Apollo BBS Archive - August 1990

Apollo BBS Archive - August 7, 1990

Mail from John Cummings
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 20:32:21

        I don't want you tell your kids anything! I don't ask you to make
any changes at all in your life!
        I do point out that the discussion we had before:evolution from less
to more complex, plan and planner, posited the possibility of a God. That
possibility is logically and scientifically at least as tenable, or more
than any other. (If you try to explain it other than God, you must fall to
an absurdity of coincidences--e.g., monkeys and typewriters--or you must
simply abandon and reject the argument. You chose to abandon it, which at
least shows more intelligence than the absurdity of coincidences.)
        Therefore, since in this one instance at least, neither you nor
anyone else can DISPROVE a creator, it is scientifically reasonable for me
and any other person to assume the existence of the creator. I do so.
        I am not trying to convert you. I teach my six kids and 11
grandchildren about a loving kind God who wants them to love Him.Please
don't make up something different and accuse me of it.
        And PLEASE don't aske me to accept "scientific proof" of anything.
The history of the world, from Plato thru Malthus to 1990 verifies again and
again that Scientific Proof is just the latest theory.    --John C.--
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
 1:I would think that it would be up to the 'believers' to prove the existence 
 2:of a creator as there is nothing scientific that points to it.  And in the 
 3:meanwhile the children are being lied to all in the name of non-logic.
 4:
 5:You can't expect them to lead good solid lives by starting off with tales of
 6:Santa Clause, can you?
 7:                                Rod

Public & Free Bulletin Board command:$C

Message: 68356
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: Dean on Love
Date: 08/06/90  Time: 23:29:48

I am interested in what you believe to be the "functions of love"
that take place and how you can, in the same breath, say that
the "functions of God were as well fullfilled..." without
first off having some proof love exists.
You believe in love the same way I believe in God. 
There is no difference. If you can prove to yourself that love exists
between two entities, then you must also accept it exists between
other entities other than yourself.
 
It's not the fact the people don't believe in God...it's that they
simply don't want him in their lives.
Some people don't want love and fight and resist it at every turn.
 
Now, in previous dialogue, some folks want to doubt the love I feel
between God and me. That's fine. It's just like me doubting the love
you have for your wife or kids. Just because you have absolutely
no way to *prove* your love,  doesn't prove it fails to exist....
The burden of proof theory is blown out the window.
Next case.
        -Mike

Message: 68357
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: Annie on Love
Date: 08/06/90  Time: 23:42:14

I'll take the Rod Williams school of thought here and answer your
question about the 70 year old woman.
 
Nah. That's not love. Love doesn't exist. It's just a crutch for
the sick and mental deformant of society. You know the world would
be so much better off without polluting each others minds about
this stupid sickness we call love.
She's obviously brain dammaged, staying with an old crud like him
because she could be out playing and having fun. Think of the wasted
time she's spending believing in a 3000 year old superstition.
No wonder this world is in such a mess. Too many people, idiots like
this stupid woman, believe in love!. What a damn waste. Stop polluting
these kids's minds. Make it illegal and we'll all grow up thinking
for ourselves instead of someone else.
Ban it in school and erase it from books or we'll see the end of
the universe tomorrow!!
 
Then again...time doesn't exist so there is no tomorrow...LIVE TODAY!

Message: 68358
Author: $ Jeff Lochansky
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Telix
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 00:43:33

Leave me your address in E-Mail, if you don't live to far from me I'll come
by and set it up for you, if not I'll mail everthing to you in 5 1/4 360
format, thats the only dsc drive I have. It would take a LOOOOONG post to
give you all the info you need. Leave your phone number and I'll give you a
call. Sound fair????

Message: 68359
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: wierd physics 1
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 05:01:39

Consider this:
 
If I am 300,000 km away from you, at rest relative to you, and you flash
a light once per second, you will perceive an interval of one second
between each flash, and though I will see each flash a second later than
it actually occurs, I will perceive the same 1 second interval between
each flash that you do.
If, on the other hand, I am travelling past you at 75,000 km/sec, and
as I pass you, exactly as I am next to you, you flash your light, what will
be the interval between your flashes as I now perceive it?  After one
second I will have traveled 75,000 km.  At that point, you will flash your
light the second time; but in the time it takes the second flash to travel
the 75,000 kilometers, (one-quarter second) I shall have traveled 75,000/4
km.  This forms a convergent series, and without bothering you with the
details, I can tell you that I will have travelled another 25,000 miles in
the time it takes for your second flash to reach me.  Since it takes light
1/3 of a second to travel 100,000 km, and since my velocity is constant,
I will always perceive an interval of 1 1/3, or 4/3 seconds, between your
flashes, while you will always perceive an interval of exactly one second
between them.

Now, you have said that the increase of mass as the speed of light is
approached would prevent an object from being accelerated past the speed
of light, since at c it would be infinitely massive and would require
an infinite amount of force to accelerate it.  One problem I see with this
is that we are speaking of measured mass; the proper mass does not increase
with velocity; motion does not create mass, and the increase in measured
mass is merely an aspect of the kinetic energy of the moving body.
According to the Lorentz-FitzGerald equation, the *measured* mass of a body
is derived thus:
 
*m* = m0/SQR(1 - v^2),
 
where *m* is the measured mass, m0 is the proper mass (or rest mass), and
v is the velocity of the mass, relative to the observer, expressed as a
ratio to the speed of light, so that  0<= v <1.
But to the moving body, its mass has not changed at all.  That is, if v
is set equal to zero (if we are travelling at the same velocity as the
body), then the equation becomes an identity, *m* = m0.  This is as it
should be; the increase in mass is not a property of the body, as proper
mass is; if it were, it shouldn't be different for every observer moving
at a different velocity relative to the body.

So, while it would take us an infinite amount of force to accelerate a body
moving at the speed of light relative to us, the body, using a drive
traveling at the same speed as the rest of it, would need no more than the
normal amount of force to continue its acceleration.  If it takes us more
force to deflect a particle accelerated to near the speed of light than
ordinary momentum could account for, it is because its velocity, relative
to us, is so close to the speed of light, and consequently, as the mass as
*we* measure it is so vastly increased, it takes so much more force as
applied by *us* to deflect it.  But if the particle carried its own little
drive, so that it could accelerate itself, there would be no problem.
Consequently, the speed of light is the greatest *measurable* velocity
attainable.
But let us assume that you are correct; that it is an absolute maximum
velocity, and that no massive object could exceed the speed of light.
Then what about massless objects?  Photons are massless, and yet you
say they are particles.  What about objects of *negative* mass, whatever
that means, if anything?
Here is where it gets interesting.  Let's go back to my first message.  I
am passing you at a constant relative velocity of great magnitude, but less
than the speed of light.  At some time after I have passed you, let us
assume for the sake of speculation that an entity passes you at faster than
light velocity, heading toward me.

Let's assume that each of us possesed a mysterious device which flashed a
light whenever the faster than light entity passed it.  I could interpret
this light as an indication of its passing you, and vice-versa.
In the example I gave in the first message, any interval that you perceive,
I perceive as being a full third longer.  So let us assume that as I passed
you, our watches were synchronized to 12:00 noon.  Let's say that 45 minutes
later, by your watch, the entity passes you.  It's 12:45 pm to you.  If the
interval between noon and the entity passing is 45 minutes to you, then it
must be 4/3 of that to me, or about an hour to me.  So, let's say that,
looking back at you in my telescope, I see the entity pass you at 1:00 pm
by my watch.
Now, the entity, traveling at faster than light, must reach me before this
scene arrives (since the scene is viewed through my telescope as light).
The entity, then, must pass me before 1:00 pm my time.  Let's say, 12:55 pm.
Now, let's say that you have your telescope trained on me, also.  If the
entity passes me at 12:55 pm my time, then what I perceive as a 55 minute
interval since noon, you must perceive as a 55 times 4/3 minute interval, or
about 73 minutes.  Thus, you see the entity pass me at 1:13 pm your time.
Thus, I perceive the entity to have passed me at 12:55 pm, and passed you
at 1:00 pm; therefore, it seems to me to have passed first me and then
you.  But you perceived the entity to have passed you at 12:45 pm, and
passed me at 1:13 pm; therefore, it seems to you that the entity first
passed you, and then passed me.

Now, imagine any changes going on in this entity.  Imagine that you observe
it "aging" between its encounter with you and its encounter with me.  I will
then observe it "growing younger".  Which way does this entity live, then?
Clearly, time would then have a different direction depending on who was
looking.  This would mean that there is no absolute order to events; events
occur, and they are ordered subjectively by the observer.  Therefore, our
entire notion of cause and effect would be dashed.
 
Of course, the question arises as to how you would "observe" such aging, but
that is another question altogether.  

Message: 68364
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: light/doppler
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 05:06:46

If light is a particle (photon) and the speed of light is constant relative
to the observer, then the speed of the photons must be constant relative to
the observer.  Since any particle can be considered an "observer", the
speed of any particle must be constant relative to any other particle.
Since the relative speed is constant, their relative distance must also be
constant; and so, once their initial distances are determined by the
periodicity of the source of emission of the photons, these relative
distances cannot change.
Therefore, photons traveling in one quantum packet will keep a constant
distance from photons in another quantum packet, thus the distance between
quantum packets, that is, the wavelength, is constant.  Therefore, light
should never experience a change in wavelength once created, and the doppler
shift of light should be impossible.

Message: 68365
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: Mike C./love at 70
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 05:11:28

But she said that there was terrible verbal abuse.  I don't understand why
you insist that she should love her husband; love is something you earn, not
a right you enjoy through formal relationships (i.e. husband-wife).

Message: 68366
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: addendum/mass
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 05:35:16

Incidentally, making v equal to the speed of light, in the
Lorentz-FitzGerald equation, does not make measured mass infinite.
m/0 is not infinity; m/0 is undefined.  The measured mass of an object mving
at the speed of light relative to an observer is undefined.  The measured
mass of an object moving faster than the speed of light relative to an
observer is an imaginary number; interpret this as you will.
The FitzGerald contraction would cause its measured length (in the direction
of motion) to be zero:
 
*L* = L0 SQR(1-v^2/c^2),
 
and so with the relative velocity equal to c, the measured length would be
zero.  Of course, to the object moving at the speed of light, or anyone
moving at the same velocity, its measured length would be normal.
 

Message: 68367
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Question?
Subject: Pauley on lust
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 07:49:28

I agree with you for the most part  - but why is lust considered a 'baser
emotion'? We are born with it arn't we? Any emotion can be 'baser' if we
allow it right? I guess I should ask you to define lust! To me it means
wanting someone sexually. Now if that leads to a happy lasting relationship,
it can't be classfied as baser - if you lust after a married man or woman
and you can't have them or distroy their marriage, that's baser. Or if you
let lust over power your life  that's all you think of, then that can't be
good. But gads, if your married for 10 or more years and your still lusting
after your mate, that's great! What's with this 'baser' stuff anyway? 
I certainly agree that the sex part of marriage does not hold it together.
As the years pass, it goes down the line of what's important to that
relationship. I think that's normal. All the stuff written about sex and
older people for the most part is Crapola. It leads people to think they
MUST have a active  sex life for health and happiness! If they don't have
it, then they feel unhappy and frustrated. Ridiculous! Fact: - people, men
AND women reach the non-child bearing years and their sex life declines
normally! It happens to the animals too. It's part of the 'grand design'!
Do you agree? -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 68368
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: John on Rod on hell
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 08:06:17

Why do you think Rod "seems kind of up tight and tense about the subject of
hell - paranoia"?
That's one thing Rod is not - tight and tense about anything to do with
religion. You are reading something into it that's not there. Or wishing it
perhaps? -=*) ANN (*=-
P.S. Re: "he seems to have a concept of hell that would make a chipanzee
scared"! ..... Pardon me, I don't know what your religion/beliefs comprise
of, but of all the religions I went to/belong to all taught hell was a
scarey, horrible place to be feared. Not one taught me that hell was simply
a place without God and that was 'the hell of it!' What does that mean
anyway? - what is a place like without God? Is it like Heaven but you go
around moaning and groaning that you missed the boat where God is concerned?
Do you go for an eternity wishing you had believed? 
If you think I belonged to/went to obscure religions you're wrong - I was a
Catholic and a Lutheran - went to Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, and
several Holy Roller types and they ALL taught the same stuff - hell is pain,
fire and brimstone, a real place with the devil that you spend an eternity
in with no hope of getting out. Where are all of you coming up with this
'hell is without God' explaination? Is this a new religion or something? 
I don't know about child abuse in teaching them about hell - all I know is,
the nuns and priest scared the holy hell outta me telling me about the pains
of hell! It DID warp my child mind at the time to where I couldn't think for
myself. Child abuse? Yes, of a sorts!!! Just my opinion.

Message: 68369
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike on love
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 08:21:53

I see your point - but I still do not see this situation as love! He was
cruel beyond comprehension. Because of the era they came from, she had no
thoughts of leaving. We knew them for a long time - yet never ONCE did
either say a loving or kind word to one another. Both complained constantly
of each other. She couldn't even move a knick knack or he'd raise holy hell
about it. He never gave her a thought about how she might be feeling and
she, after so much, didn't either think about him. It was all/become rote
more than consideration. Love has to have some kind of basis to exist. She
professed no love until he died. See what I mean? 
I believe that when two people make the commitment to each other, they ought
to do everything possible to make it last and work. To keep the love between
them alive and healthy. That love can go from lust, to need, to
companionship over the years - makes no difference what kind of love it is.
If that relationship goes like the people I spoke of, what is the reason to
stay around? This can be negative and distructive. Where's love there?
                                -=*) ANN (*=-

Message: 68370
Author: $ Apollo SYSOP
Category: News Today
Subject: War in the Mid-East?
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 09:47:54

        Is it going to happen?  Does anyone care?  If you do care, is it
just about the GAS prices?   Should we intervene with military force to get
our people out?   
        There more to life then brutal Love and wife beatings guys!

*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif- 

Message: 68371
Author: $ Melissa Dee
Category: Sex & Love
Subject: Love
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 17:31:02

Love is defined differently by everybody.  It seems to me that God is
usually defined differently by individuals as well:  people in the same
religion, even people in the same church, AND  people in the same household.
Love is not a concrete thing.   There is no one definition that everyone
can agree with.  It cannot be proven to exist.  It is an emotion.
I think many abused children grow up getting love and pain confused and
therefore, end up like the battered women who stay with their husbands
because that is what they think love feels like.  It IS what love is to them
because that is what they learned.  In fact, if you were to give them a
choice of men, I bet they would chose the one that is bad to them.  To be in
a good relationship - they wouldn't know what to do.  
Of course, they can get better through therapy or some self-realization but
until that happens, they wont see the other side.  They can't.  That isn't
their world.  When the husband says he will stop and gives her flowers and
candy, she latches on again.  Only until SHE realizes it wont stop and SHE
decides she doesn't want in the relationship will she try to get out.
It may seem to not make any sence but I've seen the same situation over and
over and over again.  The individual stories aren't even that different.
And I have seen some people get help or change on their own and leave.  And
it is a small percentage.  And of those, not all of them stay healthly.  The
new reality is too much for them and they go back to what is familiar.
Anyway, thought I would share my experience to maybe cast some light on the
"why does she stay" and "that's not love" comments.

Message: 68372
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Jeff B/Telix
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 20:06:28

        Thanks for the tip: I think I'm closing in on it, and I appreciate
the help.       --John C.--

Message: 68373
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie/Hell
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 20:13:42

        Annie, didn't you ever stop to think, even as a child, that the
soul leaves the body at death, so hell fire, brimstone, etc., can't bother
it, anyway--there's no BODY to feel dpain.  The "weeping, wailing, and
gnashing of teeth" is sorrow for the loss of God.  Even as a child, that
should have been apparent, especially as Catholic, Lutheran, and
Episcopalian.     --John C.--

Message: 68374
Author: $ John Cummings
Category: News Today
Subject: Mid-east war
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 20:18:04

        Sysop, you're right again! Yes, there's more to life than wife
beating!  There's "servicing the target," as they say in the artillery."
        Yes, we should intervene! Otherwise we're going to see something
like Hitler in the 1940s!
        I hear that the 82nd airborne is on the way.  Not enough! Is Mad Max
around? I bet some Rangers and some Seals would help if they went over there
to kick butt and take names.     --Peaceable John C.--

Message: 68375
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Answer!
Subject: John C./68373
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 20:40:34

On the other hand, after the soul is gone (if you believe in a soul), the
body cannot be made to feel pain; so some might argue that it is the soul
that has the capacity for feeling pleasure and pain.

Message: 68376
Author: $ Jeff Beck
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: air pressure
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 20:50:51

I don't think most people realize how heavy the air really is down here at
the bottom of the atmosphere.  The air exerts 14.7 pounds per square inch. 
Of course, the insides of our bodies are at the same pressure, so this is
equalized.
 
But consider a sphere of metal, made of two hemispheres with flat rims. 
Put these together and there is nothing to keep them from falling apart
again.  But attatch a valve to one hemisphere to which you can attatch a
pump to pump the air out of the interior.  If the sphere is a mere one foot
in diameter, it has 452 square inches of surface area.  Upon each square
inch, 14.7 pounds of force is exerted, unbalanced, by the atmosphere.  There
are then a total of 6644 pounds of force squeezing the sphere on all sides.
If you were to attatch handles to each hemisphere, and have horses pull in
opposite directions, each horse would need to pull 3322 pounds!  
Triple the size of the sphere, and you multiply the total force by nine, so
for a three foot sphere, it would take a little less than 30,000 pounds of
force pulling on each hemisphere to pull the sphere apart.

Message: 68377
Author: Mike Lauson
Category: Joke
Subject: jack and jill
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 22:25:44

jack and jill went up the hill
each with a buck and a quarter
jill came down with $2.50

Message: 68378
Author: Mike Lauson
Category: For sale
Subject: guitar
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 22:29:52

hey musicians...
i wanna trade a hondo duluxe series
lead guitar for a good acuistic
guitar! seriously!

Message: 68379
Author: $ Jeff Lochansky
Category: News Today
Subject: Mideast
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 22:46:24

From what I understand they air dropped the 82nd in today. They must have
been planning this for a few days, because it takes at least 72 hours to
deploy the 82nd. I think Bush is setting him an ultimatum for the safe
release of americans in Kuwait. If they don't respond I think Bush will
announce tommorow that the 82nd just invaded Kuwait. At least that is my
humble opinion.

Message: 68380
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: love
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 23:39:51

My parody on Rod has nothing to do with my opinion as to 
the situation with the prescence or abscence of love with that
70 year old lady. Don't put words in my mouth.
 
Secondly I disagree with you Melissa. Love is *not* simply an
emotion. Love stirrs the emotion(s) but is not an emotion in itself.
If this were true, love would certainly die a quick death.
Love maybe manifested in an emotional surge.
Love is far too enduring, subtle and loud at the same time. Love 
has been poked at in prose, poetry and pathos.
No one has ever touched really upon its essence or been able to
separate it into a jar and classify it with a label and file it
away. No, emotion it's not this I know.
Love grows stronger as we grow weaker. Nothing can break it
and nothing can measure it. It can't be seen, touched, smelt
or paid for. It can be felt inside........not by any of the senses
we accept as evidence in a purely mathematical or scientific manner.
Nope. Love cannot be proven to exist. It's all hearsay...testimony
by those who know it. Much like Christians who know Jesus in their hearts
and the love he brings them. 
No, I can't prove to you the existance of love or God. It's something
you need to find out for yourself. That's what so special about both.
The love you experience is personally unique. When you accept Christ
its exactly the same thing.             -Mike

Message: 68381
Author: $ Mike Carter
Category: Answer!
Subject: WAR DRUGS HATE ETC
Date: 08/07/90  Time: 23:52:38

It will be difficult to battle in the Middle East. It will just give
these so-called Nato Pact countries an excuse to trash America
for being such a big bully again. Just like Panama.
It will also give the Arabs an excuse to band and form a one-nation
alliance. They'll go to all out war and attack Israel again.
(and again and again for the umpteenth millionth time)
No rest over there. Ever.
 
Nope. I say stay the heck out. Let the gas prices sky rocket.
It'll put pressure on this Nation to find alternate fuel sources
and maybe...just *MAYBE* we'll all grow up and out of our desire
to run the internal combustion engine. It would put the needed
economic forces into action to get some really SERIOUS efforts on
R&D into alternate energies. No Cliff, I really don't give a rodents
glutimus maximus if I have to pay $20.00 a gallon. I'll just learn
to use a bicycle. Things change. It's time for a biggie.
If things get shaken up enough...just MAYBE this country will wake up
enough of its people out of this long slumber of complacency and
drug induced hibernation. Hey, did you ever think...really THINK
about the POSITIVE aspects of seemingly negative influences?
Sometimes this kind of thing can be a blessing in disguise. But NOOOOOOOOO
You bunch have to go wailing about our interests in continued artificially
low fuel prices. Snivel wretch wahhh. I say STAY OUT OF the ARAB states.
Let those buffoons kill each other. Then we can step in.

Message: 68383
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Religion
Subject: Ann/life w/o God
Date: 08/08/90  Time: 00:11:31

Good message Ann.  Yes, life without God has gotta be something interesting,
doesn't it?  But according to JC (John Cummings) you are given a opportunity
to accept of reject Him.  For instance, a person dies and is sent into this
room where eventually you are interviewed.  You are asked at that time if
you accept or reject your creator.  If you answer accept then you are
forwarded to eternal reward.  If you say, "no way" then you go to a place
with a lot of other former earthlings who answered just as you did.

In that place w/o God everyone is given all of eternity to be sorry they mad
the wrong decision.  See?  It is fair, huh?  And so well thought out, I
might add.

Clarence Darrow made a statement in a court of law that in effect said that
the harsher the penalty, the more amount of crimes.  The death penalty does
not stop crime.  And my point is that these parents who are threatening
their children with an eternity of anything are going to be sorry in their
old age because they have hardened their offspring and gave them a dimension
that should not exist.  It is the savage that mentions such insanity to
another.  It is the mental cripple who believes it.   -Rod

P.S.  Thanks Ann for your help.  It is appreciated very much to be sure.

Message: 68384
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: lust
Date: 08/08/90  Time: 00:15:09

Show me a person who does not lust and I'll show you a corpse.

Message: 68385
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gas & War
Date: 08/08/90  Time: 00:20:55

Well, a lot of people have been getting laid off lately due to a military
slow down.  So, Bush and some of his cronies from the CIA decided to have a
little war just to get the economy going again.  Ho, ho.

And about gas.....well the higher the price the sooner will it become
feasible for the electric auto to make its grand debut.  Also the higher
prices will once again cause the gas drinking tanks to go to the junk yard. 

In the short term it will be hard on some people but in the long run it, I
believe is just what the doctor ordered.  I'll bet many people will take
public transporation or car pools to work and use their precious gasoline on
weekends and for special events.

Now if we can only figure out a way to get an all electric airplane in the
air....hmmmmm.