None of the above. Measurement equipment is what it is. I'm not necessarily talking about manufacturing measurement equipment, although it is wise to choose equipment made for longevity, but it's appropriate use for the task assigned to it, and the proper training of the personal who measure with, and who calibrate that equipment. It includes choosing the right measurement equipment of all equipment available that will accomplish the measurement of product required accurately and repetitively.
None of the above. Measurement equipment is what it is. I'm not necessarily talking about manufacturing measurement equipment, although it is wise to choose equipment made for longevity, but it's appropriate use for the task assigned to it, and the proper training of the personal who measure with, and who calibrate that equipment. It includes choosing the right measurement equipment of all equipment available that will accomplish the measurement of product required accurately and repetitively.
Perhaps, but truly, the line composing the circle is just connected points having no dimension, as noted in my initiating post. So the line, itself, even one in a closed arc of a complete circle, is, itself, connected points of no dimension, so, what real "enclosure" in a strict EG realm? Sure, in reality, we can draw circles and squares, and other shapes, but in a srtrict geometric realm, is there such an enclosure?
Re: your #31:
Did you mean by choice of spirit guide that it can be associated with an eclipse? I've never heard that, but, that's true of a lot of things for me. So much to learn! How are spirit guides and eclipses connected? In any event, as I've only ever witnessed a partial eclipse, the frog was already chosen as my guide long before I witnessed the eclipse.
Re: your #31:
Did you mean by choice of spirit guide that it can be associated with an eclipse? I've never heard that, but, that's true of a lot of things for me. So much to learn! How are they connected? In any event, as I've only ever witnessed a partial eclipse, the frog was already chosen as my guide long before I witnessed the eclipse.
Usually, re-thinking of something already offered just complicates what was already simple and essential. As I said to FLRW, the Lord's Prayer, which was, after all, a pattern of prayer offered ["after this manner" was Christ's advice, not necessarily that they be the only words offered in prayer]. The example given: sustenance [pie-hole stuff], forgiveness, righteousness, and acknowledgement of Father's kingdom, power, and glory.. However, I suggest that we would be better off if most or our prayers were of gratitude for sustenance, righteousness, and the conditions of God's kingdom, rather than always asking for this and that.
my seven year old cousin
The text reads as follows: "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." [Matthew 6: 9–13 - KJV]
I see therein no request for specific health, but sustenance [pie-hole stuff], forgiveness, righteousness, and acknowledgement of Father's kingdom, power, and glory. What makes you think your young cousin did not have those blessings? Because he died? Jim Morrison said "No one here gets out alive." He was correct. - it's only a matter of age when the getting happens, and that is usually not our call. We often blame God for that, else, many more people would not believe in him at all, and blame is a lousy reason to believe.
.
Euclidean geometry [EG] proposes a circle to be a plane; i.e., of zero thickness, since the same geometry also says of a point that it is of no dimension, i.e., of zero length or width. That geometry also declares three separate conditional extensions of a "line" as a general construct. An EG line extends straight tor infinity in two directions of length from an assumed center point. A "ray" has a beginning at a point and extends in a single direction to infinity. A "segment" os a portion of eider a line or a ray, limited in length by being of defined length of some measurement standard.
By EG, a radius does not exist unless a fixed point of a ray extends in any direction, and is then rotated by any defined number of degrees of less than 360º, creating an arc.
If the arc is extended the full 360º, a circle is created.
So, the question becomes: can the radius extend from the beginning center point to infinity, thus creating an arc of any number of degrees for 1 to 360º, thus, at the max number of degrees, an infinite circle?
Anyone?
https://www.foodreference.com/html/fnutmeat.html#google_vignette
"nut meat" is a common vernacular.
No, nothing of your commentary is true of resurrection. Jesus spent 40 days on Earth as a resurrected being, and the biblical record indicates his rising into heaven, promising his return. What mistakes did Jesus commit, since you make the claim. Non-belief is not evidence of lack of biblical teaching.
You mis-read most of what I've said in this string, and let's just agree that we're on opposing sides of this issue, and that, likely, neither of us is going to budge from those positions.
But, insisting that God is a scarecrow, or the screaming blue spaghetti monster, or whatever, maligns what we are. As Yoda once said: "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."
I've already told you the means to experience justice [in this instance, that is synonymous with evidence].
Did I say climstologfists are bozos? No, that was yours, my friend. I said theirs is a 200 year-old science compared to physicsists and mathematitians and chemists, et al; thousands of years of experience. And I did not say their equipment was "equipment they threw together." That was yours, too.
I said by my questions in the initial post of this string that they ignore whether the equipment they use is adequate to the tasks they put it to, and that said equipment must be 10x the accuracy of the tasks they put it to, and that they train the operators who measure adequately, and that they calibrate that equipment with proper technique and training, and, finally, that they verify said training to assure it was successfully taught ands learned. Most industries fail act one or more, usually more, of these proper measuring equipment handling needs. I am not maligning the equipment; I malign the processes employed to use it. I've spent a 45-year career observing, correcting, and teaching these principles in 30 countries.
Why do we need to pay Musk and Gates? I can, within 30 seconds, convert my energy sources to provide for my home's environment completely off the grid and survive with my family for 4-5 years, including food and water, and I haven't paid either one a dime.
I do. Is that a problem?
Your questions, by the numbers, in your post #3
climate change is studied globally right?
So all studies are declared valid just because? Do we toss credibility out the window? WHO, and BY WHAT CREDENTIALS are studies made?
Do these factors no longest matter? You do realize that NOAA is an agent with the U.S. Department of Commerce? What's an alleged "scientific" organization doing couched in a money-changing outfit? Who's the ex-spert here? Cli-Sci is a bogus cloud-cleaning outfit that just throws money at the clouds. To do WHAT?
All your issues in your post #17 to Savant are strawmen.
Need some vision aid?
Cli-Sci [my moniker for Climate "Science"] came late in the game to class, only some 200 years ago, when the seniors in class have been here for thousands of years. What makes Cli=Sci [I put "sciemce' in quotes for a reason I'll shortly explain] think it ranks among the senior class?
I asked some questions a while ago that were never answered. I'll ask again. The criticality is simply this: science depends on careful, accurate, repeatable data collection. Anybody disagree with that?
Fine, let's proceed: Data depends on measurement, and that depends on the right tools for the job. The care and keeping of those tools is the critical matter here, and the subject of my questions. They are;
How many measurement stations are there?
Are they all using the same measurement equipment for the same measurement need?
Is the equipment used the optimum equipment for the measurements required?
Is all measurement equipment used of an accuracy that is 10 times the required tolerance specified to assure data is valid within specified tolerances?
How accurate and timely are all their calibrations performed and recorded on all specified measurement equipment [including just a straight edge ruler]?
Are those who conduct the measurements all properly trained in the function of the measurement equipment used?
Are all who perform calibration of measurement equipment also adequately trained as above?
Is the training verified as effective with follow up by the trainers?
Do the measurement operators all use the same measurement process technique?
Unless all these questions can be answered correctly and accurately, the data collected is garbage, and I don't believe Cli-Sci is yet up to the task, for instance, of just measurement of sea level temperature around the world ay multiple stations, let alone any other more complicated measurement.
What tanked economy when my gold bullion is worth more than 9X the value it was when I started buying it in the late 70s? My diver bullion has seen nearly an 11% increase, and I have more of it. I do not depend on any president to assure my economy is being managed correctly. I'm not a gov't suck-up, thinking it has all the answers when it's the cause of most of the problems, thinking only it has answers? That's pure Marxism. No thanks.
What confidence have I in ChatGPT when Artificial Intelligence starts with "artificial?" And who was the clown who named it that?
What dos it take to become a certified psychologist? A sofa, a pad of paper, a pencil, and an ability to repeat, "Uh-huh" multiple times in one-hour increments, and have the audacity to charge for that "expertise." About the same for a professional Cli-Sci.
You mean, do I meditate listening to frog songs at night? Actually, I often play a track of frogs at night to go to sleep, but my real preference for that is eating pistachios. I read earlier this year that pistachios are very high in melatonin, and that works better than any sleep aid I've ever used. I do not sleep well; I'm a night owl since childhood.
Wow, sorry. You don't know me. Have to know, my replies like that are just my way of friendly banter. You would know if you really pushed my buttons. I have a short fuse, but my retort above was meant in jest, but, mostly true. I know most use music to meditate, and I don't disagree.
Friends, again?
Have you ever done...
Uhhh.... no. I grew up in L.A., [actually, Brentwood] four miles from the beach, in a neighborhood full of Hollowood [it's not Holly...], sooo, I know when I'm being conned by that kind of flash.
Nope, I just need to close my eyes and I can just stop the nonsense coming through the walls and doors. ohh, I like music, but I prefer silence when I want to meditate - less interference.
Most frog species have very thin, permeable skin, which makes them suseptible to environmental anomolies. Several species are on the endangered species list. They can also breathe underwater, not by typical respiration as all animals do, but by a separate process - don't remember what it's called, but it absorbs dissolved O2 in the water and releases CO2.
Not a total, but close enough - a very thin annular near Moab in Canyonlands Natl Park in So. Utah in fall of 2023
We consider that, as humans, we have advantage over all the creatures of Earth, and that it is we who must pull them along ion the long ordeal of Earth life to achieve mastery at some point in our distant future.
I think the Native Americans had the right idea about having"spirit guides" to help human growth, because those other creatures live the full measure of their creatrin, while we... well, we stumble on the "full-measure" stuff.
All that may be true, for now. There are limitations. But, on the other hand, while the frog, and virtually all other creatures, just by this mortal existence, live the full measure of their creation now, and will inherit more hereafter, we humans do not yet know how to live the full measure of our creation and have a long way to go before we do. So, there's more to life than intellect, alone. That is why other creatures, now, can be spirit guides to man.
With respect to all things mortal, yes, but, then, in immortality, real inheritance begins...
Well, since an incel is acronymic for involuntary celibate, there is no proper definition, but its intended meaning appears to have naught to do with any political discussion, and is certainly not necessarily conducive to sex in any event.
"Where's your data to prove the claims?
I own a volume, "Increase in Heritbility of IQ, and it cites some 340 research studies. A review of those varied studies were, themselves, written by men and women. The analysis of their contributions revealed that of the 340 contributors, 68.4% were men; 31.45% we're women. The obvious is that a healthy percentage of women are intelligent, but that more men appear to involve themselves in the debate of I.Q. results, leading one to believe more men are involved in developing the tests than women. I suggest that has a bearding on what both of you conclude.
