[Profpat]

Originally Posted by sillysally Somebody please prove there is a God for the sake of our children.

Hi Sally;

If we could prove it do you think it would make a difference?

I think the Adam and Eve; Cain and Abel metaphors in the Bible says otherwise.

Besides there is something about the present esoteric nature of God whch keeps us mortals thinking.

Is He kind of a pissed off God, like in the old testament? A God of Abraham and Moses. Or is He a loving God, like in the new testament. A God of Jesus

Probably both, a God to fear and a God to love. Hey maybe we were created in his image and likeness.

Sorry RP for being totally off your topic.

Best to all,

Pat

P.S. Are you talking about RP's book Sally? If so than I would take it both as a compliment and as criticism RP.

[sillysally]

Originally Posted by Profpat P.S. Are you talking about RP's book Sally? If so than I would take it both as a compliment and as criticism RP.

They use pseudo names, so they are fakes whoever they are.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by sillysally http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Nouveau-Tech...QQcmdZViewItem Here's one but it has someone else's name on it if you buy it. I am no longer a satisfied customer.

_______________________________

The 'Nouveau Tech Secret Society', by Mark Hamilton, is not my book.
That is neither my title, nor my name.

My book (ten internationally distributed and sold out small press editions of a seriatim of printings) is entitled 'Gravity is the 4th Dimension', formerly entitled, 'The New Gravity' ('Extraterrestrial Physics 101'). First published in essay format (in four languages) in Naples, Italy, 1959.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie (Work in progress, based on 627 page 1979 edition.)

Regards,
- RP

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Sally; If we could prove it do you think it would make a difference? I think the Adam and Eve; Cain and Abel metaphors in the Bible says otherwise. Besides there is something about the present esoteric nature of God whch keeps us mortals thinking. Is He kind of a pissed off God, like in the old testament? A God of Abraham and Moses. Or is He a loving God, like in the new testament. A God of Jesus Probably both, a God to fear and a God to love. Hey maybe we were created in his image and likeness. Sorry RP for being totally off your topic. Best to all, Pat P.S. Are you talking about RP's book Sally? If so than I would take it both as a compliment and as criticism RP.

______________________

Well spoken, Prof.
(What we have here, is a failure to communicate...)

Warm regards, and, thank you very much.
- RP

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff __________________________________________________ _______________ Robert has entitled this select section of Theory of everything, 'Universe Expansion', that's what my book is about and that's what it's doing here - with related subjects - in consecutive parcels of 10,000 characters each. _____________________________

Would it not make more sense for you to make your own website that is actually set out in a user friendly way, and link to this, instead of flood a forum with many posts on the same thing?

Wikepedia is the free encyclopedia and allows copying and transfer, unlike most copyrighted material in google. ______________________________

My point is that Wikipedia cannot be trusted. I wish you'd actually provide links that can be followed up, and that are trusted!

Dark Matter (which - like black holes - has yet to be directly observed or proven) is apparently the source of Dark Energy. Dark Energy is evidently the projection of radiation and electromagnetic energy from Dark Matter. Just as matter is observed by way of the vehicular carrier of its electromagnetic projections, so too, Dark Energy is the carrier of Dark Matter, which, like conventional matter, is expanding at a dramatically slower rate than the electromagnetism it generates - hence, we observe the energy projection (Dark Energy) before we observe the source - Dark Matter coordinate system - from which it originates. In accordance with my interpretation, the Dark Energy signals reach us long before the signals of its source.

I should note for any lurkers reading this, that this is not the standard view at the moment. Since dark matter and dark energy do two completely different things, there is no need for us to presume that they are related. There has been speculation that the darks are one and the same, but at the moment this remains speculation. Besides, as discussed here there is a problem with this idea: it suggests that we live at a special time in the universe's history where the energy density of dark matter and dark energy are equal.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by neutralino Would it not make more sense for you to make your own website that is actually set out in a user friendly way, and link to this, instead of flood a forum with many posts on the same thing? My point is that Wikipedia cannot be trusted. I wish you'd actually provide links that can be followed up, and that are trusted! I should note for any lurkers reading this, that this is not the standard view at the moment. Since dark matter and dark energy do two completely different things, there is no need for us to presume that they are related. There has been speculation that the darks are one and the same, but at the moment this remains speculation. Besides, as discussed here there is a problem with this idea: it suggests that we live at a special time in the universe's history where the energy density of dark matter and dark energy are equal.

_______________________________

Perhaps you, SillySally - and your advocates - should present your lamentations to Robert and his administrators (and/or a 'peer review science publication').

They are all accessible; on this medium, as well as private messaging.

Post Script:
Ostensibly, the readers of this thread are not 'lurkers', they are participants in Robert's assigned project.

Regards,
- RP

[sillysally]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie (Work in progress, based on 627 page 1979 edition.) Regards, - RP

Ok, thanks for clearing that up, those were your reviews. I apologize, it's those quotes from other people that throw me off that doesn't seem original. But it's based on your origination, got it. Maybe I should avoid reading neutralino's posts instead, do you agree with that?

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff _______________________________ Perhaps you, SillySally - and your advocates - should present your lamentations to Robert and his administrators (and/or a 'peer review science publication').

You really don't like someone having a different view to your own, do you? You put forward your point of view, and I put forward mine. You seem to only really want people posting here telling you that they agree with you whole-heartedly. I have no problem with you posting your theory for all to read, however I'm not sure that 30 threads on one topic is a good show of etiquette.

Post Script: Ostensibly, the readers of this thread are not 'lurkers', they are participants in Robert's assigned project. Regards, - RP

I used the term "lurker" to mean someone who was reading this thread and not posting in in. I didn't mean it to cause any offence to anyone!

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by neutralino You really don't like someone having a different view to your own, do you? You put forward your point of view, and I put forward mine. You seem to only really want people posting here telling you that they agree with you whole-heartedly. I have no problem with you posting your theory for all to read, however I'm not sure that 30 threads on one topic is a good show of etiquette. I used the term "lurker" to mean someone who was reading this thread and not posting in in. I didn't mean it to cause any offence to anyone!

___________________________

Everyone here is reading you fiyev by fiyev, neutralino. Perfectly clear.

Only speculation, but it's unlikely Robert and his acolytes find any inappropriate grounds for *etiquette here. On the other hand, Sally and yourself do seem to have issues, however irrelevant to this (hijacked) thread.

Although you might take that poignantly germane *issue up with Emily Post or Amy Vanderbilt (or Sally?).
(On another network?)

Regards,
- RP

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Everyone here is reading you fiyev by fiyev, neutralino. Perfectly clear. Only speculation, but it's unlikely Robert and his acolytes find any inappropriate grounds for *etiquette here. On the other hand, Sally and yourself do seem to have issues, however irrelevant to this (hijacked) thread.

Fine, I'll keep my mouth shut, then. I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks 30 threads in one forum on the exact same topic is a show of bad etiquette, though. Furthermore, if you believe one entering a thread and pointing out the parts of your post (from Wikipedia) that are speculation to be hijacking, then you are using an incorrect meaning of the word.

Since you have, do, and probably always will refuse to answer anything that questions your theory, there is no point in continuing this discussion. Thus I will not answer any more of your posts in this thread.