<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Why am I a duck?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://whyamiaduck.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://whyamiaduck.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>Answers to difficult spiritual questions</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:59:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on #8  Does evolution prove God doesn&#8217;t exist? by Tom Whitney</title>
		<link>http://whyamiaduck.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/8-does-evolution-prove-god-doesnt-exist/#comment-182</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Whitney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:59:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whyamiaduck.wordpress.com/?p=256#comment-182</guid>
		<description>viewfromreality-

Thanks for the response and welcome to the blog!

Sagan&#039;s wisdom is absolute. Because we have no evidence for the existence of something absolutely, without exception, does not mean it does not exist. Science is a living history of this wisdom.

Recognizing absolutes and accepting them as true is part of science and the spiritual journey. Otherwise we create endless relativistic errors—like the Church saying &quot;God is unconditionally loving (an absolute)...but he also burns people in hell.&quot; The error occurs when we amend absolute wisdom according to our relativistic desires.

Regarding probability, if I had a collection of one billion marbles, and I did a thorough investigation of one marble, determining it to be germ-free, would it then be rational to assume there are no germs on the other 999,999,999 marbles? 

Unwarranted extrapolation does not make for good science. 

If God is formless love—as the mystics have said for millennia—doing a physical search (nature-based) that ignores love will never yield an accurate data set on which to construct a probability of existence. A man living on a fantasy island can thoroughly pull data from his environment as long as he wants and come up with exactly the probabilities he wishes in order to block out the deeper reality he is choosing to ignore. 

Four boys who build a fort and post a &quot;No girls allowed&quot; sign can do surveys inside their fort from now until the day they die, and convince themselves that indeed, girls do not exist.

As Sam Harris points out, our body is one massive environmental filtration system. Physics talks about &quot;bubbles of reality&quot; screening and filtering our entire universe. Until science is willing to probe beyond the walls of their fort, their probabilities will always be based on a limited data set.

A spam filter set to the filtration criteria of science–physically measurable, quantifiable data—would block out love, peace, freedom, security and the other inner experiences humans desire most from life. Jesus said, &quot;The kingdom is within you.&quot; Science that is unwilling to probe that &quot;inner kingdom&quot; can build probability tables until the end of time and find only what it seeks to reinforce in its own mind.

tw</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>viewfromreality-</p>
<p>Thanks for the response and welcome to the blog!</p>
<p>Sagan&#8217;s wisdom is absolute. Because we have no evidence for the existence of something absolutely, without exception, does not mean it does not exist. Science is a living history of this wisdom.</p>
<p>Recognizing absolutes and accepting them as true is part of science and the spiritual journey. Otherwise we create endless relativistic errors—like the Church saying &#8220;God is unconditionally loving (an absolute)&#8230;but he also burns people in hell.&#8221; The error occurs when we amend absolute wisdom according to our relativistic desires.</p>
<p>Regarding probability, if I had a collection of one billion marbles, and I did a thorough investigation of one marble, determining it to be germ-free, would it then be rational to assume there are no germs on the other 999,999,999 marbles? </p>
<p>Unwarranted extrapolation does not make for good science. </p>
<p>If God is formless love—as the mystics have said for millennia—doing a physical search (nature-based) that ignores love will never yield an accurate data set on which to construct a probability of existence. A man living on a fantasy island can thoroughly pull data from his environment as long as he wants and come up with exactly the probabilities he wishes in order to block out the deeper reality he is choosing to ignore. </p>
<p>Four boys who build a fort and post a &#8220;No girls allowed&#8221; sign can do surveys inside their fort from now until the day they die, and convince themselves that indeed, girls do not exist.</p>
<p>As Sam Harris points out, our body is one massive environmental filtration system. Physics talks about &#8220;bubbles of reality&#8221; screening and filtering our entire universe. Until science is willing to probe beyond the walls of their fort, their probabilities will always be based on a limited data set.</p>
<p>A spam filter set to the filtration criteria of science–physically measurable, quantifiable data—would block out love, peace, freedom, security and the other inner experiences humans desire most from life. Jesus said, &#8220;The kingdom is within you.&#8221; Science that is unwilling to probe that &#8220;inner kingdom&#8221; can build probability tables until the end of time and find only what it seeks to reinforce in its own mind.</p>
<p>tw</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on #2  If God is infinite, wouldn&#8217;t He be inside hell? by Joe</title>
		<link>http://whyamiaduck.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/2-if-god-is-infinite-wouldnt-he-be-inside-hell/#comment-181</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whyamiaduck.wordpress.com/?p=54#comment-181</guid>
		<description>Disgraceful</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Disgraceful</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on #8  Does evolution prove God doesn&#8217;t exist? by viewfromreality</title>
		<link>http://whyamiaduck.wordpress.com/2008/09/07/8-does-evolution-prove-god-doesnt-exist/#comment-180</link>
		<dc:creator>viewfromreality</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2009 07:55:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whyamiaduck.wordpress.com/?p=256#comment-180</guid>
		<description>While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in the strict sense, after a thorough search you can, based on probability, assume something does not exist.

With evolution, it&#039;s yet another unknown that has now a naturalistic explanation that marginalises God that bit further. The absence of evidence of God, given our extensive look at nature, is a good platform to rule out the existence of God. We would do this with any other claim, as Bertrand Russell pointed out with his Teapot argument.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in the strict sense, after a thorough search you can, based on probability, assume something does not exist.</p>
<p>With evolution, it&#8217;s yet another unknown that has now a naturalistic explanation that marginalises God that bit further. The absence of evidence of God, given our extensive look at nature, is a good platform to rule out the existence of God. We would do this with any other claim, as Bertrand Russell pointed out with his Teapot argument.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on #24  How did Jesus walk on water? Part 5: It ain&#8217;t about energy by Joe Nahhas</title>
		<link>http://whyamiaduck.wordpress.com/2008/09/28/24-how-did-jesus-walk-on-water-part-5-secrets-of-the-master/#comment-179</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe Nahhas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:45:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whyamiaduck.wordpress.com/?p=806#comment-179</guid>
		<description>Einstein&#039;s Nemesis: DI Her Eclipsing Binary Stars Solution
The problem that the 100,000 PHD Physicists could not solve  

This is the solution to the &quot;Quarter of a century&quot; Smithsonian-NASA Posted motion puzzle that Einstein and the 100,000 space-time physicists including 109 years of Nobel prize winner physics and physicists and 400 years of astronomy and Astrophysicists could not solve and solved here and dedicated to Drs Edward Guinan and Frank Maloney      
Of Villanova University Pennsylvania who posted this motion puzzle and started the search collections of stars with motion that can not be explained by any published physics   
For 350 years Physicists Astrophysicists and Mathematicians and all others including Newton and Kepler themselves missed the time-dependent Newton&#039;s equation and time dependent Kepler&#039;s equation that accounts for Quantum - relativistic effects and it explains these effects as visual effects. Here it is  

Universal- Mechanics

All there is in the Universe is objects of mass m moving in space (x, y, z) at a location 
r = r (x, y, z). The state of any object in the Universe can be expressed as the product 

S = m r; State = mass x location

P = d S/d t = m (d r/dt) + (dm/dt) r = Total moment 

  = change of location + change of mass

  = m v + m&#039; r; v = velocity = d r/d t; m&#039; = mass change rate

F = d P/d t = d²S/dt² = Force = m (d²r/dt²) +2(dm/d t) (d r/d t) + (d²m/dt²) r

   = m γ + 2m&#039;v +m&quot;r; γ = acceleration; m&#039;&#039; = mass acceleration rate

In polar coordinates system

r = r r(1) ;v = r&#039; r(1)  + r θ&#039; θ(1) ; γ = (r&quot; - rθ&#039;²)r(1) + (2r&#039;θ&#039; + rθ&quot;)θ(1)

F = m[(r&quot;-rθ&#039;²)r(1) + (2r&#039;θ&#039; + rθ&quot;)θ(1)] + 2m&#039;[r&#039;r(1) + rθ&#039;θ(1)] + (m&quot;r) r(1)
  
F = [d²(m r)/dt² - (m r)θ&#039;²]r(1) + (1/mr)[d(m²r²θ&#039;)/d t]θ(1) = [-GmM/r²]r(1)

d² (m r)/dt² - (m r) θ&#039;² = -GmM/r²; d (m²r²θ&#039;)/d t = 0

Let m =constant: M=constant

d²r/dt² -  r θ&#039;²=-GM/r²  ------ I

 d(r²θ&#039;)/d t = 0   -----------------II
r²θ&#039;=h = constant -------------- II     
                                                 r = 1/u; r&#039; = -u&#039;/u² = - r²u&#039; = - r²θ&#039;(d u/d θ) = -h (d u/d θ)                                 
d (r²θ&#039;)/d t = 2rr&#039;θ&#039; + r²θ&quot; = 0        r&quot; = - h d/d t (du/d θ) = - h θ&#039;(d²u/d θ²) = - (h²/r²)(d²u/dθ²)
                                                                  [- (h²/r²) (d²u/dθ²)] - r [(h/r²)²] = -GM/r²              
2(r&#039;/r) = - (θ&quot;/θ&#039;) = 2[λ + ỉ ω (t)]                              - h²u² (d²u/dθ²) - h²u³ = -GMu²
                                                                                                d²u/dθ² + u = GM/h²             
 r(θ, t) = r (θ, 0) Exp [λ + ỉ ω (t)]    u(θ,0) = GM/h² + Acosθ; r (θ, 0) = 1/(GM/h² + Acosθ)        
                                                         r ( θ, 0) = h²/GM/[1 + (Ah²/Gm)cosθ]      
r(θ,0) = a(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)               ; h²/GM = a(1-ε²); ε = Ah²/GM                

 r(0,t)= Exp[λ(r) + ỉ ω (r)]t; Exp = Exponential

r = r(θ , t)=r(θ,0)r(0,t)=[a(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)]{Exp[λ(r) + ì ω(r)]t} Nahhas&#039; Solution

If λ(r) ≈ 0; then:    

r (θ, t) = [(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)]{Exp[ỉ ω(r)t]

θ&#039;(r,  t) = θ&#039;[r(θ,0), 0]  Exp{-2ỉ[ω(r)t]} 

h = 2π a b/T; b=a√ (1-ε²); a = mean distance value; ε = eccentricity
h = 2πa²√ (1-ε²); r (0, 0) = a (1-ε)

θ&#039; (0,0) = h/r²(0,0) =  2π[√(1-ε²)]/T(1-ε)²   
θ&#039; (0,t) = θ&#039;(0,0)Exp(-2ỉwt)={2π[√(1-ε²)]/T(1-ε)²} Exp (-2iwt)
 
θ&#039;(0,t) = θ&#039;(0,0) [cosine 2(wt) - ỉ sine 2(wt)] = θ&#039;(0,0) [1- 2sine² (wt) - ỉ sin 2(wt)] 
θ&#039;(0,t) = θ&#039;(0,t)(x) + θ&#039;(0,t)(y); θ&#039;(0,t)(x) = θ&#039;(0,0)[ 1- 2sine² (wt)]  
θ&#039;(0,t)(x) – θ&#039;(0,0) = - 2θ&#039;(0,0)sine²(wt) = - 2θ&#039;(0,0)(v/c)²  v/c=sine wt; c=light speed

Δ θ&#039; = [θ&#039;(0, t) - θ&#039;(0, 0)] = -4π {[√ (1-ε) ²]/T (1-ε) ²} (v/c) ²} radians/second
{(180/π=degrees) x (36526=century) 

Δ θ&#039; = [-720x36526/ T (days)] {[√ (1-ε) ²]/ (1-ε) ²}(v/c) = 1.04°/century

This is the T-Rex equation that is going to demolished Einstein&#039;s space-jail of time
  
The circumference of an ellipse: 2πa (1 - ε²/4 + 3/16(ε²)²---) ≈ 2πa (1-ε²/4); R =a (1-ε²/4)
 v (m) = √ [GM²/ (m + M) a (1-ε²/4)] ≈ √ [GM/a (1-ε²/4)]; m&lt;&lt;M; Solar system    

 v = v (center of mass); v is the sum of orbital/rotational velocities = v(cm) for DI Her
Let m = mass of primary; M = mass of secondary

v (m) = primary speed; v(M) = secondary speed = √[Gm²/(m+M)a(1-ε²/4)]
v (cm) = [m v(m) + M v(M)]/(m + M)   All rights reserved. joenahhas1958@yahoo.com</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Einstein&#8217;s Nemesis: DI Her Eclipsing Binary Stars Solution<br />
The problem that the 100,000 PHD Physicists could not solve  </p>
<p>This is the solution to the &#8220;Quarter of a century&#8221; Smithsonian-NASA Posted motion puzzle that Einstein and the 100,000 space-time physicists including 109 years of Nobel prize winner physics and physicists and 400 years of astronomy and Astrophysicists could not solve and solved here and dedicated to Drs Edward Guinan and Frank Maloney<br />
Of Villanova University Pennsylvania who posted this motion puzzle and started the search collections of stars with motion that can not be explained by any published physics<br />
For 350 years Physicists Astrophysicists and Mathematicians and all others including Newton and Kepler themselves missed the time-dependent Newton&#8217;s equation and time dependent Kepler&#8217;s equation that accounts for Quantum &#8211; relativistic effects and it explains these effects as visual effects. Here it is  </p>
<p>Universal- Mechanics</p>
<p>All there is in the Universe is objects of mass m moving in space (x, y, z) at a location<br />
r = r (x, y, z). The state of any object in the Universe can be expressed as the product </p>
<p>S = m r; State = mass x location</p>
<p>P = d S/d t = m (d r/dt) + (dm/dt) r = Total moment </p>
<p>  = change of location + change of mass</p>
<p>  = m v + m&#8217; r; v = velocity = d r/d t; m&#8217; = mass change rate</p>
<p>F = d P/d t = d²S/dt² = Force = m (d²r/dt²) +2(dm/d t) (d r/d t) + (d²m/dt²) r</p>
<p>   = m γ + 2m&#8217;v +m&#8221;r; γ = acceleration; m&#8221; = mass acceleration rate</p>
<p>In polar coordinates system</p>
<p>r = r r(1) ;v = r&#8217; r(1)  + r θ&#8217; θ(1) ; γ = (r&#8221; &#8211; rθ&#8217;²)r(1) + (2r&#8217;θ&#8217; + rθ&#8221;)θ(1)</p>
<p>F = m[(r"-rθ'²)r(1) + (2r'θ' + rθ")θ(1)] + 2m&#8217;[r'r(1) + rθ'θ(1)] + (m&#8221;r) r(1)</p>
<p>F = [d²(m r)/dt² - (m r)θ'²]r(1) + (1/mr)[d(m²r²θ')/d t]θ(1) = [-GmM/r²]r(1)</p>
<p>d² (m r)/dt² &#8211; (m r) θ&#8217;² = -GmM/r²; d (m²r²θ&#8217;)/d t = 0</p>
<p>Let m =constant: M=constant</p>
<p>d²r/dt² &#8211;  r θ&#8217;²=-GM/r²  &#8212;&#8212; I</p>
<p> d(r²θ&#8217;)/d t = 0   &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;II<br />
r²θ&#8217;=h = constant &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211; II<br />
                                                 r = 1/u; r&#8217; = -u&#8217;/u² = &#8211; r²u&#8217; = &#8211; r²θ&#8217;(d u/d θ) = -h (d u/d θ)<br />
d (r²θ&#8217;)/d t = 2rr&#8217;θ&#8217; + r²θ&#8221; = 0        r&#8221; = &#8211; h d/d t (du/d θ) = &#8211; h θ&#8217;(d²u/d θ²) = &#8211; (h²/r²)(d²u/dθ²)<br />
                                                                  [- (h²/r²) (d²u/dθ²)] &#8211; r [(h/r²)²] = -GM/r²<br />
2(r&#8217;/r) = &#8211; (θ&#8221;/θ&#8217;) = 2[λ + ỉ ω (t)]                              &#8211; h²u² (d²u/dθ²) &#8211; h²u³ = -GMu²<br />
                                                                                                d²u/dθ² + u = GM/h²<br />
 r(θ, t) = r (θ, 0) Exp [λ + ỉ ω (t)]    u(θ,0) = GM/h² + Acosθ; r (θ, 0) = 1/(GM/h² + Acosθ)<br />
                                                         r ( θ, 0) = h²/GM/[1 + (Ah²/Gm)cosθ]<br />
r(θ,0) = a(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)               ; h²/GM = a(1-ε²); ε = Ah²/GM                </p>
<p> r(0,t)= Exp[λ(r) + ỉ ω (r)]t; Exp = Exponential</p>
<p>r = r(θ , t)=r(θ,0)r(0,t)=[a(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)]{Exp[λ(r) + ì ω(r)]t} Nahhas&#8217; Solution</p>
<p>If λ(r) ≈ 0; then:    </p>
<p>r (θ, t) = [(1-ε²)/(1+εcosθ)]{Exp[ỉ ω(r)t]</p>
<p>θ&#8217;(r,  t) = θ&#8217;[r(θ,0), 0]  Exp{-2ỉ[ω(r)t]} </p>
<p>h = 2π a b/T; b=a√ (1-ε²); a = mean distance value; ε = eccentricity<br />
h = 2πa²√ (1-ε²); r (0, 0) = a (1-ε)</p>
<p>θ&#8217; (0,0) = h/r²(0,0) =  2π[√(1-ε²)]/T(1-ε)²<br />
θ&#8217; (0,t) = θ&#8217;(0,0)Exp(-2ỉwt)={2π[√(1-ε²)]/T(1-ε)²} Exp (-2iwt)</p>
<p>θ&#8217;(0,t) = θ&#8217;(0,0) [cosine 2(wt) - ỉ sine 2(wt)] = θ&#8217;(0,0) [1- 2sine² (wt) - ỉ sin 2(wt)]<br />
θ&#8217;(0,t) = θ&#8217;(0,t)(x) + θ&#8217;(0,t)(y); θ&#8217;(0,t)(x) = θ&#8217;(0,0)[ 1- 2sine² (wt)]<br />
θ&#8217;(0,t)(x) – θ&#8217;(0,0) = &#8211; 2θ&#8217;(0,0)sine²(wt) = &#8211; 2θ&#8217;(0,0)(v/c)²  v/c=sine wt; c=light speed</p>
<p>Δ θ&#8217; = [θ'(0, t) - θ'(0, 0)] = -4π {[√ (1-ε) ²]/T (1-ε) ²} (v/c) ²} radians/second<br />
{(180/π=degrees) x (36526=century) </p>
<p>Δ θ&#8217; = [-720x36526/ T (days)] {[√ (1-ε) ²]/ (1-ε) ²}(v/c) = 1.04°/century</p>
<p>This is the T-Rex equation that is going to demolished Einstein&#8217;s space-jail of time</p>
<p>The circumference of an ellipse: 2πa (1 &#8211; ε²/4 + 3/16(ε²)²&#8212;) ≈ 2πa (1-ε²/4); R =a (1-ε²/4)<br />
 v (m) = √ [GM²/ (m + M) a (1-ε²/4)] ≈ √ [GM/a (1-ε²/4)]; m&lt;&lt;M; Solar system    </p>
<p> v = v (center of mass); v is the sum of orbital/rotational velocities = v(cm) for DI Her<br />
Let m = mass of primary; M = mass of secondary</p>
<p>v (m) = primary speed; v(M) = secondary speed = √[Gm²/(m+M)a(1-ε²/4)]<br />
v (cm) = [m v(m) + M v(M)]/(m + M)   All rights reserved. <a href="mailto:joenahhas1958@yahoo.com">joenahhas1958@yahoo.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on #12 What&#8217;s the unified field theory really about? Part 1 by Jim Tate</title>
		<link>http://whyamiaduck.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/13-whats-the-unified-field-theory-really-about-part-1/#comment-172</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Tate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:23:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whyamiaduck.wordpress.com/?p=408#comment-172</guid>
		<description>O.K. Tom, time for you to write a book.  

Thank you for all the Love and effort that goes into your writings.

The scientific community has painted itself into a corner of a room within an infinite home, where they are helping us all by showing us God from their limited perspective.  

Math, language, etc., can only point to Truth, much like a finger points to an object within a subjective experience.  Only Truth by its very essence is that in which we are attempting to describe.

The energy of the Creator is the unifying field (intelligent and harmonious wave, particle, light, LOVE), and if we humans are one day able to detect this energy and merge with it, it will then and only then be truly known and understood.  

Merry Christmas</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>O.K. Tom, time for you to write a book.  </p>
<p>Thank you for all the Love and effort that goes into your writings.</p>
<p>The scientific community has painted itself into a corner of a room within an infinite home, where they are helping us all by showing us God from their limited perspective.  </p>
<p>Math, language, etc., can only point to Truth, much like a finger points to an object within a subjective experience.  Only Truth by its very essence is that in which we are attempting to describe.</p>
<p>The energy of the Creator is the unifying field (intelligent and harmonious wave, particle, light, LOVE), and if we humans are one day able to detect this energy and merge with it, it will then and only then be truly known and understood.  </p>
<p>Merry Christmas</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
