect of the Mayan Dec 21, 2012
prediction was that the element of space would become very prominent after that
date? I do think that space is also crucial to invisibility though I was not
on a course where that was being practiced. Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed this
interview, thanks for posting.
All these great posts and it's not even Wednesday yet (-:
From: card cardemais...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:27 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Afgan vimaana??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBlwhVyZxmQ
vimAna 3 mf(%{I})n. (for 1. see p. 951 , col. 3 ; for 2 , under %{vi-man})
measuring out , traversing RV. AV. MBh. ; m. n. a car or chariot of the gods ,
any mythical self-moving aerial car (sometimes serving as a seat or throne ,
sometimes self-moving and carrying its occupant through the air ; other
descriptions make the Vima1na more like a house or palace , and one kind is
said to be 7 stories high ; that of Ra1van2a was called %{puSpaka} q.v. ; the
%{nau-v-} [Ragh. xvi , 68] is thought to resemble a ship) MBh. Ka1v. c. ; any
car or vehicle (esp. a bier) Ra1jat. vii , 446 ; the palace of an emperor or
supreme monarch (esp. one with 7 stories) MBh. Ka1v. c. ; a temple or shrine
of a partic. form VarBr2S. ; a kind of tower (?) R. v , 52 , 8 ; a grove
Ja1takam. ; a ship , boat L. ; a horse L. ; n. measure RV. ; extension ib. ;
(in med.) the science of (right) measure or proportion (e.g. of the right
relation between the humours of the body , of
medicines and remedies c.) Car. ; %{-gamana} n. ` going in a car 'N. of a
ch. of the Gan2P. ; %{cArin} mfn. travelling in a celestial car MW. ; %{-cyuta}
mfn. fallen from a celñcelestial car Ra1jat. ; %{-tA} f. %{-tva} n. the state
or condition of a celñcelestial car Ka1v. Katha1s. ; %{-nirvyUha} m. a partic.
Samidhi Ka1ran2d2. ; %{-pAla} m. the guardian of a celñcelestial car MBh. ;
%{-pratima} mfn. resembling a celñcelestial car MBh. ; %{-prabhu-tA} f. the
ownership of a celñcelestial car MW. ; %{-mAhAtmya} n. N. of a ch. of the VP. ;
%{-yAna} mf(%{A})n. going or driving in a celñcelestial car BhP. ; %{-rAja} m.
the driver of a celestial car MW. ; %{-lakSaNa} n. N. of wk. on architecture ;
%{-vat} ind. like a self-moving car Kir. ; %{-vidyA} f. %{-suddhi-pUjA} f. N.
of wks. ; %{-stha} mfn. standing on a celñcelestial car MW. ; %{-sthAna} n. N.
of awk. on medicine.
[FairfieldLife] Re: No god required.....
His work *was* groundbreaking, awhile ago - now he is more of a caricature. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-) Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking? Its a very long list, no offense to him.:-) He just happens to fit the socially acceptable profile of the [disabled] genius, and everyone loves him for it. Nearly as weird as the Kardashian phenomenon. So you think a disabled professor's groundbreaking work on quantum physics and black holes got promoted as some sort of positive discrimination? That's a really astonishingly stupid and offensive idea. I also notice you don't publish any names from your very long list --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ wrote: Article should've been titled, Why My Concept Of God Did Not Create The Universe, Not really, it doesn't matter what concept of god you use as a creator, the point is it's unnecessary. And there couldn't have been a creator *before* the universe because there was no such thing as time for him/her/it to exist in. Unless you know something that no-one else does. thereby answering its own question. Interesting stuff on cosmology. My little secret: I have never considered Stephen Hawking all that bright.:-) Go on then, who would you consider bright compared to Hawking? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 wrote:
[FairfieldLife] Re: Samsara
Sounds like a good flick - as far as your understanding of samsara, its about as accurate as your understanding of *tantra*, or the progression of universal time. Samsara is the false story of an object that the observer creates. It has *nothing* to do with withdrawing from the relative world. If you want to be taken seriously here, you may want to consider actually thinking, before you write this stuff. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: As a term, samsara has become associated with the idea that the relative existence that we live in and perceive each day is an illusion. *As* an illusion, say those who coined the term, it is not worth pursuing or paying that much attention to. I suggest humbly to people who believe this that they are fuckin' crazy. Samsara (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770802/ ) the 2011 film by Ron Fricke, should not be confused with Samsara (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0196069/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2 ), the 2001 film by Pan Nalin, also excellent, but in a different way. The new Samsara is basically nothing more (nor less) than a series of images of the relative existence that we live in and perceive each day, set to music. And those images are beautiful. Stunningly beautiful. Breathtakingly beautiful. As is relative existence itself, whatever its ups and downs. Life. Death. Rebirth. LIFE. I really *feel* for those who believe that the relative is somehow inferior to what they consider the Absolute, and thus is something to be avoided or shunned. They're really missing out. This film shows you how much they're missing out ON. There were just so many scenes in which my initial reaction was Whoa! Where the FUCK is that on planet Earth? And why haven't I been there yet? I exceeded my Whoa! quotient within the first fifteen minutes of watching Samsara. I simply don't understand the drive that some people feel to get off the wheel and end incarnation on this rock. What whiners. This rock rocks. I simply don't get anyone who doesn't get that. See this one in a theatre or in the highest definition you can afford, because it was originally filmed in 70mm, and it shows.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Anyone from here going ?
So, in that respect you're a *bit* like David Lynch (and Pamela Anderson). But his mother's ancestors (Sundholm) probably belonged to the about 6 percent of Swedish speaking Finns... Wiki: Lynch was born in Missoula, Montana on January 20, 1946.[11][12] His father, Donald Walton Lynch, was a research scientist working for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and his mother, Edwina Sunny Lynch (née Sundholm), was an English language tutor[11] whose grandfather's parents had immigrated to the United States from Finland in the 19th century.[13] Lynch was raised a Presbyterian.[14][15] T --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn wrote: I'm part Finnish - of the Saari lineage. Â Arvo, Selma, Helmi, Velma, Ina, etc..the last in the Finnish speaking generation died a couple of years ago. Â Great-grandpa migrated to Minnesota and built a cabin. Â Â From: nablusoss1008 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:54 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Anyone from here going ? Â --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, card wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 wrote: http://www.maharishismarak.org/videos/maharishi_smarak_2012_12_31.html Wonder if Mr. Harri Aalto (Harry Wave) is related to famous Finnish architect Alvar Aalto... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvar_Aalto All finns are related :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Samsara Baraka
A very similar film (i.e. images alone set to haunting music) by Ron Fricke is Baraka (1992) and is available in it entirety here: http://youtu.be/gEyguwQalCI Samsara (http://barakasamsara.com/#) toured the country for showing at select theaters last summer and I was fortunate to see it on the big screen at one of these showings. And I must agree Barry about some of the Whoa scenes. My two favorites were the lush green India landscape with all the temples at the beginning and the female Thai dancers with all the arms at the end. However, although I enjoyed it, viewing it once was enough for me. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: As a term, samsara has become associated with the idea that the relative existence that we live in and perceive each day is an illusion. *As* an illusion, say those who coined the term, it is not worth pursuing or paying that much attention to. I suggest humbly to people who believe this that they are fuckin' crazy. Samsara (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770802/ ) the 2011 film by Ron Fricke, should not be confused with Samsara (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0196069/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2 ), the 2001 film by Pan Nalin, also excellent, but in a different way. The new Samsara is basically nothing more (nor less) than a series of images of the relative existence that we live in and perceive each day, set to music. And those images are beautiful. Stunningly beautiful. Breathtakingly beautiful. As is relative existence itself, whatever its ups and downs. Life. Death. Rebirth. LIFE. I really *feel* for those who believe that the relative is somehow inferior to what they consider the Absolute, and thus is something to be avoided or shunned. They're really missing out. This film shows you how much they're missing out ON. There were just so many scenes in which my initial reaction was Whoa! Where the FUCK is that on planet Earth? And why haven't I been there yet? I exceeded my Whoa! quotient within the first fifteen minutes of watching Samsara. I simply don't understand the drive that some people feel to get off the wheel and end incarnation on this rock. What whiners. This rock rocks. I simply don't get anyone who doesn't get that. See this one in a theatre or in the highest definition you can afford, because it was originally filmed in 70mm, and it shows.
[FairfieldLife] Chicago's abnormal Gun Violence
Damn it! Chicago's gun violence. Chicago should mandate quiet time meditation in all its schools at all levels. It is about community building 101. It starts with the individual. It is time to seriously look at the science and then move forward with public policy. http://www.tmeducation.org/ Quiet Time Meditation in the community: http://www.tmeducation.org/ Our Violence and guns: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-12-21/national/36017398_1_gun-violence-homicide-rate-national-gun-debate http://goo.gl/W8d60 -Buck in the Dome
[FairfieldLife] Post Count
Fairfield Life Post Counter === Start Date (UTC): Sat Jan 05 00:00:00 2013 End Date (UTC): Sat Jan 12 00:00:00 2013 385 messages as of (UTC) Tue Jan 08 22:57:01 2013 48 doctordumb...@rocketmail.com, UNEXPECTED_DATA_AFTER_ADDRESS@.SYNTAX-ERROR. 34 Carol jchwe...@gmail.com 33 Emily Reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com 27 Ann awoelfleba...@yahoo.com 26 turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com 26 authfriend authfri...@yahoo.com 26 Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com 18 salyavin808 fintlewoodle...@mail.com 18 nablusoss1008 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 17 Buck dhamiltony...@yahoo.com 14 Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net 12 card cardemais...@yahoo.com 11 raunchydog raunchy...@yahoo.com 9 Alex Stanley j_alexander_stan...@yahoo.com 7 Bob Price bobpri...@yahoo.com 5 obbajeeba no_re...@yahoogroups.com 5 Xenophaneros Anartaxius anartax...@yahoo.com 5 Susan waybac...@yahoo.com 5 Duveyoung no_re...@yahoogroups.com 4 feste37 fest...@yahoo.com 4 John jr_...@yahoo.com 4 Jason jedi_sp...@yahoo.com 3 seventhray27 steve.sun...@yahoo.com 3 seekliberation seekliberat...@yahoo.com 3 merudanda no_re...@yahoogroups.com 3 merlin vedamer...@yahoo.de 2 wgm4u no_re...@yahoogroups.com 2 emptybill emptyb...@yahoo.com 2 azgrey no_re...@yahoogroups.com 2 Ravi Chivukula chivukula.r...@gmail.com 2 emilymae.reyn emilymae.r...@yahoo.com 2 Richard J. Williams rich...@rwilliams.us 1 laughinggull108 no_re...@yahoogroups.com 1 FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 1 martin.quickman martin.quick...@yahoo.co.uk Posters: 35 Saturday Morning 00:00 UTC Rollover Times = Daylight Saving Time (Summer): US Friday evening: PDT 5 PM - MDT 6 PM - CDT 7 PM - EDT 8 PM Europe Saturday: BST 1 AM CEST 2 AM EEST 3 AM Standard Time (Winter): US Friday evening: PST 4 PM - MST 5 PM - CST 6 PM - EST 7 PM Europe Saturday: GMT 12 AM CET 1 AM EET 2 AM For more information on Time Zones: www.worldtimezone.com
[FairfieldLife] Re: Samsara
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: As a term, samsara has become associated with the idea that the relative existence that we live in and perceive each day is an illusion. *As* an illusion, say those who coined the term, it is not worth pursuing or paying that much attention to. I suggest humbly to people who believe this that they are fuckin' crazy. Maharishi describes it as *Mithya* or a seeming. Since in Indian Philosophy Brahman is the only *reality* all else is an illusion (Lila shakti, or the play of Shakti). However!, when you're *caught* in the illusion it seems real, and all the more reason to extricate yourself from it (the wheel of birth and death or Samsara). Charlie called it the *waking dream*.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interactive Campus Map of MUM
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Buck, I LOVE this map. Beautiful picture of Bagambhrini and the tennis twins whose Mom looks young enough to be their sister. She often sits near me on the stacked foam. Thank you so much for posting this. I'd not seen it. Actually there is an inaccuracy about the Men's Dome that is mis-leading in fact. Well, it has been some long time since 2,000 meditated or done the TM-Sidhis program there with any regularity. Scroll over and click the men's dome and a little description comes up that implies that 2,000 people meditate there.Yes, the men's dome was built to house 2,000 or so meditators but there has not been 2,000 meditating in the Dome with any regularly in a long time. At best there are around 325-50 in the mornings and 375- in the evenings meditating there. Occasionally more. The discrepancy is a loong sorry story about the President's Office and Maharishi aggravating and antagonizing the larger meditating community. It would be more accurate to say that a few hundred get together to meditate every day twice a day there in the men's dome as a place to meditate together doing the TM's. Best Regards, -Buck Sadly, the super-radiance now is much smaller than it once was, a terrible tragedy that has yet to be resolved. From: Buck To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 4:02 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Interactive Campus Map of MUM  New map showing campus. Lot of you lurk from a distance and have not been to Fairfield in a while. Here's a really nice map that you can scroll in to. If you have not been to campus in a while, a lot has been invested in the community there. You can get an idea of the place looking at this. It's a busy campus. http://www.mum.edu/HTML/interactivemap/interactivemap.html -Buck
[FairfieldLife] Re: Interactive Campus Map of MUM
There's a nicely sourced Wikipedia page about the Golden Domes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Domes --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Buck wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long wrote: Buck, I LOVE this map. Beautiful picture of Bagambhrini and the tennis twins whose Mom looks young enough to be their sister. She often sits near me on the stacked foam. Thank you so much for posting this. I'd not seen it. Actually there is an inaccuracy about the Men's Dome that is mis-leading in fact. Well, it has been some long time since 2,000 meditated or done the TM-Sidhis program there with any regularity. Scroll over and click the men's dome and a little description comes up that implies that 2,000 people meditate there.Yes, the men's dome was built to house 2,000 or so meditators but there has not been 2,000 meditating in the Dome with any regularly in a long time. At best there are around 325-50 in the mornings and 375- in the evenings meditating there. Occasionally more. The discrepancy is a loong sorry story about the President's Office and Maharishi aggravating and antagonizing the larger meditating community. It would be more accurate to say that a few hundred get together to meditate every day twice a day there in the men's dome as a place to meditate together doing the TM's. Best Regards, -Buck Sadly, the super-radiance now is much smaller than it once was, a terrible tragedy that has yet to be resolved. From: Buck To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 4:02 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Interactive Campus Map of MUM  New map showing campus. Lot of you lurk from a distance and have not been to Fairfield in a while. Here's a really nice map that you can scroll in to. If you have not been to campus in a while, a lot has been invested in the community there. You can get an idea of the place looking at this. It's a busy campus. http://www.mum.edu/HTML/interactivemap/interactivemap.html -Buck
