author: Tedd Jacobs

text:
"Philip Deitiker" wrote...

<snip>

i would say you are. plus, like inger, you are obfuscating.  you're trying
to word-weasle out of the location of magnetic north in the 1300's and now
you're trying to throw up smoke-screens to divert attention away from being
incorrect.

"Philip Deitiker" <[email]> wrote in message
news:H2JUc.221381$[email]...
"I repeat once more, the 0 declination line runs right through southern
india,"

"Eric Stevens" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
"While it might do that now, it did not in the past."

"Philip Deitiker" <[email]> wrote in message
news:8kdVc.480997$[email]...
"The basic arguments concerning polar magnentic centers cannot be traced
back effectively to times before compasses were used"

"Tedd Jacobs" <[email]> wrote in message
news:djfVc.38$[email]...
"actually... it can.  so much so that it is used as a dating technique."

"Philip Deitiker" <[email]> wrote in message
news:vLlVc.483388$[email]...
"In terms of reversals and large distance changes."

"Tedd Jacobs" <[email]> wrote in message
news:%onVc.3$[email]...
"Archaeomagnetism is capable of providing results that are very precise on
samples of archaeological features up to about 10,000 years old."

"Philip Deitiker" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns954B609FD76B9prd@128.249.2.19...
"It can define the feild but not neccesarily the pole...  where is the
definition of the inclination maxima in 1360?"

"Tedd Jacobs" <[email]> wrote in message
news:rNoVc.8$[email]...
"the current magnetic declination is not the same now as it was in 1360...
the drift of the magnetic pole can be traced on a master curve recording the
geomagnetic field for the last 10 kya"

"Philip Deitiker" <[email]> wrote in message
news:Xns954B7F3983EB1prd@128.249.2.19...
"Ok, so then where is/was it? We have had two graphs of positions presented,
on from Nasa, One from Canada, and so I am willing to entertain a third, if
it is available. "

"Tedd Jacobs" <[email]> wrote in message
news:NirVc.26$[email]...
"Constable et al. 2000. "Global Geomagnetic Field Models for the Past 3000
Years", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, ser. A.,
358 (2000), p991-1008.

Lund, S.P. and Constable,;
    (in preparation) "Global Geomagnetic Secular Variation for the Past 3000
Years" Geophysical Journal International.   data set and models at:
ftp://ozzy.ucsd.edu/pub/Holocene/
    (in preparation) ""The Last 3000 Years of Geomagnetic Field Behavior"
Journal of Geophysical Research.

seriously phil... 0 degrees declination may run through india now, but it
certaily did not in the 1300's.  pointing out the limitations in the method
of archaeomagnetic dating will not change that.


author: Philip Deitiker

subject: Re: Limitations of Paleomagnetic and Archaeomagnetic Dating

text:
Eric Stevens <[email]> says  in
news:[email]:

"
"

It's that denial thing. lol.

No, the point was the he was banging his pots about how this
form of data was so precise. However most of the reports I have
read from various sources have claimed it is not. There is a
very good reason that geomagnetism is not precise. Magnetic
feilds fluctuate in specific areas. This is not like an airplane
flying over the earth measuring deviation or dip. These samples
come from specific points on earths. There are airports in the
U.S. that have reported over a several month period of time
large magnetic deviations that are not reported elsewhere. These
typically occur in the north, and has given rise to the theory
that the poles are rising plums of magnetically charged
particles deep within the earth, occasionally some of these rise
closer to the surface. Secondarily Carbon dating on
ferromagnetic material is often not productive, these require
other dating techniques where the precision is in 1000s of
years. I spent several hours scouring the Internet for the best
sources of information that I could find, I did indeed look up
paleoarcheology and paleomagnetism in PubMed to see if I had
missed any papers and I even went to the library to look up the
Phil.Trans.Royal.Society but unfortunately they had only B and
not A. So I was not pleased with his little opinion that this is
somehow widely held.
   Even if you look at the reply I gave it appears that at any
date you can only get to about [let me go look so I won't
understate his case] it looks like the range covers
12`(latitude) and thus is a circle with a radius of 6'*67 miles
per degree or 402 miles. Based on the 1363 Aurora and the
activities report at different latitudes at that time that the
dipole was a little south. They place the pole at 83`N and I
guess 75' however the longitudinal position is the same.
However, based on these reports it appears that the pole was
moving south from another position further north (east or west I
don't know to 1363 therefore and the poll at 1300 only gives the
100 year mean, from 1250 to 1350. Therefore it could have been
substantially further south by 1365 only to return to the
northeast. This would certainly fit the Korean, Chinese and
Japanese sitings, which show them to be right on the edge of low
frequency auroras at that time.

"
The origins of geomagnetic secular variation can be crudely
subdivided into two contributions with over-lapping
Periodicities: (1) nondipole changes dominating the shorter
periods and (2) changes of the dipolar field with longer
periods. Changes in the nondipole field dominate periodicities
less than 3000 yr. Nondipole features appear to grow, decay, and
deform with lifetimes of ~10 3 yr. Over historic time, there has
been a tendency for some features of the nondipole field to
undergo westward drift, a longitudinal shift toward the
west at a rate of about 0.4ï¿½ longitude per year. Other nondipole
features appear to be stationary.
"

What I said. Or more correctly put that the dip-max lags
(follows) the dipole in a staggering westerly direction.
Theoretically, if the dipole is not moving, and it is an exact
parallel offset from the rotational axis, the dip-max should be
always due 'true' south of the dipole (this is geometery of the
dipole lines you can get from any physics text book). The
position of the dip-max does not however determine the aurora
borealis. It is simply an indicator in this case of the
underlying symmetry of the pole and its offset. Because the dip-
max follows the dipole from the west and not south (currently)
it is an indicator of activity going in the southern hemisphere
and it means that the northern end of the pole is not off the
rotational axis but that the southern pole is, and indeed the
southern dipole and dip max exactly fit the patter expected if
the. IOW if you could magically put a giant magnet at the south
pole and draw the southern dipole back to the rotational axis,
the northern rotational pole, the dip-max and dipole should
group closely together. Since these North south migrations of
the dip-max are close together in time it could mean that there
is a small wobble of the effective north end of the dipole, or
could be the result of non-dipole activity in the earths mantle
and core (Hard to say) also in the south, but possibly in the
north also.

"
Because this procedure has provided a global spatial average,
effects of the nondipole field have been averaged out, and the
secular variation evident in Figure 1.9 is that of the dipole
field. The record shows the geomagnetic pole performing a random
walk about the north geographic pole (the analogy is a drunk
stag-gering around a light pole).
"

This is an important statement because the inclination lines
dive in the direction of the dipole end but the perpindicular of
those lines with regard to the earths great circles generally
points to the maximum dip (with tons of irregularity). The
author is making the point that the CGM wavers around the dipole
so that only the dipole can be measured. As a result I could be
wrong about the dipole, it could be a bit farther north. But
while this paper appears to claim it is mapping the dipole by
averaging the dip-max over 100 years I think they are averaging
the longitudinal variation and the result of longitudinal
variation would make the dipole axis appear to be further north
than it is.
  In addition, if there 2000 year average is correct, there
claim is that the pole has wandered around the rotational pole
1.5 times (and I would agree with this assessment based on the
aurora reports) but that means that the motion is one rotation
per 1300 years. over 100 years then the average position of the
or 27.96 degrees per 100 years. If one were to draw a perfect
circle and then draw a line from one end of the 28`Arc to the
other and measure the distance from the line to the center, that
line would be shorter than the distance to the arc. Averaging
100 years would also average between the arc and the line and so
this would still artificially place the pole more northward. In
addition to that, the dating of soils and magnetic materials can
be +/- 50 to 200 years, particularly in 1983 when this work was
done, so this would tend to cause averaging over an even larger
arc, and as a result pull the average value closer to the north.
Carbon Penetration or reallignement of magnetic materials  would
cause the effective arc of taken samples to be larger. This
appears to be the case, because radiocarbon deviancy and
penetration issues will only increase with time, and his plots
show a CGM that generally spiral inward with time.
  Thus the more northerly position of this 13th and 14th century
projection can be explained by these problems. It is important
to remember that the Aurora edge measurements I attempted are an
indirect measure of the dipole axis. Even with the adjustment
for the effect of averaging, unless there are other errors in
his data analysis, it is further North and East than what I
would have predicted. See purple circle, but still there is a
large amount of overlap, approximately 2/3rds.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/files/Maps%26Old
Documents/1363DipoleCGM.bmp

[See, Ken that aint too damn difficult is it]

   I still have my reservations about archeomagnetic
predictions, unless we have a specific measurement from 1360
that we can apply [Zolota] to this problem. And the other
problem which regards statements made about the Indian ocean.
Average, as we can see for the 19th century 100 years of data
can mean that ones measurement for a specific point in time can
be off by 800 or 900 miles. However if the below is true:

"
A record of geomagnetic secular variation recorded by sediments
in Fish Lake in southern Oregon is shown in Figure 1.8. Most
directions are within 20ï¿½ of the mean, but short-term deviations
of larger amplitude are present. The observed directional
changes are not cyclic. Instead, the directional change is
better characterized as a random walk about the mean direction.
"

The burst of Asian readings in the 14th century may reflect
this. Therefore it is entirely possible that in 1363 the pole
had taken a short term walk to the south and return shortly
thereafter.
  If the Southern dipole is a reflection of this then it may
have moved 60`E over the last 700 years in which case it would
be due south of India. The problem is however, The south
magnetic pole does not appear to affect the east/west nature of
the inclination isoquants like the north pole does. (See figure
1.4) and if it was under India at that time then and it may have
even dipped north into India. The problem is that the magnetic
north dipole appears to be associated, Noting that longitudes
are close to those of magentic North or the dipole have the
highest inclination isoquant deviation from E/W. However the N
pole appears not to be the only factor as others have suggested
that there is a secondary southern pole(s) on being close to
south africa that is of equal responsibility.

  However my critique of what he said, 5 years ago it may have
flown (very desirous) that you can throw out a few references;
however, in 2004 the standard modus that many of us on the
UseNet operate by, is that during a discussion if you reference
a paper and an electronic version is available that you somehow
make a copy of that paper available to others. His response that
he does not get involved in molecular genetics is not a valid
response since I provide people in archaeology and paleontology
molecular genetic papers _ALL THE TIME_ (as anyone who is a
member of mol anth is aware of) on request if it is germane to
an ongoing discussion. Some here in this group have even scanned
information and uploaded it, I would also, if I had a scanner.
The whole reason for creating Sciaux is that I saw a need in
this group for you guys to have a reference exchange for maps,
papers, reports or other materials. Others seem to have found
this repository and are using it. A few people, however have
not, Inger being one. One of the problems with archaeology I
find very frustrating is the propietary nature in which
materials and data are treated. In any other hard science feild
materials are shared at liberty, in this regard I find this
group behind in the evolution relative to other groups because
this 'data' sharing has not caught on yet. The best treatment
for misinformation is to get the data out into the open so that
everyone can see it and Hack it out. This 'your in your feild
stay out of mine' attitude only makes matters worse. Gisele will
testify to the fact that when she wanted more mtDNA data I
handed over a 2000 sequence database I had aquired as well as a
program for analyzing it as well as the code for the program.
There is nothing wrong with hacking out a problem in public,
there is a problem of someone, and I have seen this alot, 'my
favorite author is right, your wrong, end of story'. 2 or 3
years later, 'uh oh'.


text:
In sci.archaeology,          Tedd Jacobs created a message ID
news:yOrVc.28$[email]:

you're trying
1300's and now
away from being

message
news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
through southern

This is true, at some point in the past it did not run through
India, very true; however specifically I am talking about the
time from 1200 A.D. to Present.

technique."

Really, this is very certain based on what I have seen, no
data.

I have still  not seen a drop of data yet, except one
gif.movie which shows feild intensities, which refutes it.

You have had plenty of time to weigh in on this arguments with
'models' since this argument has begun, so do so and lets see.


author: Eric Stevens

text:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 06:28:08 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<[email]> wrote:

What? Denial that bearing is the same as latitude?  Denial that
Declination is the same as dip? I'll argue for both of those denials.

  --- huge quantities of irrelevancies snipped ----

Eric Stevens


text:
"Philip Deitiker" wrote...

<as phil covers his eyes and says>: "I have still not seen a drop of data",
and this is in connection to: "None of these journals I have access to".

not worth it.

<PLONK>


text:
Eric Stevens <[email]> says  in
news:[email]:

Who said bearing was the same as latitude? THat is your
confusion. Who argued that declination was the same as dip. I
said it have been used for inclination; however when you made
the point I corrected myself.

Who said that the maps of Greenland <1507 were made using a
compass?


text:
In sci.archaeology,          Tedd Jacobs created a message ID
news:wftVc.12$[email]:

<PLONK>

I so much figured you would do that instead of providing the
papers after I showed you a place where you could.


text:
In sci.archaeology,          Tedd Jacobs created a message ID
news:wftVc.12$[email]:

The only drops of data I have had to scour up myself.

Education is never worth it, being you want to be a
professional archaeologist and all that ;^).

http://www.earth.rochester.edu/butlerbook/chap01.pdf

"
Figure 1.9 Positions of the north geomagnetic pole over the
past 2000 yr. Each data point is the mean geomagnetic pole at
100-yr intervals; numbers indicate date in years A.D.;
circles about geomagnetic poles at 900, 1300, and 1700 A.D.
are 95% confidence limits on those geomagnetic poles; the
mean geomagnetic pole position over the past 2000 yr is shown
by the square with stippled region of 95% confidence. Data
compiled by Merrill and McElhinny (1983).
"

Note: as I predicted the Geomagnetic pole is north,
specifically, of alaska, between 1300 to 1400 it moved from
the region of North of alaska to north of western canada,
exactly as I said. Their 96% confidence interval covers about
10' or 670 miles. In addition I did not define where the dip
maximum was, I said only that the dip maximum had to be
within 1000 miles of this center.


text:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:37:08 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<[email]> wrote:

That may be so but your peculiar insights into medieval navigational
techniques combined with your interchangeable use of the words
'variation', declination', and your habit of writing 54' when 54
degrees was meant has thoroughly confused the issue.

I don't know? Who did?

Eric Stevens


text:
Eric Stevens <[email]> says  in
news:[email]:

Actually I try to us ` for degree for example

29`56'34"

Your defending that Greenland was mapped before 1450.
Your defending that somehow Vikings were involved
and that they somehow did this with a compass.
The you brought up the sun compass, and then you brought
up the 32 point system.


text:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 03:03:35 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<[email]> wrote:

Just to help you, I will restore the text you have 'inadvertantly'
<coff><coff> snipped from you reply:

I wasn't aware that I entered into any debate on that subject. I would
accept that parts of Greenland were mapped. I would even accept that
before the ice moved in somebody had managed to circumnavigated
Greenland and had made a crude sketch of what was there. Whether or
not that amounted to 'mapping' is another thing.

Common sense says that is likely correct providing you substitute
'Norse' for 'Vikings'.

I never said that. All I did was quote:-

http://www.sjolander.com/viking/museum/Compass/rebobsun.htm

  "The Norse may have had a magnetic compass in the 14th century".

That was another thread. But so what? Should I not have mentioned it?

No. YOU brought up the 32 point system and I committed the cardinal
sin of contradicting you. n response to you I wrote:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Umm

http://www.griffithobs.org/IPS%20Planetarian/IPSViking.html

  "This also indicates that dividing the compass into 32 directions
    was done already by the Vikings, before the magnetic compass
    was in use in Europe".

Also, in Message-ID: <[email]>, I
have quoted W.E. May "The History of Navigation" as writing:

  "It has often been suggested that as charts of the portolan
   type had appeared in the Mediterranean by 1290 and that as these
   had on them representations of a compass card, it follows that the
   compass, more or less in the form we now know, must already have
   been in use when these charts were made. But this is to jump to
   conclusions and to overlook most of the facts.

The 32 point system has been around for a long time.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You exemplify the kind of person who wants to relegate the ancient
sailors to some kind stone-age wandering around in the dark. You not
only fail to realise but seem to want to actively deny they had
solutions to many of the basic problems of navigation.

Eric Stevens


text:
Eric Stevens <[email]> says  in
news:[email]:

BS. This discussion has been dominated by you and I

I see so that you presented this whole BS about maps being
etched on the back of Sun Compasses is not an idea you support?
Seriously, if you present something you support as evidence its
the same as supporting it evidence. If you want to present it as
a possibility that you might not support then where is the site
that provided evidence to the contrary?

Eric, I did not bring the "viking" sun compass into this.
Mind you, I do not contest that vikings/Norse had sun driven
navigational aids

When I was presenting evidence dealing with the Aurora and
Magnetic feilds I came across dozens of websites dealing
with what I considered to be very 'sensational' perspectives.
I choose not to present them. Like I said above, in a discussion
of this issue of compass evolution, we are being lead to believe
by your post that.

1. The vikings invented the sun compass
  Who knows who invented the sun compass.
2. The 32 pt system
  Your claim.
3. It evolved somehow into the 32 point magnetic compass.
  Your claim that the Norse had the compass before other
  europeans and had gotten it from arabs. [Note I agreed
  that the arabs had crude compasses]
4. That 32 pt magnetic compass was used to map greenland.
  Even though the map of greenland does not fit any pole
  position for 1363, and in fact the the evidence suggests
  that the pole was on the other side of the earth, west
  of greenland.
5. That greenland map/or compass was something brought back from
  Bergen in 1364. Even though what we know for fact came
  from cnoyen on the Polar North is a fantasy, and we have
  no evidence that greenland topology came from Cnoyen.
6. That this was the source for the greenland map in the
  1507,1569 maps. Again both maps place greenland in different
  relationships with north America

Importance? And certainly when considering the fact that
the maps on the back of those stones are someones fantasies.
What do you think. I should present every bogus site on
magnetism and Aurora I came across?
  The relevance of the sun compass is that the Norse used this
system before the 12th century and probably continued using it.
And if they had used a sun compass to map greenland the position
would have been correct but the topography would have not
resembled greenland very much. We have the opposite situation
for greenland, the topography resembles eastern greenland but
the directional orientation of that topography in 2 maps is off
by 90`.

No, I did not bring up the 32 point system, what I said way back
there is that the 'Arab' navigational tools did not use the 360'
system and I was specifically talking about the astrolabe. Or
are you still confusing bearing with latitude.

Something which I have not concern about or have not argued
about and something you will have to take up with other posters
other than me.

You are a piece of work Eric, Note very carefully, I have never
denied the existence of sun compasses by the vikings, I deny
that there are etched maps on the back of those compasses. The
32 point system is a binary system which involves breaking the 4
basic directions into 8 parts, and it is not overly complicated.
This system is more logical than the greek system, but less
accurate. As a matter of fact in modern aircraft one often
wishes there were 780 degrees instead of 360 because many
runways bear in 1/2 degrees as a result of the movement of
declination (deviation or variation) isoquants.
  Unlike most folks here, I have navigational experience, both
with equipment with no navaids and equipment with the best
available navaids and all equipment in between. I never said or
implied that vikings didn't have Navaids; however what I said is
that their specific navaids were not of the 'sail across the
atlantic ocean at its maximum width' quality. The Navaids they
had were suitable for medium distance island hopping. And they
probably used dead reckoning alot to establish a land fall and
then to refine their course to their targeted port.
  This differs however from what you can do with a compass and a
good speed measuring device. If the indians had compasses then
the southern Arabs had compasses and they were probably using
these in the indian ocean, again where the dip angle is least
and were the the isoquants are generally east west over long
distances in the 13th century as well as now (until someone
presents substantial evidence to the otherwise). As a result
there would be using the compass in those rare instances when
they did not have visual on stars and sun or as a matter of
convinience. The arabs and indians were making long distance
voyages at that time and not simply island hopping.
  Does this not mean that Norse could not travel longer
distances? No if they understood the seasons well an experienced
sailor could increasingly stretch the distance he travel
bypassing the smaller intermediates at some risk, but with some
savings of time. However I should not that in the 1300s to 1450s
with the increasing amount of flow ice heading south, it would
have had a bigger payback for greenlanders if the travelers
plotted courses south of iceland coming up the greenland coast
from the south, however the actuality is that the Norse
(Norwegian Monarchy) markedly decreased travel. This means that
the combined risk were too great.


text:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:25:56 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<[email]> wrote:

I haven't been writing about the mapping of Greenland. I have been
correcting your repeated mistakes and unfounded assumptions. Once you
get those right you can go on to draw your conclusions about the
mapping of Greenland.

Support?  Support??  What's 'support' got to do with it. Either they
are real or they are not. I don't know anything about the history of
the sun stone. I merely posted it for information.

I started an **entirely** different thread. The sun compass is real. I
don't know whether the particular sun stone is genuine or not and I
hinted as much when I wrote:

  "It is commonly argued that because those in the past did not
   have chronometers or sextants or knowledge of magnetic
   variation or deviation or ... etc etc - then they had no ability to
   navigate. But have a look at
   http://www.sjolander.com/viking/museum/Compass/rebobsun.htm
   and particularly http://www.etimage.com/index.htm and its links.
   Use the Java magnifier to examine the enlarged version of the
   sunstone in the latter. These devices raise a number of
   interesting questions".

  ... and they do raise interesting questions.

I didn't bring the viking sun compass into this thread either. I tried
to start another one. You are the person who dragged it in here. The
only generally(in fact 'generally' is an overstatement) acknowledged
'sun driven navigational aid' is the sunstone which is a different
thing altogether. Knowledge of the existence of the sun compass is new
and not widely spread.

If you knew more about the subject you would be able to distinguish
the 'sensational perspectives' from the more soundly based speculation
about whether or not the norse may have had a magnetic compass. It is
irresponsible to not admit the possibility in the context of the
present discussion.

The only known examples are Viking in origin.

Nope. The oldest evidence of its use is in the sun compass. That
doesn't mean that the Vikings invented it.

 I never said that. All I did was quote:-

 http://www.sjolander.com/viking/museum/Compass/rebobsun.htm

   "The Norse may have had a magnetic compass in the 14th
     century".

Note: this is the third time I have had to tell you this. Please read
for comprehension.

I didn't say they had gotten it from the arabs. What I did was point
out the well known (I presume you do know?) trading routes between the
Baltic and the Black Sea used by the Norse. The Norse could have
learned of the magnetic compass either overland via the silk route or
by arab **and_Indian** sailors visiting Byzantium and its later
remains.

I'm getting slightly pissed of with your persistent obtuseness.

I HAVE NEVER SAID THE NORSE USED A MAGNETIC COMPASS TO MAP TO MAP
GREENLAND.

Who said it did?

I don't know whether or not the light scorings indicating land are a
later addition or not. But if you are half the sailor you claim to be
you would recognise the significance of the deep scorings in the
context of the land masses.

Actually, we are both wrong. It wasn't you. It wasn't me. It was
[email] in Message-ID:
<cg4jeo$dih$[email]>

There is a fair amount of both back-pedalling and bullshit in your
response. This thread would not have grown as long as it has if you
had not challenged and denied everything I have said on the subject.
You have ignored the fact that I have been saying nothing about the
Inventio Fortuna. All I have been doing is interjecting and correcting
on matters of fact, each one of which you have striven to deny. To
make matters worse you have tried to select your facts to suit your
argument and then extrapolate what I have said into a whole stack of
straw men simply to give you something to demolish. And then you have
the hide to tell me that it is me who is a piece of work !

Eric Stevens


subject: Naviagting in 1363 with A 32 pt Compass.

text:
Eric Stevens <[email]> says  in
news:[email]:

No, only posting bogus links to mapping greenland on the backs
of sun compasses.

Fortunately I have been correcting YOUR unfounded assumptions.

Since Eric is such a fan of the 32pt compass I have done a
little exercise for him. This exercise is basically accept or
reject compass if compass is on point or off point,
respectively.

Based on the combined Aurora and Achaeomagnetic study I
referenced and Using the following, plus a certain Pilot's
Navigational/Flight tool which I will let you find for yourself.
I have plotted the current areas of the world that would be
accurately navigated if the only 'deviated'[declination] lies
within the true point of the compase (+/- 5.625*), assuming the
current dipole is ~70'E of the archeomagnetic pole and about the
same latitudes north and south (IOW assuming that earths
internal magnet rotated ~70'E faster than earth in the last 700
years.  Maps are current to 2002.

Currently:
Gulf of Mexico and Carribean
(@N32*40, Carolina to W79* 17.89')
(@N11*17, Panama to W72* 39.85')
Maximum E-W distance
(@N19*12, Campeche W93* 33.69' to W74* 10.77', 1250 miles)
Note for east west distance it is assume that a path within
the body of water can be made that does not violate the compass
point)

Mediterranean And W africa.
Within 300 miles of cameroon, south along the African coast.
N35.5 starting west of the Gibralter straits, mediterranean and
most of the black, (Max EW distance, E35* 32.22'  to W8* 38.02',
2400 miles)

Indian Ocean And Pacific.
(West of NE. Kamchatka E177* 37.86')
( NE. Kamchatka E177* 37.86' to west of Aluetian, Atta to Papua
New Guinea, Queensland)
(Kangaroo Island Australia to Perth, Perth to Just north of
Deigo Garcia to N. Madagascar,Pertha-Mozambique)
(Mozambique to Red Sea to Persion Gulf to India to Sri Lanka to
Calcutta to Singapore to Sasebo NAS, Japan to NE Kamachatka)
Maximum East West distance.
(E42*00' to E143*30 at the equator)  6870 miles.

Best Guess for this zone in 1363, assuming the current Zone was
70*W of current.
1. E77 on the equator to Africa, including points farther south.
All mediteranean to W78*
2. Thailand to Deigo Garcia to South africa. (Indonesia would be
a point off)
3. Baltic Sea off by 11* (One Point)
4. Northern Norway would be of by 15* (one Point+ although now
would be inside true)
5. North Western Greenland to  Southern tip to Florida to the
Eastern Tip of South america.
6. Southern Tip of Greenland to Azores to northern Spain.
7. Irish Sea would be off 12* (One point off)
8. The sea between Greenland and Iceland would be off by 18*
(One and half points off on your 32 point compass.
9. Western Alaska and Eastern Siberia would be 'On Point' to
Hawaii and SSE.

The inclination would run in greenland from 65 to 80*

http://swdcwww.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/igrf/map/i-m.gif
(see I=0 E135(not labeled) to E150, horizontal line from
intercept cross Sri-Lanka). 20>I>-20 in the indian ocean would
be from the equator to the Somlai, to Yemen to Bombay. From
Madras to Thailand. Inclination in the mediteranean would have
been about 55*. Magnetic compass travel plausible between west
africa and south america if compass available, inclination in
gulf of mexico much less than current, around -30*

I see, so your dog posted that link? Does your dog also destroy
your references like Ingers.

Ya don't say. How about this 'everything is either real or not
real'. ROFL. Talk about some transparent evasiveness.

You mean deception, right.

How about if it is real and if there are etchings on the back
and if the authors have fairly represented those etchings..

If high probability AND if low probability AND if low
probability = very low probability. Summarily Reject the
hypothesis. Or I can put it like this, you post links to sites
that propose little green men from the planet mars are
responsible for the Ruysch map? Well?
  Oh I see you were simply trying to inform us about a bogus
site, well thanks, but it belongs in another thread.

'Interesing', like why are they in the booby farm.
Hey let's go get some Edgar Casey and bring him into the fray,
eh? Nostradamas? How about the encantations of James Jones or
chucky Manson.

And it belongs in a different thread.

I know more about the subject than I give on, because I have
been working with some of these NavAids for a long period of
time (since 1995), nothing to do with work or archaeology, I am
just a fan of maritime technologies submarines and old aircraft,
particularly the Douglas DC3 through 7 series. In those days
before things like VORs and ILS people navigated with, guess
what sextets and compasses (believe it or not), and over land
there was a simple navaid called an NDB which was damn difficult
to use to establish a bearing, but a good pilot would know how
to draw into an NDB such that when he flew over the NDB he could
observe the course adjustment required to stay on course. This
takes a particular knack that is usefule in aircaft where the
only electronic Navaid was the NDB. Because in the early days of
teh DC series flight NDBs were spread at great distance it was
neccesary to establish a course and make course adjustements by
speed and 'changes in magnetic deviation' (or sextet if you had
one) such that you could travel a strait line for 200 or 300
miles without any other navigational aid. Emelia Earhart had for
example a navigator on board her round the world flight attempt
to help her stay on course. The problem however as you have
pointed out is that Nautical/Airman terminology differs. For
example I have never seen the Declination used however magnetic
deviation and variation I have seen.

How many examples and how long have they been known?

Little green men from mars May have had a magnetic compass in
the 14th century.

I read for comprehension, and I disregard this as your typical
SQUINK.

Why would you use a compass on the silk road? More SQUINK, what
good is a compass on a well traveled road, in an area of the
world were deviation is >1pt from true on your 32 pt compass.

Keep saying it Eric, hopefully someday you will believe it.

Here again Eric, having torn up a few props on uncharted oyster
reefs I have made maps. here is the thing, when you are on the
water you need to make a fast reference, typically a pencil and
a piece of wood. A knife and a piece of wood, or a piece of
parchment and some ink. Second a true navigator would not keep
his map on the back of his navigational aid. The desired setup
is to have the map next to the navaid. BTW, if you believe these
Sun Compasses were used the vikings must have had one other
piece of equipment, sitting next to the sun compass, and
probably a rotatable table with both of these pieces on the same
table. On the water you don't carve stones on a rolling tossing
ship. Also tell me how the Norse referenced transects of coastal
topology, did they create land marks and measure off between
them, did they travel latitude lines and longitude lines at
right angles and do some trignometry? I never knew those
barbaric Vikings like Lief Ericson, who got thrown out of two
lands for fighting had good math skills.
  Here again I give the experience of my experience. I have
mapped before, but the map I made is only revealed in port,
because the coordinates that are drawn and local topologies need
a 3rd bit of activity that requires a little bit of calculation.
For example. The earth is 24,800 miles and a longitudinal degree
is 67.3 miles at the equator. A degree of latitude never
changes. If you are at 30*N that degree of longitude is 67.3 *
Cosine 30* will give you the length of your longitudinal degree
at your latitude. Like wise if you want to convert a measurement
you made between two true east west points into degrees you have
to divide your distance by the (cosine latitude * 67.3).

You wish. Ok yes I back peddled from having the magnetic north
in NE hudson bay to North of alaska/canadian border. That places
it even farther west of eastern greenland.
  You are backpeddling from
Inventia Fortunata
That the Norse used compasses to map Greenland before 1450.
 . . . . .  .

One needs a kneehigh pair of Cowboy boots just to read on
paragraph of your posts.

"I didn't say that" [I just posted 20 links inferring that I
believe that] That is what I call bullshit.

The problem is that they are not corrections, they are a form of
subtrifuge. The issue is not really the Inventia Fortunata
because there is no direct source or quotation of this that can
be relied upon. The issue is what Cnoyen had access to in Bergen
and what he did not have access to in Bergen. The critical piece
of information is his source, and Oxfordian Friar. Cnoyens
source was not a book but a person who claimed to have read the
book or participated in its writing. Now it is professed that
the book is a bit of legend and myth. I do not discount legends,
as some are based in some truth, but there are legends that are
so fabricated with embellishments the truth becomes tertiary to
the primacy of the embellishments.
  The problem with the Inventia Fortunata period in England is
there was alot of myth making going on, The Eastern Britons and
Welsh were trying to reinvent themselves. But I am not an expert
on this; however between the 13th to the 15th century just about
everything we know about arthorian legend was invented. And
imagine it creaping into cohabitors of magnetic islands at the
north pool with little green screaming pygmies.

Your belief is not neccesarily fact.

Come up with a correct fact.

I have tried to use my experiance with navigation to enlighten
you in the basic problems that you and Inger seem to not be able
to thing about in a complex matter. A compass is not an 'idiot'
device, to use over 1000s of miles without a damn perilous fate
one needs to know how to interpret its output. This is what I
was trying to say.

You, or alternatively explain to me how 'you' would know an
island was magentic at the north pole without a compass. If it
was simply a magnetic island it could have been a 'south'.


subject: Re: Naviagting in 1363 with A 32 pt Compass.

text:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 02:24:30 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<[email]> wrote:

Here we go again.

I'm not a 'fan' of the 32 point compass. I prefer to use degrees
myself. But even if I were a 'fan' of the 32 point compass, so what?
Are 'fans' of the 32 point compass socially offensive?

All this because I pointed out the earliest known evidence of the use
of 32 cardinal direction for navigation ....  sheesh !

I'm sure that demonstrates something.

[Text snipped by Dietiker:

You are both dishonest and a fool. Most people will know I make a
practice of giving citations and relevant quotations.

If you don't like it, you can ignore it.

Find some possible evidence and I might even consider it.

You dumbell !!  It WAS in another thread. !!!

Which is where I put it, or didn't you notice?

All of which has diddly squat to do with medieval navigation or
mapping.

There are only a few lnown and the first one was found in 1948.

You want a cite and a quote, so when I give you one you write it off
as SQUINK because you want to reject it.

Are you dense or merely trying to give that impression? Knowledge can
travel the silk route. Just ask Marco Polo.

OK, I did say it. You find it and show me where.

The mind boggles at the thought of parchment and ink being used for
navigation on a knarr. At the very least it would have to be
waterproof ink. I think its SQUINK.

Why are they two separate devices?

I would have thought that even you would know they could navigate.

Is that the only way you know?

Prove it. Give me a quotation from an article I wrote which says what
you claim.

Listen sonny - I've engaged in blue water navigation for more than 50
years. I've got a Coastal Yachtmasters ticket (for whatever that is
worth) and I have more navigational equipment on my boat than you can
shake a stick at. Don't try and bullshit me when it comes to
navigation.

Perhaps your pin head stuck to it?            :-)

Eric Stevens


text:
Eric Stevens <[email]> says  in
news:[email]:

If you want it to be

For pointing out a bogus citation?

It is a citation; however, irrelevant.

No, for you find any possible [outrageous, unprovable] evidence
and you consider it.

SO what is the confidence of a few since 1948?

No because it is obviously bogus.

Knowledge may but magnetism is one of those hands on things.

Why should I try to show you what I don't beleive to be true.

Squid Ink might work, lol, but if you take a look at india ink
at least some of the components will not wash with water.
Secondarily, I have maps and written notes in my helm which were
made with water soluble ink and they have washed away, Yet. But
what I said was one could carve wood or use parchment, one could
even use a hot piece of iron to burn the leather, if one so
desired. Any of these methods would be more useful than trying
to knapp out depressions in rocks. Consider this, you have made
you sun compass, and then you are going to go banging around on
it to make depressions in the back. Very intelligent {C-r-a-c-k]

Think about it.

Of course, so could the polynesians in the Japanese. The
difference is when the Japanese did it they managed to colonize
a whole new continent, and when the polynesians did it they
colonized a the islands scattered across the oceans. How about
them Norse?

Rest of post snipped as we appear to be going around in
'Tasmanian Devil' fashion.


text:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:50:55 +1200, Eric Stevens
<[email]> wrote:

Sorry. That shouldn't have been there.

Eric Stevens


text:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:19:57 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<[email]> wrote:

Maybe not, but then that's not what you did.

In that case I will have to throw out a few text books.   :-(
   <Deitiker deletion>

Because I don't believe your claim to be true either.

That's a really good answer. See
http://www.simradusa.com/index.php?sub_it=combo&page=page&c=2

I was wondering if you would ever realise that.

Eric Stevens


text:
Eric Stevens <[email]> says  in
news:[email]:

That was the (given the misspelling) the most accurate
part of your post.


text:
Eric Stevens <[email]> says  in
news:[email]:

No thanks, I have a Garmin and a SportTrak.

Here's a hint, how do you orient your compass. IOW by what basis
do you orient your sun compass. Think in terms of time.
Or should I point out that even GPS localization is based on
time, very precise time gives very precise location.


text:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 02:47:45 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<[email]> wrote:

There is a lengthy discussion in
http://www.sjolander.com/viking/museum/Compass/rebobsun.htm

This one is slightly shorter.
http://www.sjolander.com/viking/sketches/compass.htm

Here is more.
http://www.griffithobs.org/IPS%20Planetarian/IPSViking.html

... and more
http://members.aol.com/jvlambert/Norman/SunCompass.htm

None of these would be my preferred method of navigation but they
certainly are a useful supplement to the more primitive methods.

Eric Stevens


text:
Eric Stevens <[email]> says  in
news:[email]:

"
1) We can assume that the careful navigator would make three or
four readings each morning and afternoon (using different and
successive notches). He would also be aware of the changes of
shadow on some convenient part of the ship.
"

The convenient part of the ship is the object sitting right next
to his sun compass, both of which can be manuevered to set a
reference no matter which direction the ship is going.


text:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 03:38:38 GMT, Philip Deitiker
<[email]> wrote:

It is generally agreed they used the ship. I suspect the sun compass
was used from a land base to determine latitude as much as anything
else.

Eric Stevens


author: The Starmaker

subject: The Science Journal...

text:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abc.jpg

Just call me 'The Science Guy'!


author: Alan Baker

subject: Re: The Science Journal...

text:
In article <[email]>,
 The Starmaker <[email]> wrote:

Thanks, but I'll stick with calling you:

"The dull twit guy".

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."


author: Wade Harlan

subject: Re: The Science Journal...

text:
The Starmaker wrote:

No, is set by the size of a skull. Larger skulls are preferable in
Relativity.


subject: Re: The Science Journal...

text:
The Starmaker wrote:

Now, I know youall are wondering..
How does a leaf turn into a fish?

It's all very simple.

The leaves created the ocean.
But before the ocean was created
by the leaves...the leaves fell
on the ground and changed into
dead leaves that walked.

The leaf grew eyes
and all the other stuff..

Then, it went in the water...
and it became a fish.

This is simple stuff.

I bet they don't teach this stuff in skool.

http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abc.jpg

The Starmaker


author: xxein

subject: Re: The Science Journal...

text:
On Feb 24, 8:16 pm, The Starmaker <[email]> wrote:

xxein:  Geez!  You are even stupider than even I had imagined.


author: benj

subject: Re: The Science Journal...

text:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:16:14 -0800, The Starmaker wrote:

The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abc.jpg

I think we all liked "stupid" better. And fits "The Dishonest Media Guy"
much better too.


author: Rollo

subject: Re: The Science Journal...

text:
"Alan Baker"  wrote in message
news:[email]...

In article <[email]>,
The Starmaker <[email]> wrote:

Another victim added to your stalker list,  AAaaallllwinnnnnn?

You're quite the busy little man.  Did you do a playground tour today
in your little red Mazda?


subject: Re: The Science Journal...

text:
The Starmaker wrote:

Now, what i'm thinking about is..
How do i get all the news media to publish
my "Science Journal" magazine articles on "Leaves to Fishes"?

So that eventually it gets to FOX NEWS and all the media websites in the world
including Google News?

Probably many ways to accomplish it...

Maybe I need a UK web address, they seem to print *anything* coming from there...

The goal of course is..
Harvard Professors would be
pointing a link to my Science Journal magazine,
and children around the world will be learning
a new science...the science of leaves from trees
turning to fishes.

It shouldn't be that difficult...

Your kids will be using my magazine for homework.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abc.jpg

The Starmaker

Wait till I come out with my SPACE SCIENCE magazine!

I can just picture the Healine...

Are We Alone? Fuckin YES!!!


subject: Re: The Science Journal...

text:
Wayne Throop wrote:

"made up"? I didn't made up' this stuff..this is The Science Journal
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abc.jpg

I used the exact same tools the 'scientific community' uses..I used, "The Scientific Method".

The Starmaker


author: Wayne Throop

subject: Re: The Science Journal...

text:
::: This is simple stuff.

:: Also fictional stuff, having only a tenuous relationship to reality.

: The Starmaker <[email]>
: It's not a science fiction magazine, it's The Science Journal!

Which contains (as the versions your links point to) stuff with only tenuous
relationship to reality, that you made up.  Thanks for confirming that.


subject: Re: The Science Journal...

text:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:29:17 +0000, Wayne Throop wrote:

I think this time he's asking "how stupid are YOU?"


subject: Re: The Science Journal...

text:
The Starmaker wrote:

Okay, I changed the cover design...

I put in a walking leaf:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abcd.jpg

gotta go step by step with you guys...


subject: Re: The Science Journal...

text:
: The Starmaker <[email]>
: The leaves created the ocean.  But before the ocean was created by the
: leaves...the leaves fell on the ground and changed into dead leaves
: that walked.
:
: The leaf grew eyes and all the other stuff..
:
: Then, it went in the water...  and it became a fish.
:
: This is simple stuff.

Also fictional stuff, having only a tenuous relationship to reality.


subject: Re: The Science Journal...

text:
xxein wrote:

Maybe your imagination is as limited as your intelligence is...limited.

But don't expect...other people..with Limited Intelligence to have the answers
to the 'BIG QUESTIONS'.  There is a reason why their 'intelligence' is Limited.

Whereas stupidity has no limits.

What are the Big Questions? They, the 'scientific community' don't even know
how to ask what are the Big Questions.

For example: How will the universe end?

What a dumb question! Takes trillions of years to know the answer, and they
want to know...now.

What a dumb question.

They have college courses on it. They call it 'fate of the universe'.

A complete waste of time.

You're not going to find the answer with such a 'limit of intelligence' imposed on yous.

The Starmaker


author: Cryptoengineer

subject: Re: The Science Journal...

text:
On Feb 24, 11:33 pm, benj <[email]> wrote:

You realize that 'dumb idiot Starmaker' is just a role for a troll?

pt


subject: Re: The Science Journal...

text:
Wayne Throop wrote:

It's not a science fiction magazine, it's The Science Journal!
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abc.jpg

A Science magazine.

Don't you know the difference between a science magazine and a science fiction magazine? Science fiction magazines have
colorful artist illustrations of aliens from another planet,  and other earths...super earths.

Here you have a photograph of a walking leaf:
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/The%20Starmaker%20Science%20Journal/The-Starmaker-Science-Journal-2-abc.jpg

The Starmaker Science Jouranl


subject: Re: The Science Journal...

text:
To put it simply...

The limits of intelligence is set by the laws of physics.

The Starmaker


author: Peter Bennett

subject: Re: GPS Receiver

text:
On Fri, 23 Oct 1998 23:40:01 GMT, "Larry Lenortheneon"
<[email]> wrote:

If you just want position, speed, and other navigational data, one of
the consumer navigation receivers (Garmin 12, etc...) may be your
least expensive solution.

Garmin and others also make oem receiver boards with serial data
output.


author: [redacted]

subject: Passive Thermal Treatments

text:
I'm looking for materials that have low emissivity and that can be applied
to fabric, metal, and/or concrete.  The materials may be in the form of
paint, stain, fabric, etc.  Does anyone have any information on
where I might find treatments such as these?  Thanks in advance.

Tracy R. Donohue, SAIC --

"The opinions and views expressed here are strictly my own and do not
necessarily reflect the official position of either the U.S. Air Force
or its contractors."


author: Steve Hodges

subject: Re: Passive Thermal Treatments

text:
In article <[email]>, [email] writes:

Glossy white enamel paint should have a low emissivity.  That is, in  the part of the spectrum you can see.  Metallic paints may yield lower IR emisivities.  Paints often have substantially different emissivities in the UV and IR than they do in the visible though.  The range of wavelengths where a certain emissivity is required really needs to be specified before a good solution can be found.  The key phrase is 'spectral emissivity.'  The CRC, Handbook of Optics and IR Handbook all have tables of emissivi

ty for different wavelengths for various materials and coatings.

Good Luck!

Steve Hodges


author: Anthony E. Siegman

subject: Re: Passive Thermal Treatments

text:
There is a metal-coated mylar (?) film made by 3M (?) intended for
application to residential windows to reflect sunlight, including UV
and IR components, which is extremely effective for this task.  Being
highly reflective, it should be lowly emissive in these same bands.
Might be applicable to your task.  Pretty durable, not too expensive.


author: Joel May

subject: glasses for computer users

text:
If I'm posting this to the wrong newgroup, please let me know.

Let me start off saying that I know next to nothing about the science
of optics.

I'm wondering if it is possible to get a special pair of eye glasses that
will make my computer screen appear larger without wrecking my
eyes or giving me a headache.

I spend many hours every day staring at the computer screen.  I'm
planning on getting a laptop that has a very high resolution screen
(1600x1400)
but is only 15".  Using small fonts for maximum screen real-estate usage,
the text will be hard to see.

Could I make the screen appear to be 20" by using special glasses?
If I were to look at the screen with binoculars, obviously it would appear
bigger.  Is there something different about binoculars that cannot be
duplicated in eye-glasses?  Is what I want optically possible?

Thank you in advance for your expert and learned reply.

Joel


author: Leo

subject: Re: glasses for computer users   Telescopes

text:
Joel May wrote:
Joel,

As I understand it, you are not having a problem with accomodation
(focusing on the screen) because  you are old (presbyoptic); rather you
are looking for "portable magnification" so that you can run your screen
at max resolution and use small fonts and still be able to see the
screen at a normal distance and resolve the fonts and/or graphics.

The idea of the dentist's style glasses is a good one, as it is
commercially avialable and not too expensive, and they can be taken off
easily.  As with any telescopic system, the magnification comes at the
cost of reduced field of view and so you will only see a part of the
screen at one time and will have to move your head around a lot to see
all of the screen by "scanning" in the screen.

Another method is to make up the telescope by wearing both contact
lenses and eyeglasses at the same time.  This is a technique that has
been used with some success with low-vision patients (people whose eyes
have "low resolution" and can only see normal detail with a lot of
magnification).  The advantage of this method is that it is much lighter
and more comfortable than the surgery or dental style spectacle
telescopes.  The disadvantage is that when you take of the spectacle
part of the telescope the contact lens is still in place and you will be
very nearsighted.

By the way:  two telescopes mounted in front of the eyes is called a
bioptic telescope, or just a bioptic for short.  Similar models are used
by surgeons and those with mild low vision.  There are battery-powered
autofocus bioptics for low vision patients (typically about 4X power).
Some people even drive with these things on (yes, it is legal if the low
vision is mild and the bioptic adequate).

Leo.


author: Tom Hubin

subject: Re: glasses for computer users

text:
Joel May wrote:

Hello Joel,

Try posting at news://sci.med.vision too. Lots of eyeglass professionals
and wearers of low vision aids posting there.

Tom Hubin
[email]


author: Repeating Decimal

subject: Re: glasses for computer users

text:
in article [email], Joel May at
[email] wrote on 6/6/02 12:11 PM:

Typically, glasses are used on computer screens to allow you to see them
clearly. If you really want the screen to appear larger, there are no really
practical approaches.

1. You can get high power reading glasses and put your nose up against the
screen. Fresnel leses can be used.

2. You can put a magnifying glass in front of the screen as was once used to
turn a small TV screen into a large one on the cheap.

3. You can wear "telescopes" in something like eye glass frames.

4. You can get a fiber optic magnifier.

I am sure that there are other fixes one can dreqm up with similar dubious
value.

Bill


author: Acme Optics

text:
Leo <baldwinleo@attbi.*nospam*.com> wrote:

There are several solutions:

Lower resolution

Use Large Fonts

Get very close to the screen

Take lots of headache pills

Get a customized and very expensive helmut mounted display like Huey
Cobra pilots use.

Buy a very very expensive heads up display


author: Eric Braeden

subject: Re: glasses for computer users

text:
I came into this late, but most of the people I know just have their
regular prescription backed off by 1/2 diopter or so. Works for me.


author: Louis Boyd

subject: Re: glasses for computer users

text:
Tom Hubin wrote:

But the answer is yes,  Just get a an extra pair of glasses with  about +2
diopters relative to your regular (driving) glasses.  That's what I'm wearing
at the moment.   Don't bother with any wierd multi-element binoculars.  You
won't like them because of the limited field and their weight.   What you need
is really no different than prescription reading glasses.


subject: Re: glasses for computer users

text:
Oh well.  I knew it was a long shot.
Thanks.

Actually, I like the telescopes-in-eyeglass-frame idea.
It appeals to the lunatic in me.  I could get a job as a mad scientist.

"Repeating Decimal" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
that
usage,
appear
really
to


text:
One actually realistic idea is to investigate the glasses surgeons
use. The field of view won't cover the whole screen but they will
allow you to see a magnified part of the screen over the distance from
you to the screen. I would guess they are expensive.


author: Neil

subject: Re: glasses for computer users

text:
Louis Boyd <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
that
<snip>
wearing
You
need

As a little late note: the above is a good idea, but +2 diopters could bring
you too close to the screen. If you get reading glasses with about +1.25
diopters in just the right frames, they will fit over your other glasses and
give close-up vision throughout. I used to get teased about why I was
wearing two pairs of glasses, but it was cheaper than getting prescription
reading glasses (well, I want both for backup.)

Neil


author: James Horn

subject: Re: glasses for computer users

text:
Joel May <[email]> wrote:

Actually, Joel, those are available - my dentist's glasses have a tiny
Gallilean telescope in each lens so he can see well without having to put
his face close to his patients'.  And he can see around 'em when dealing
with other things.  Each one is in the lower portion of the lens and is
less than a centimeter in diameter (and only two or three long, total).

Anyone know a good source for those?

Jim Horn


author: danek

subject: Re: glasses for computer users

text:
Try the magnifying glasses (in regular eye ware frames not the handheld version)
available in pharmacies.  I think I picked up a pair in Costco, 5x, for fine
work.  If you look in the electronics tools catalogs you can pick up some
Jeweler's lenses that fit onto a regular pair of glasses for not too much money,
try www.edmundoptics.com.

P. Danek

Joel May wrote:


subject: Re: glasses for computer users

text:
James Horn wrote:

Hello Jim,

Telescopes built into something like an eyeglass frame are made for
folks with severe vision problems. A search for Low Vision Aids will
probably lead to something.

These little telescopes usually have a limited field of view. So a small
angular part of the distant world is enlarged. This may mean a lot of
head movement to read text across the screen.

As you suggested that dentists use them, asking the local dentists and
jewelers might get you someplace.

Tom Hubin
[email]


author: Gandalf Grey

subject: Re: Billy Barwell admits his mistake

text:
"wbarwell" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I've already debunked that argument, Barwell.  Spamming it won't change a
thing.

That's a lie.  You explicitly stated originally that you had a simple proof
that no god can exist.

So now you're lying about it after failing to demonstrate such a proof.

So what?

1. Bill exists.
2. It is said that Bill never picks his nose.
3. But Bill does pick his nose.j
4. Hence Bill does not exist????

Your argument fails.  No single attribute or group of attributes necessarily
implies existence would be possible were it proved those attributes were
false.

When are actually going to do that?  You've failed to prove, for example
that omniscience cannot exist without omnipotence.

You keep making claims about what you're going to do, but you never actually
do it.

Do you even know what the above sentence means?

Ad hom in place of a defence noted.

Ad homs 2 and 3

  A particularly, glaringly stupid

Ad hom 4

  You have to be the most dishonest man I have met

Ad hom 5

If you're done throwing your usual hysterical fit, answer the criticism.

Said by who?  You?  Who made you the decider of what a "class of gods" is
going to consist of.

And even if we give you your homegrown class of gods, you fail to prove
anything by it.  The fact remains that any god within this class of gods
could still exist were it shown that one or a combination of the assertions
made about that god is not true.

Once again....

Not necessarily.  A creator god could know exactly what's going to happen in
a deterministic universe by simply knowing the beginning position of all
molecules and physical entities.  That does not mean that god has to examine
each potential act and 'will it' to come to pass.  Foreknowledge is not the
same as actively forcing everything to a particular end.

So?  The same holds true in the deterministic world of the scientific
materialist.

Absurd.  Foreknowledge does not imply personal responsibility.  You presume
that omnipotence has to be a part of the mix.  It doesn't.  There's no
logical law that insists that a creator god must be all powerful.

Claimed but nowhere proven.  There's nothing about being all good that
implies that god can will evil out of existence.  Again, you presume that
god must be omnipotent, but there's no logical necessity for this
conclusion.

Nope.  You're utterly wrong.  Omniscience nowhere implies creation, and both
together are not at all contradictory.  You can assert it but you can't
prove it.

Ad hom 6.  Who was the "King of Ad homs," again?

That presumes that Time is a "power."  You have no justification in making
such a claim.  Like most of your claims, it's rhetorical.  Time could be
just as real for an omnipotent being as it is for any other being.

Why?

Not necessary and going way too far as a presumption.  According to
materialistic determinism, the closest thing to a dogma in science, the only
thing necessary to bring all things to their present state is to arrange
them in a particular sequence at the beginning.  Everything follows from
that.  Hence God need not know the smallest physical particular of
everything, nor did everything have to be created at once.

There may in fact be no free will, but that is not necessarily god's doing.
All things that occur happen because of the initial state.  If god is not
omnipotent, god is as powerless to prevent evil as anyone else.  God may in
fact have foreknowledge, but that does not imply control.

You haven't shown this.  Omnipotence does not imply transcendence to time
because you haven't shown how time is a "power."

You fail again.

Do you see where you're going wrong yet?

That may be true, but you haven't actually addressed the issue.  You've
talked about the supposed contradiction of omnibenevolence and omniscience
while leaving omnipotence essentially untouched.

Irrelevent comment noted.

You haven't shown that.

Ad hom 7 noted.

Only in your preselected strawman universe.  And as I've shown, you've
failed miserably even to prove your own handpuppet argument.

If you can't even prove a pre-selected, skewed strawman argument, how are
you possibly going to attack the real article, Barwell?

As demonstrated, you flop before you even make it to omnipotence.

Bald assertion without support noted.

Dismissive reply noted.  Where's your actual evidence?  Where's your actual
defence?

I repeat...who are YOU to decide what is important?

Ad hom 8.

Ad hom 9.  If you've done it, you should be able to point to it
specifically.  You can't because you haven't and can't.

Ad hom 10

It's a perfect analogy.  You're attempting to float the notion that the only
gods that need 'debunking' are the gods of the most powerful and numerous
religious traditions.

1. You havne't succeeded in debunking them
2. You haven't demonstrated why those particular gods are the only important
ones.
3. You haven't offered any rational basis upon which a god becomes "second
rate."

Bald assertion without support noted.  If it's a fallacy you should be able
to prove that it's a fallacy.

You've made one honest statement above.  William Barwell NEEDS weak factors
to work with.  This is the case because you can't handle stronger factors.

Real existence is hardly "nothing."  And, as noted, you've flopped trying to
debunk everything save omnipotence, and THAT is only because you've never
actually attempted to deal with it.

So what.  That's precisely what makes it the fallacy of composition.

You keep smacking into that fallacy, and you keep embracing it as though it
were a great truth.  All it is is a great mistake.

Fallacy of *argumentum ad numerum*.  I don't give much of a damn what most
people think.  I give a damn about whether a logical proof is a logical
proof.

When are you going to come up with one.

But you can't demonstrate why.  Again, Barwell runs away from defending his
own argument.

Hinduism does not incorporate all the characteristics you list, you fool.

Hinduism is not even monotheistic.

Ad hom 11

Sorry, omniscience and omnibenevolence are not necessary attributes of
omnipotence.  They aren't even implied by omnipotence.  Some of the kindest
people in the world are relatively powerless.

Bare assertion, unsupported by an argument or facts.

Circular argument.  Plus being flat out wrong.

1. All accounts of theology do not account evil as a defect in god, only in
man.  Many accounts of god attribute the direct creation of evil to god.
2. Evil is considered a defect in man by the major theologies, not a defect
in god.

Dogma that you have no understanding of judging from your arguments.

Then you should be able to present arguments and facts as to why I'm wrong,
not a dozen ad homs and unsupported assertions.

So far, you've made no defense of your argument, Barlow.

1. No they aren't.
2. No one of them, nor any group of them has anything to do with the
existence of God.

Let's go back to our analogous argument.

This is your basic problem.  Even a malicious creep like Martin McPhillips
could see it.  You're attempting to prove something about the EXISTENCE of
god by making a mess of attacking arguments ABOUT God.

Give me something of value to read.

You haven't shown this to be the case as demonstrated above.  Since you
haven't succeeded in dealing with the 8 points you mention, you obviously
can't dismiss derivative claims.

Ad hom 12.  When are you actually going to present a logical argument,
Barwell?

Hinduism does not.  It is not Christianity or Judaism or Islam.  Islam is
not Christianity.  Christianity is not Judaism.  Their claims about god are
distinctly different.  And even if we assume that your 8 points about god
are representative of SOMETHING, you haven't made a successful claim about
any one of them much less all of them.

I see that you agree that you've committed the *argumentum ad numeran* as
you offer not even an ad hom in its defense.

I see that you agree with my criticism of your lame argument from evil,
since you offer no defence.

Obviously you bow to my criticisms in the remainder of your screed, as you
offer no defense.

In summary, your argument fails on every level, Barwell.  Regardless of
whether you zero in on particular attributes of god, or you move out to a
general view, you've failed to prove your assertion that ANY class of god
can be disproven by anything you've come up with to this point.


author: wbarwell

subject: Re: Billy Barwell admits his mistake

text:
CLASSES OF GODS

Once we see that the class of omni-everything, creator
gods cannot possibly exist, that means no particular gods
of that class whatever they may be can be exist.  This
also destroys secondary claims about such gods, we need
not consider them much, if this class of gods cannot exist
we need not bother with secondary concepts like god's
simplicity, or infinity, or necessary being.  Nor
tertiary claims about Jesus, Mohammed or Moses, creationism,
or similar ideas.

There are no other classes of gods that can step into the
breach and take place of the now debunked omni-everything
creator god.

There are a few classes of possible gods.  But none
can withstand scrutiny.

Some classes because they are overlapping with the class
of omni-everything gods.

Immanent gods
Maya gods.
Transcedent gods
Panentheistic gods.

As long as a god is said to be creator of all and
omni-everthing, that god is impossible. Whether
transcendent or immanent does not matter.

Nature gods.  Nature gods are an ancient concept.
This god is responsible for crop fertility, or that god
is responsible for rain this goddess over wheat, et al.
Science has banished nature gods.  Once one really knows
how rain occurs, no goddesses are needed or explain
that.  There is simply no room left for nature gods
and goddesses.

Many god classes are divided between nature gods and
omni-everything gods.

For example classes of myth cycle gods.  Zeus, Hera, Mercury,
or El, Baal, Osiris et al.  In late antiquity, Zeus was by a few
pagans reinterpreted as an omni-everything creator god, about
the equivalent of Jehovah.  This concept fails because it is
a member of the omni-everything creator class god.
Otherwise the gods were merely nature gods.
Which because they have been displaced by science and have
nothing to explain, are meaningless and useless concepts.

Pantheism is a concept that essentially is atheistic.
God is merely a name for nature.

Deism can be divided into two kinds of god.  Pantheism,
and omni-everything gods said to be little involved with mankind.
In both cases this concept fails.

Animistic gods are essentially nature gods and as such, again
fail.

Basically there are but a few basic classes of gods and
none work.  Because so many overlap with debunked classes of gods,
nature gods and omni-everything gods most of these classes are
easily disposed with.

One can erect classes of gods specifically not to be debunkable.
Consider the class of maya gods who are not good or even caring
about us at all.  All is illusion, dreams in the minds of gods.
We are but dreams in the mind of god, who has little regard for
us, who is ammoral, who has no knowable goals or aims.
This is hard to debunk, but useless as it does nothing.
its like solipsist arguments, or arguments the word was created
two days ago with all our false memories in place.  These sort
of ideas are simply disregarded as useless, rightfully.

Some forms of negative theology gods rightfully fit here.
We are told we can know nothing of god, then these theists
proceed to tell us about gods they say we can know nothing of.
If you can know nothing, you know nothing. A god you can know
nothing about is something that cannot be useful, even if it
did exist.

Lessor spirits, leprechauns, fairies lares, penitates,
et all are again, lessor nature gods.  They cannot explain anything
worth knowing and surely make no acceptable substitute for gods.

Process theology gods are gods based on somewhat complex
metaphysical ideas, many a priori, not evidential.  This concept
of god has a problem with fitting with modern physics as its
creators admit.  It doesn't work.

There are not many classes of gods, all fail to withstand scrutiny.
The few that cannot be debunked are useless curiosities, that
don't do anything useful.

The biggest class of gods is the omni-everything, creator class
o gods.  Once it is debunked, the remaining possible classes of gods
are not good replacments for this class of gods and one can
systematically work through possible classes of gods and show that
none of them withstand logical scrutiny.  Thus we can essentially
debunk all potentially useful gods, logically speaking.


subject: Re: Billy Barwell admits his mistake

text:
"wbarwell" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

A derivative reworking of your original derivative argument....already
debunked.

That's a lie.  You explicitly stated originally that you had a simple proof
that no god can exist.

So now you're lying about it after failing to demonstrate such a proof.

So what?

1. Bill exists.
2. It is said that Bill never picks his nose.
3. But Bill does pick his nose.j
4. Hence Bill does not exist????

Your argument fails.  No single attribute or group of attributes necessarily
implies existence would be possible were it proved those attributes were
false.

When are actually going to do that?  You've failed to prove, for example
that omniscience cannot exist without omnipotence.

You keep making claims about what you're going to do, but you never actually
do it.

Do you even know what the above sentence means?

Ad hom in place of a defence noted.

Ad homs 2 and 3

  A particularly, glaringly stupid

Ad hom 4

  You have to be the most dishonest man I have met

Ad hom 5

If you're done throwing your usual hysterical fit, answer the criticism.

Said by who?  You?  Who made you the decider of what a "class of gods" is
going to consist of.

And even if we give you your homegrown class of gods, you fail to prove
anything by it.  The fact remains that any god within this class of gods
could still exist were it shown that one or a combination of the assertions
made about that god is not true.

Once again....

Not necessarily.  A creator god could know exactly what's going to happen in
a deterministic universe by simply knowing the beginning position of all
molecules and physical entities.  That does not mean that god has to examine
each potential act and 'will it' to come to pass.  Foreknowledge is not the
same as actively forcing everything to a particular end.

So?  The same holds true in the deterministic world of the scientific
materialist.

Absurd.  Foreknowledge does not imply personal responsibility.  You presume
that omnipotence has to be a part of the mix.  It doesn't.  There's no
logical law that insists that a creator god must be all powerful.

Claimed but nowhere proven.  There's nothing about being all good that
implies that god can will evil out of existence.  Again, you presume that
god must be omnipotent, but there's no logical necessity for this
conclusion.

Nope.  You're utterly wrong.  Omniscience nowhere implies creation, and both
together are not at all contradictory.  You can assert it but you can't
prove it.

Ad hom 6.  Who was the "King of Ad homs," again?

That presumes that Time is a "power."  You have no justification in making
such a claim.  Like most of your claims, it's rhetorical.  Time could be
just as real for an omnipotent being as it is for any other being.

Why?

Not necessary and going way too far as a presumption.  According to
materialistic determinism, the closest thing to a dogma in science, the only
thing necessary to bring all things to their present state is to arrange
them in a particular sequence at the beginning.  Everything follows from
that.  Hence God need not know the smallest physical particular of
everything, nor did everything have to be created at once.

There may in fact be no free will, but that is not necessarily god's doing.
All things that occur happen because of the initial state.  If god is not
omnipotent, god is as powerless to prevent evil as anyone else.  God may in
fact have foreknowledge, but that does not imply control.

You haven't shown this.  Omnipotence does not imply transcendence to time
because you haven't shown how time is a "power."

You fail again.

Do you see where you're going wrong yet?

That may be true, but you haven't actually addressed the issue.  You've
talked about the supposed contradiction of omnibenevolence and omniscience
while leaving omnipotence essentially untouched.

Irrelevent comment noted.

You haven't shown that.

Ad hom 7 noted.

Only in your preselected strawman universe.  And as I've shown, you've
failed miserably even to prove your own handpuppet argument.

If you can't even prove a pre-selected, skewed strawman argument, how are
you possibly going to attack the real article, Barwell?

As demonstrated, you flop before you even make it to omnipotence.

Bald assertion without support noted.

Dismissive reply noted.  Where's your actual evidence?  Where's your actual
defence?

I repeat...who are YOU to decide what is important?

Ad hom 8.

Ad hom 9.  If you've done it, you should be able to point to it
specifically.  You can't because you haven't and can't.

Ad hom 10

It's a perfect analogy.  You're attempting to float the notion that the only
gods that need 'debunking' are the gods of the most powerful and numerous
religious traditions.

1. You havne't succeeded in debunking them
2. You haven't demonstrated why those particular gods are the only important
ones.
3. You haven't offered any rational basis upon which a god becomes "second
rate."

Bald assertion without support noted.  If it's a fallacy you should be able
to prove that it's a fallacy.

You've made one honest statement above.  William Barwell NEEDS weak factors
to work with.  This is the case because you can't handle stronger factors.

Real existence is hardly "nothing."  And, as noted, you've flopped trying to
debunk everything save omnipotence, and THAT is only because you've never
actually attempted to deal with it.

So what.  That's precisely what makes it the fallacy of composition.

You keep smacking into that fallacy, and you keep embracing it as though it
were a great truth.  All it is is a great mistake.

Fallacy of *argumentum ad numerum*.  I don't give much of a damn what most
people think.  I give a damn about whether a logical proof is a logical
proof.

When are you going to come up with one.

But you can't demonstrate why.  Again, Barwell runs away from defending his
own argument.

Hinduism does not incorporate all the characteristics you list, you fool.

Hinduism is not even monotheistic.

Ad hom 11

Sorry, omniscience and omnibenevolence are not necessary attributes of
omnipotence.  They aren't even implied by omnipotence.  Some of the kindest
people in the world are relatively powerless.

Bare assertion, unsupported by an argument or facts.

Circular argument.  Plus being flat out wrong.

1. All accounts of theology do not account evil as a defect in god, only in
man.  Many accounts of god attribute the direct creation of evil to god.
2. Evil is considered a defect in man by the major theologies, not a defect
in god.

Dogma that you have no understanding of judging from your arguments.

Then you should be able to present arguments and facts as to why I'm wrong,
not a dozen ad homs and unsupported assertions.

So far, you've made no defense of your argument, Barlow.

1. No they aren't.
2. No one of them, nor any group of them has anything to do with the
existence of God.

Let's go back to our analogous argument.

This is your basic problem.  Even a malicious creep like Martin McPhillips
could see it.  You're attempting to prove something about the EXISTENCE of
god by making a mess of attacking arguments ABOUT God.

Give me something of value to read.

You haven't shown this to be the case as demonstrated above.  Since you
haven't succeeded in dealing with the 8 points you mention, you obviously
can't dismiss derivative claims.

Ad hom 12.  When are you actually going to present a logical argument,
Barwell?

Hinduism does not.  It is not Christianity or Judaism or Islam.  Islam is
not Christianity.  Christianity is not Judaism.  Their claims about god are
distinctly different.  And even if we assume that your 8 points about god
are representative of SOMETHING, you haven't made a successful claim about
any one of them much less all of them.

I see that you agree that you've committed the *argumentum ad numeran* as
you offer not even an ad hom in its defense.

I see that you agree with my criticism of your lame argument from evil,
since you offer no defence.

Obviously you bow to my criticisms in the remainder of your screed, as you
offer no defense.

In summary, your argument fails on every level, Barwell.  Regardless of
whether you zero in on particular attributes of god, or you move out to a
general view, you've failed to prove your assertion that ANY class of god
can be disproven by anything you've come up with to this point.


subject: Re: Billy Barwell admits his mistake

text:
Gandalf Grey wrote:

So you wouldn't get it wrong, you still lie.
And hey, your lil process theology god
turns out to be still born.  Ain't that a hoot!?

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

CLASSES OF GODS

Once we see that the class of omni-everything, creator
gods cannot possibly exist, that means no particular gods
of that class whatever they may be can be exist.  This
also destroys secondary claims about such gods, we need
not consider them much, if this class of gods cannot exist
we need not bother with secondary concepts like god's
simplicity, or infinity, or necessary being.  Nor
tertiary claims about Jesus, Mohammed or Moses, creationism,
or similar ideas.

There are no other classes of gods that can step into the
breach and take place of the now debunked omni-everything
creator god.

There are a few classes of possible gods.  But none
can withstand scrutiny.

Some classes because they are overlapping with the class
of omni-everything gods.

Immanent gods
Maya gods.
Transcedent gods
Panentheistic gods.

As long as a god is said to be creator of all and
omni-everthing, that god is impossible. Whether
transcendent or immanent does not matter.

Nature gods.  Nature gods are an ancient concept.
This god is responsible for crop fertility, or that god
is responsible for rain this goddess over wheat, et al.
Science has banished nature gods.  Once one really knows
how rain occurs, no goddesses are needed or explain
that.  There is simply no room left for nature gods
and goddesses.

Many god classes are divided between nature gods and
omni-everything gods.

For example classes of myth cycle gods.  Zeus, Hera, Mercury,
or El, Baal, Osiris et al.  In late antiquity, Zeus was by a few
pagans reinterpreted as an omni-everything creator god, about
the equivalent of Jehovah.  This concept fails because it is
a member of the omni-everything creator class god.
Otherwise the gods were merely nature gods.
Which because they have been displaced by science and have
nothing to explain, are meaningless and useless concepts.

Pantheism is a concept that essentially is atheistic.
God is merely a name for nature.

Deism can be divided into two kinds of god.  Pantheism,
and omni-everything gods said to be little involved with mankind.
In both cases this concept fails.

Animistic gods are essentially nature gods and as such, again
fail.

Basically there are but a few basic classes of gods and
none work.  Because so many overlap with debunked classes of gods,
nature gods and omni-everything gods most of these classes are
easily disposed with.

One can erect classes of gods specifically not to be debunkable.
Consider the class of maya gods who are not good or even caring
about us at all.  All is illusion, dreams in the minds of gods.
We are but dreams in the mind of god, who has little regard for
us, who is ammoral, who has no knowable goals or aims.
This is hard to debunk, but useless as it does nothing.
its like solipsist arguments, or arguments the word was created
two days ago with all our false memories in place.  These sort
of ideas are simply disregarded as useless, rightfully.

Some forms of negative theology gods rightfully fit here.
We are told we can know nothing of god, then these theists
proceed to tell us about gods they say we can know nothing of.
If you can know nothing, you know nothing. A god you can know
nothing about is something that cannot be useful, even if it
did exist.

Lessor spirits, leprechauns, fairies lares, penitatntes,
et all are again, lessor nature gods.  They cannot explain anything
worth knowing and surely make no acceptable substitute for gods.

Process theology gods are gods based on somewhat complex
metaphysical ideas, many a priori, not evidential.  This concept
of god has a problem with fitting with modern physics as its
creators admit.  It doesn't work.

There are not many classes of gods, all fail to withstand scrutiny.
The few that cannot be debunked are useless curiosities, that
don't do anything useful.

The biggest class of gods is the omni-everything, creator class
o gods.  Once it is debunked, the remaining possible classes of gods
are not good replacments for this class of gods and one can
systematically work through possible classes of gods and show that
none of them withstand logical scrutiny.  Thus we can essentially
debunk all potentially useful gods, logically speaking.


subject: Re: Billy Barwell: No Argument.  Nothing but Assertion

text:
"wbarwell" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

More like an attempt to cover your increasingly exposed anal region,
Barwell.  Unfortunately, your arrogance and your lack of knowledge led you
to keep making the same derivative mistakes.

All the criticisms that held for your first essay, still hold true.

Process philosophy and process theology is alive and well, Barwell.  And
I've already demonstrated you don't even understand it.

1. We haven't seen by anything you've written that the so-called class of
omni creator gods represent all or even most of the world's beliefs
concerning god.  Since not all claims concerning god are a matter of gods in
this class, your argument accomplishes nothing.  Plus since your entire
argument is an example of Russell's Class Fallacy, you're already dead on
your feet.

Actually it doesn't do that at all.  See if you can figure out why.

Why would that be, Barwell?  Do you honestly believe that just asserting
everything makes your case stronger?

Prove it.  So far, you haven't 'scrutinized' anything.  All you've done is
repost old arguments on omnipotence.

You're linking two notions and only offering an argument for one.  Your
omnipotence argument doesn't cover creation.  Hence, your argument fails on
the basis of logical validity.

Except it isn't.  So you're wrong there as well.

Not only do you forget pan-entheism, but you haven't proved your original
point even for the gods you originally specified.  Stating "this concept
fails" doesn't mean that a concept has failed.

The only thing that has failed here is you failing to provide an argument to
support your claim that the concept has failed.

Prove it.  Stop trying to accomplish with unsupported assertions what you
have no evidence or argument for.

Not by anything you've demonstrated, Barwell, since you've demonstrated
NOTHING.

Let's just cut to the chase.  You've got nothing going for you here but rank
assertions.  Since you have no argument, your essay is a waste of everyone's
time.


text:
Gandalf Grey wrote:

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829

Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics

by David Ray Griffin

1. Introduction

Charles Hartshorne rests the case for his philosophy on its coherence and
its adequacy to the facts of experience, including the well-established
teachings of the physical sciences. And yet he has admitted over the years,
and continues to admit in the Library of Living Philosophers volume (PCH),
that there is one issue on which he has not reconciled his philosophy with
physical theory. One of the problems raised in the essay by William Reese
is, Hartshorne says, "a problem, even the problem, for me: how God as
prehending, caring for, sensitive to, the creatures is to be conceived,
given the current non-Newtonian idea of physical relativity, according to
which there is apparently no unique cosmic present or unambiguous
simultaneity" (PCH 616). In responding to Lewis Ford, Hartshorne says: "I
also agree that relating the divine becoming to the problem of simultaneity
in physics exceeds my capacity. . . . I feel incapable of solving the
problem, and it seems clear that Whitehead did not solve it" (PCH 642; see
also 724).


text:
"wbarwell" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

One process philosopher exhibits doubt and you think that's proof that the
entire philosophy is unworkable?

I think we can all see the flaw in your thinking, Barwell.

What's really sad is that your only interest here is in gaining some debate
leverage.  You're not at all interested in the truth.  You never were.  I
think that was the main reason I started to note the glaring flaws in your
juvenile arguments.  It was plain to me that, much like the theocrats, your
only interest was in using the 'shape' of logical argument as a blunt weapon
to beat on your political opponents.

You're truly pathetic.

"wbarwell" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

1. We haven't seen by anything you've written that the so-called class of
omni creator gods represent all or even most of the world's beliefs
concerning god.  Since not all claims concerning god are a matter of gods in
this class, your argument accomplishes nothing.  Plus since your entire
argument is an example of Russell's Class Fallacy, you're already dead on
your feet.

Actually it doesn't do that at all.  See if you can figure out why.

Why would that be, Barwell?  Do you honestly believe that just asserting
everything makes your case stronger?

Prove it.  So far, you haven't 'scrutinized' anything.  All you've done is
repost old arguments on omnipotence.

You're linking two notions and only offering an argument for one.  Your
omnipotence argument doesn't cover creation.  Hence, your argument fails on
the basis of logical validity.

Except it isn't.  So you're wrong there as well.

Not only do you forget pan-entheism, but you haven't proved your original
point even for the gods you originally specified.  Stating "this concept
fails" doesn't mean that a concept has failed.

The only thing that has failed here is you failing to provide an argument to
support your claim that the concept has failed.

Prove it.  Stop trying to accomplish with unsupported assertions what you
have no evidence or argument for.

Not by anything you've demonstrated, Barwell, since you've demonstrated
NOTHING.

Let's just cut to the chase.  You've got nothing going for you here but rank
assertions.  Since you have no argument, your essay is a waste of everyone's
time.


subject: Process theology's god is stillborne, Gandy can't face the truth honestly

text:
Gandalf Grey wrote:

 As usual, you distort the article.  Sophistry and lies.
What Griffin does is point out Hartshorne, the father of
PT never managed to fix the gaping problem left by
Whitehead, teh PT god does not fit with modern physics.
Griffin quotes Hartshorne as admitting about 1988 or so
that this was a problem not deal t with.

Its not his opinion, he is reporting facts.

Now, everybody else realizes that, and can see through
your lying sophistry, your bad excuise, that somehow this is merely
Griffin's opinion.  The article shows many people battled this issue
for years and as Hartshorne admits, in the end, it remained a problem.

This is a metaphysical god, defined, and once defined, all deduced
from the a priori definitions.  It is not a god derived from evidence nor
revelation.
Thus the fact that this god gets stuck when considering some facts
of real world physics dooms it as a bad idea that didn't pan out.

The problem here is, the PT god is dead and you never realized it.
Depsite your arrogant pretensions, you now little about it.
And worse, when pointed out to you, you refuse to discuss the
issue in an intellectually honest manner.
You mislabel the history of this physics problem as related by
Griffin and a mere opinion of some philsopher.
You refuse to see the daddy of PT, Hartshorne admits that he
has not been able to make his made up metaphysical god fit into
real world physics.
This is not Griffin's mere opinion, it is reportage of a devastating fact.
A problem that has resisted being solved for decades.

Process theology is dead, its just that a few people who don't realize it
keep babbling about it as if it will ever really be alive and workable.
It is dead though, the PT god cannot fit with real world physics so cannot
be real.  Thus all hanging off that god is not real nor relevant.

Now, read it again, not as Griffin's opinion, but read it to see what he
reported about Hartshorne's admission about the problem of PT's god and
physics.

Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics

by David Ray Griffin

David Ray Griffin teaches philosophy of religion at the School of Theology
at Claremont and is executive director of the Center for Process Studies.
The following article appeared in Process Studies, pp. 85-112, Vol. 21,
Number 2, Summer, 1992. Process Studies is published quarterly by the
Center for Process Studies, 1325 N. College Ave., Claremont, CA 91711. Used
by permission. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and
Winnie Brock.

1. Introduction

Charles Hartshorne rests the case for his philosophy on its coherence and
its adequacy to the facts of experience, including the well-established
teachings of the physical sciences. And yet he has admitted over the years,
and continues to admit in the Library of Living Philosophers volume (PCH),
that there is one issue on which he has not reconciled his philosophy with
physical theory. One of the problems raised in the essay by William Reese
is, Hartshorne says, "a problem, even the problem, for me: how God as
prehending, caring for, sensitive to, the creatures is to be conceived,
given the current non-Newtonian idea of physical relativity, according to
which there is apparently no unique cosmic present or unambiguous
simultaneity" (PCH 616). In responding to Lewis Ford, Hartshorne says: "I
also agree that relating the divine becoming to the problem of simultaneity
in physics exceeds my capacity. . . . I feel incapable of solving the
problem, and it seems clear that Whitehead did not solve it" (PCH 642; see
also 724).

The failure to find a solution has not been for want of trying. As Frederick
Post helpfully documented in 1973 in "Relativity Theory and Hartshorne?s
Dipolar Theism," Hartshorne has been perplexed by this difficulty from the
earliest period of his writing (TPP 89). And several other writers have
joined the effort: John T. Wilcox stimulated much of the discussion with "A
Question from Physics for Certain Theists" (JR 40) in 1961; Lewis Ford
asked "Is Process Theism Compatible with Relativity Theory?" (JR 48) in
1968; Paul Fitzgerald published "Relativity Physics and the God of Process
Philosophy" (PS 2) in 1972;...


text:
Gandalf Grey wrote:

I see you snipped the article I posted and rant and raved.

Sorry, you lose, the article shows you are trying
to peddle a rather dead parrot of a god. Your hateful rant
tells us a lot about you, the article I post tells people about me.

...

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics

by David Ray Griffin

David Ray Griffin teaches philosophy of religion at the School of Theology
at Claremont and is executive director of the Center for Process Studies.
The following article appeared in Process Studies, pp. 85-112, Vol. 21,
Number 2, Summer, 1992. Process Studies is published quarterly by the
Center for Process Studies, 1325 N. College Ave., Claremont, CA 91711. Used
by permission. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and
Winnie Brock.

1. Introduction

Charles Hartshorne rests the case for his philosophy on its coherence and
its adequacy to the facts of experience, including the well-established
teachings of the physical sciences. And yet he has admitted over the years,
and continues to admit in the Library of Living Philosophers volume (PCH),
that there is one issue on which he has not reconciled his philosophy with
physical theory. One of the problems raised in the essay by William Reese
is, Hartshorne says, "a problem, even the problem, for me: how God as
prehending, caring for, sensitive to, the creatures is to be conceived,
given the current non-Newtonian idea of physical relativity, according to
which there is apparently no unique cosmic present or unambiguous
simultaneity" (PCH 616). In responding to Lewis Ford, Hartshorne says: "I
also agree that relating the divine becoming to the problem of simultaneity
in physics exceeds my capacity. . . . I feel incapable of solving the
problem, and it seems clear that Whitehead did not solve it" (PCH 642; see
also 724).

The failure to find a solution has not been for want of trying. As Frederick
Post helpfully documented in 1973 in "Relativity Theory and Hartshorne?s
Dipolar Theism," Hartshorne has been perplexed by this difficulty from the
earliest period of his writing (TPP 89). And several other writers have
joined the effort: John T. Wilcox stimulated much of the discussion with "A
Question from Physics for Certain Theists" (JR 40) in 1961; Lewis Ford
asked "Is Process Theism Compatible with Relativity Theory?" (JR 48) in
1968; Paul Fitzgerald published "Relativity Physics and the God of Process
Philosophy" (PS 2) in 1972;.....