Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (189065)	6/11/2006 7:30:31 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 281500

"Accidental is a pretty good probability." Better clarify that, too. We, the species, quite possibly are here by accident. We, as individual souls, choose to be here. When we learn the lessons we are supposed to, we can move on. This is my last go-round on this mudball. A once delightful place is on its way to very bad things, so I'm headed out to play in the big universe. There's lots of places to spend a few dozen lifetimes. I might well come back for a visit in 100,000 years. Might even stay, if things are looking better. Namaste

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (189065)	6/11/2006 7:38:42 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

That article you quoted was written in 2002 going by the copywrite. By way of comparison, Einstiens theory on the photoelectric effect was written in 1905. He only recieved the Nobel prize in 1921, and even in 1922 Bohr, being a bore, was still disputing it.. Even after experiments showed that Einstein's equations for the photoelectric effect were accurate, his explanation was not universally accepted. Niels Bohr, in his 1922 Nobel address, refused to accept Einstein's theory. Bohr stated, "The hypothesis of light-quanta is not able to throw light on the nature of radiation". en.wikipedia.org So I am "quite right" -g- It's only now the theory that smoking causes cancer is generally accepted by the scientific community (and the tobacco companies). Back in 1910 there were probably a few renagade trouble maker students who thought Einstien was quite the new scientist, but it was hardly the accepted stuff taught in university or accepted by the public at large. "Time dilation? that won't make the steam engines run faster, heh heh". You assertions look OK though. -g-