UNIVERSE'S INTELLIGENT DESIGN via EVOLUTION

[fripro]

And iNow's prediction comes pathetically true...

 

Fripro - a forum is for YOU to make arguments and for YOU to supply evidence. You are just a spammer when you provide links without engaging in discussion and debate - honest engagement.

 

As if you don't already know this...

 

...I never supplied any links unless it was to a direct quote from a scientist or organization that is direct reference to the argument. I have never placed my own site, link or e mail. Others have done this, by copying my references and placing them on the forum to use in an argument against me.[/i] I also can see why you would mention this. I am also suprised to see these quotations as it is hard to tell my work from whom ever copies and paste it on the forumn--please. Thank you for puting me wise to this questionable action on the forum.FRIPRO

[mooeypoo]

...I never supplied any links unless it was to a direct quote from a scientist or organization that is direct reference to the argument.

No, you didn't, you supplied random links defining random terms you raised.

None was - in any way, shape or form - any CLOSE to even remotely attempting to prove what you are saying..

 

And you're doing it now, by *again* avoiding proof (because you obviously don't have it, I'm on to you) and throwing off the argument on another insane tangent.

 

You have no proofs, just claims. That's not science, it's quackery, but beyond that, it's extremely unfair preaching on your part.

 

You're not ARGUING, you're PREACHING and quite frankly, it's getting very annoying.

 

We already know you have no proofs. Just drop the subject already.

 

 

 

I have never placed my own site, link or e mail.

Yes, it took iNow to FINALLY show what your true agenda is, so we could *finally* read something a bit more substantial about your claims -- seeing as you continously INGORED out pleas for proof.

 

Of course, reading that didn't help much.. but.. at least iNow tried.

 

Others have done this, by copying my references and placing them on the forum to use in an argument against me.

No one used it against you. People asked you to cooperate and you DIDN'T.

 

We found your book (the one you're TALKING ABOUT in this thread!) and read it.

 

Are you serious in claiming this is AGAINST you?! wtf?

 

I also can see why you would mention this. I am also suprised to see these quotations as it is hard to tell my work from whom ever copies and paste it on the forumn--please. Thank you for puting me wise to this questionable action on the forum.FRIPRO

 

You are preaching to people who know better.

 

We asked for proof and you try to use stupid avoidance tactics to NOT supply proof, obviously because you don't have them.

 

We don't accept proofless theories, that's the bottom line.

 

 

~moo

[DrDNA]

Here is a typical example of how far you can go in this life if you are stubborn enough. You see. A person really CAN do anything if they put their mind to it.

 

We have before us a theory with some pretty substantial obstacles in front of it. But are we gonna let those obstacles stop us? Noooo. Uh uh. Heck no.

We're gonna say to heck with those big ol obstacles, put our heads down, and say get out da way obstacles ! We gonna do what Einstein, Hawking and their peers have failed to do .....we gonna figure out all the mysteries of the universe in intimate detail. Ether.....Bam!

 

Forest, your mama was absolutely right. Life really is a box of chocolates.

[fripro]

Why do you insist on giving me more and more arguments?

 

Clearly, you have no proof. You keep ignoring the request to SUPPLY IT.

 

I don't need more explanations on your TERMS, I need more PROOF!

 

The video doesn't prove ether, it explains Cerenkov Radiation. Light *can pass through vacuum*. It doesn't require a MEDIUM to travel through. Ether is not necessary for the passing of light "waves".

Furthermore, and for the thirtieth time, Aether was proven NOT TO EXIST. Through experimentation.

 

NOT. TO. EXIST.

 

If you want to claim it does exist you need to PROVE it, and then explain why the experiment proving it wrong resulted the way it did.

 

 

 

I'm dropping this stupidity, for reasons of noncooperative debate.

 

Have a nice day.

 

DeBroglie's mass wave theory 1924 mc² = hƒ*was converted, by Fairbairn, Thomas Edward, to show WIT particle mass in grams. The WIT particle is the basic particle mass of the ether's dark mass. It makes up all waves and mass in the Universe.*Note:*throughout these calculation is**v* being frequency in hertz of a mass wave (photon)1. E1=*hv Planck's constant 6.62559x10-27 erg . sec*********************************************

2.E2= mc2**Einstein's c = velocity of UV light = (2.99792457x1010 cm /sec) E1 = E2 or hv* = mc 2****

*m = hv*/ c 2 h and c 2* are*a constant k f *******************

k f*= 6.62559x10-27erg.sec /(2.99792457x1010 cm / sec) 2 *

k f =*7. 371963x 10 -48 erg . sec / (cm / sec) 2**

DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS SIMPLIFIED

************************

m=k f ν*= 7.371963 x 10 -48* g . sec**X 1 hertz*******v in hertz is 1/sec*********************m=k f v = 7.371963 x 10 -48* g . sec / sec = 7.371963x 10 -48* g

*****************M = 7.371963x 10 -48* g***is Mass in grams for the WIT particle.**Mw

Mw = 7.371963x 10 -48* grams

Dimensional analysis (simplifying unit conversion) , by a Professor of Math. at Owens Community College.

 

*(Note: the dimensional analysis of the complex units is very important, as it resolves the complex units into a simple gram unit for the mass of a WIT particle). "Seeing the mass *Mw in grams was electrifying I now realized that I had the ether's basic particle's value."

 

I chose Planck's constant to calculate the WIT particle mass, my motive being, Planck's Time is a measure of time that a wave of UV light in ether takes to cross the distance equal to the Planck Length. Planks length is a measure of the density (between WIT particles) of the WIT particle Ether atmosphere of the Universe. Thus determining the speed of UV light in the Ether of the Universe's atmosphere.

 

The WIT particle calculations solve the problem of the inconsistency between two incompatible theories, that of the General Theory of Relativity (the understanding of mass in space) and the Quantum Mechanics Theory (the understanding of mass particles on the sub atomic scale), the reason being that the WIT particles make up all mass as a vortex, true for all particles from the microscopic to the macroscopic. *

[mooeypoo]

DeBroglie's mass wave theory 1924 mc² = hƒ*was converted, by Fairbairn, Thomas Edward, to show WIT particle mass in grams. The WIT particle is the basic particle mass of the ether's dark mass.

Yeah, De Broglie's Hypothesis (I can't believe I need to put references FOR you), and I couldn't find any references for Thomas Edward other than YOUR website that seems to define him as the father of dialup (..?) please put references.

 

I also didn't find ANYTHING about "WIT Particle" other than *your book*. Please supply references for that as well. I do not tend to take "your word" for it. Anyone's "word for it" for that matter.

 

Since *none of this is referenced*, none of this is substantiated. You *AGAIN* made a claim with no proof.

 

This only served as a proof that you HAVE NO PROOF.

 

 

It makes up all waves and mass in the Universe.*Note:*throughout these calculation is**v* being frequency in hertz of a mass wave (photon)1. E1=*hv Planck's constant 6.62559x10-27 erg . sec*********************************************

2.E2= mc2**Einstein's c = velocity of UV light = (2.99792457x1010 cm /sec) E1 = E2 or hv* = mc 2****

*m = hv*/ c 2 h and c 2* are*a constant k f *******************

k f*= 6.62559x10-27erg.sec /(2.99792457x1010 cm / sec) 2 *

k f =*7. 371963x 10 -48 erg . sec / (cm / sec) 2**

DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS SIMPLIFIED

************************

m=k f ν*= 7.371963 x 10 -48* g . sec**X 1 hertz*******v in hertz is 1/sec*********************m=k f v = 7.371963 x 10 -48* g . sec / sec = 7.371963x 10 -48* g

*****************M = 7.371963x 10 -48* g***is Mass in grams for the WIT particle.**Mw

Mw = 7.371963x 10 -48* grams

Dimensional analysis (simplifying unit conversion) , by a Professor of Math. at Owens Community College.

 

*(Note: the dimensional analysis of the complex units is very important, as it resolves the complex units into a simple gram unit for the mass of a WIT particle). "Seeing the mass *Mw in grams was electrifying I now realized that I had the ether's basic particle's value."

 

I chose Planck's constant to calculate the WIT particle mass, my motive being, Planck's Time is a measure of time that a wave of UV light in ether takes to cross the distance equal to the Planck Length. Planks length is a measure of the density (between WIT particles) of the WIT particle Ether atmosphere of the Universe. Thus determining the speed of UV light in the Ether of the Universe's atmosphere.

 

The WIT particle calculations solve the problem of the inconsistency between two incompatible theories, that of the General Theory of Relativity (the understanding of mass in space) and the Quantum Mechanics Theory (the understanding of mass particles on the sub atomic scale), the reason being that the WIT particles make up all mass as a vortex, true for all particles from the microscopic to the macroscopic. *

 

Listen.. you calculate a particle you FAILED to prove exists, okay?

 

Let me tell this again:

 

The length of the pink unicorn's nose is 13.22 inches. I calculate by noting that the shadow casted on my pillow while I dance the polka is slightly tilted, which suggests that my pillow is moving faster than the speed of light. Therefore, the length must be close to 2 and smaller than 20000; the obvious conclusion about the unicorn's belly is that the nose it attatched through the neck.

Therefore it is 13.22 inches long.

That is the extent of *your* claims. I would NOT expect you to believe my theory any more than ANYONE should be expected to follow yours.

 

Not only do you NOT supply evidence, you just DECIDE something exists (ETHER! DAMNIT PROVE IT!!) and go for it.

 

Unicorns were not proven to exist; therefore I wouldn't expect anyone to even BOTHER reading my so called "theory" or DEAL with it before I manage to convince people they *DO* exist.

 

That's the first step.

 

PRove they exist.

 

Only then I can start measuring - or hypothesizing - about the size of their external (or internal) organs and the meaning of it.

 

Do you understand now?

 

~moo

[foodchain]

I have to agree. Not to know on math but it cant be used as a stand alone for figuring out reality around us. This has been demonstrated more times then I could care to find out about really. Math is super useful, in just about anything I imagine to some extent. This is a blatant misuse of such. You see, nobody probably knows more pain about trying to put reality to math then a physics person, and even they still have to test gigantic amounts of math against reality on regular basis. Why do you think they do this, the testing of the prediction you think?

 

So your book may have math, which I don’t understand to be honest in its entirety, but do you have any tests, or anything empirical to offer beyond what you did divulge?

 

I mean I can do a math equation to a lawn showing mowing it would involve infinite work, I don’t however think 10square yards of soil to mow would take infinite energy unless I am missing something.

[mooeypoo]

Here's a good example for what you are trying to do, fripro -- Science fiction!

 

I'm not trying to ridicule, but just think about it: Science fiction shows do EXACTLY that: They come up with a false premise (on purpose), like - for instance - that there is a sublayer to space called "Subspace" and it has different properties than spacetime itself. From then on, *most* of the science works WONDERFULLY.

 

If you think about Star Trek, for example, their science is pretty decent, if you ignore the *false* basic premises. At the very least, these premises are unproven (and most have been proven plain wrong), but if you ignore that "minor" fact, I have an entire book called "Star Trek Technical Manual" and it explains *in detail* how warp drive works (math too) and how FTL happens without a problem due to subspace, etc.

 

The only problem is that subspace is not only NOT PROVEN, it's almost certain to be false.

 

But it's a science fiction show, so who cares.

 

Your theory has the same problem: Your basic premise (The "Ether Particle") is a made-up argument. Your entire theory stands on it -- it might be doing very well (I didn't have time to actually review your math or other extrapolations of it) but the fact still remains: Your initial hypothesis is FALSE.

 

That makes your idea science fiction.

 

It also makes it unfit for Science Forums; perhaps it should go to Hollywood production forums; they accept every quirky idea that is shot their way.

 

Good luck.

 

~moo

[fripro]

I have to agree. Not to know on math but it cant be used as a stand alone for figuring out reality around us. This has been demonstrated more times then I could care to find out about really. Math is super useful, in just about anything I imagine to some extent. This is a blatant misuse of such. You see, nobody probably knows more pain about trying to put reality to math then a physics person, and even they still have to test gigantic amounts of math against reality on regular basis. Why do you think they do this, the testing of the prediction you think?

 

So your book may have math, which I don’t understand to be honest in its entirety, but do you have any tests, or anything empirical to offer beyond what you did divulge?

 

I mean I can do a math equation to a lawn showing mowing it would involve infinite work, I don’t however think 10square yards of soil to mow would take infinite energy unless I am missing something.

 

FOODCHAIN With respect to this forums subject one must study an entire book, and all of its physical tests; because one cannot offer impeachable proof on the forum due to time and space.

 

One must have a grasp for the entire subject, as outline in any ones book as a matter of fact. Blowing my own horn is not what forums are for. But we can give rise to thought--is it possible? Perhaps I should look into this subject further, a free thinker would argue.

 

Foodchain-I have argued with forum members on this fantastic subject. However none of my arguments stand alone, and I have been well reminded of this.

 

How can one over look a lifetime of inventions (Published in ones book) that demonstrate the very thing that we are talking about. Inventions (patented, manufactured, measure, and tested) based on the existence of the Universe's ether particle atmosphere. The math calculations is a way to calculate the particle mass--however it is only a tool as inferred. Then to find through NASA’s space probes that there is a parallel in space of these inventions is promising.

 

I know that forum members can pick out any portion (as the radio talk show host call "tidbits, or sound bites") then build a case around it; however this is political not science.

 

It takes a open minded free thinker to question the authenticity of the entire subject outlined in this forum The Universe's Intelligent Design via Evolution. Then asking careful questions with out ridicule./unQuote FRIPRO

[mooeypoo]

FOODCHAIN With respect to this forums subject one must study an entire book' date=' and all of its physical tests; because one cannot offer impeachable proof on the forum due to time and space.

 

One must have a grasp for the entire subject, as outline in any ones book as a matter of fact. Blowing my own horn is not what forums are for. But we can give rise to thought--is it possible? Perhaps I should look into this subject further, a free thinker would argue.

 

Foodchain-I have argued with forum members on this fantastic subject. However none of my arguments stand alone, and I have been well reminded of this.

 

How can one over look a lifetime of inventions (Published in ones book) that demonstrate the very thing that we are talking about. Inventions (patented, manufactured, measure, and tested) based on the existence of the Universe's ether particle atmosphere. The math calculations is a way to calculate the particle mass--however it is only a tool as inferred. Then to find through NASA’s space probes that there is a parallel in space of these inventions is promising.

 

I know that forum members can pick out any portion (as the radio talk show host call "tidbits, or sound bites") then build a case around it; however this is political not science.

 

It takes a open minded free thinker to question the authenticity of the entire subject outlined in this forum The Universe's Intelligent Design via Evolution. Then asking careful questions with out ridicule.[/quote']

 

Fripro, the burden of proof is on YOU, not on us to prove you wrong.

 

Some of us actually *did* start reading you book, the problem is that you either have a problem with your theory or a problem with knowing how to write a good thesis.

 

When you write a thesis, the thesis declaration is relatively in the beginning; *everything* is proven step-by-step. Everything you introduce as a new concept is FIRST explained-- you do not jump from beginning to end and back to middle.

 

If you introduce "ETHER", then the paragraph - or CHAPTER - before that needs to introduce what "ETHER" *IS* and prove its existence. If you introduce "WIT Particle", the part *before that* needs to introduce that term and explain what it is.

 

So of *course* people get tired of reading -- your way of writing is confusing, and you are not being convincing. If you *do* have proof to substantiate "WIT Particles" and "Ether Particles", then you need to write it BEFORE introducing those particles as part of your theory.

 

I seriously doubt you do have proof, though. You keep childishly avoiding mentioning anything resembling an explanation about them.

 

Current post included.

 

 

--- EDIT ---

Here are some useful links to see how to write a research paper or thesis. There is a reason why these are standartized; otherwise, they're incomprehensible. The motivation to CONVINCE should be *yours* and building a good argument is part of it:

 

Developing an Argument

Rhetoric and Composition/Argument (wikibooks)

 

------------

~moo

 

 

 

ps: The correct way of posting quotes is "QUOTE" (with [ ] encapsulation) and finishing the quote part with /QUOTE (with [ ] at each side). All the other versions (/unQuote, etc) are just messing up the formatting and making it INCREDIBLY hard to make sense of where your response starts and another's finishes.

Please go over the help section of this forum if ou have trouble, but do it correctly.. fishing through posts to get correct reference to who said what and when is getting very frustrating.

[fripro]

And you can't put up a few points on it here? You don't have to paste the entire thing to give a brief summary of your points...

 

 

 

This means nothing... man knows a *LOT* about the universe. Not all, perhaps, but we do QUITE WELL with what we have. Quite frankly, you are suggesting we drop everything we know and replace it with oyur theory, and I don't see why we should bother yet... what questions is your theory answering that the current theories *aren't* answering??

 

I don't SEE intelligence in the universe, quite frankly. I see random phenomena with a set of physical rules (Astrophysics has most of the answers, and at the very least a VERY GOOD set of rules how to get more answers). What you are proposing seems to me to be completely unneeded, before the fact that it's not substantiated at ALL.

 

And Fripro, I wouldn't thank Fred56 yet:

 

 

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Complexity,_Information_and_Design)

 

The Executive Director of this group - William A. Dembski - is a creationist.

 

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski)

 

It doesn't sound like it's something you should link yourself to.

 

 

 

~moo

 

The cry from the many theoretical and scientific experts says, "Prove it." Go to any online forum on the internet, and one will see how badly divided the world's communities are, with regard to answers to the above arguments.*

 

You would be amazed at the amount of advice an author like me gets from the readers of the forums. Most people, students, and scientists have been schooled in the concept of experimental proof and constant argument as to any new theory that threatens what they have learned in university, etc.

 

New theories, even if valid, are required to fight the rigid rules of the established groups in science and religion. Most people on Earth are frozen in their ideas and thoughts and are in a proverbial deep freeze. Only the free thinker is eager to look to new theories about an intelligent Universe. FRIPRO

[iNow]

<yawn>

[fripro]

<yawn>

 

It can not be that boring , at leae this forum lasted more then five strings.

[mooeypoo]

The cry from the many theoretical and scientific experts says, "Prove it." Go to any online forum on the internet, and one will see how badly divided the world's communities are, with regard to answers to the above arguments.*

 

so you still don't have proof.

 

 

Quack.

 

 

You would be amazed at the amount of advice an author like me gets from the readers of the forums. Most people, students, and scientists have been schooled in the concept of experimental proof and constant argument as to any new theory that threatens what they have learned in university, etc.

I wouldn't, I - unlike you - know what science is.

 

Quack.

 

 

New theories, even if valid, are required to fight the rigid rules of the established groups in science and religion. Most people on Earth are frozen in their ideas and thoughts and are in a proverbial deep freeze. Only the free thinker is eager to look to new theories about an intelligent Universe. FRIPRO

 

QUACK. You still have no proof, and we won't consider quackery without proof.

 

People *have* changed their minds (If you'd know SCIENCE, you'd know that... and you'd know the many many many many many examples of new theories that were shocking -- and ACCEPTED! wow. Amazing. How'd they do that! oh.. shoot! the small detail of supplying proof. Damnit, how petty scientists are. Damnit!

 

 

You don't know science. You're a quack. And you really are boring. The only reason this thread went over 4 pages is because I seem to keep trying.

 

You're a quack.

 

I'm dropping this. You're an insult to science, and I must let you go.

 

~moo

[fripro]

Moo: I have not called you a quack. In fact i READ ALL OF YOUR POSTS AND TRIED TO GIVE YOU MY REPLYS, ON THE FACT THAT THE UNIVERSE DOES haVs an ether dark matter atmosphere which conducts the masS/wave of radiation across it breath (atmosphere) Here is some further proof of my contention:

MOO Thanks for your long and lengthly coments and I assure you I have given it much thought, but here is something I think you should understand as science with respect to the ether.

 

Marusa Bradac of the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC), located at the Department of Energy’s Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), has said, We had predicted the existence of dark matter for decades, but now we've seen it in action.

 

The method that they used made the landmark observations by studying a galaxy cluster 3 billion light years away. Dark matter, the elusive stuff that makes up a quarter of the Universe, may have been seen in isolation for the first time. Further information can be seen on line at "]

I have viewed the photos that Marusa's team took, and there is some possibilities that the blue light they viewed from the dark matter may be a form of Cerenkov's radiation, as I predicted, which may be able to detect the dark matter of the ether consisting of WIT particles,etc.

 

I am impessed with their discoveries. In nuclear power plants, Cerenkov's radiation can be see as a blue light in the cooling water, this light is produced by high velocity electrons which travel faster then the velocity of light normally found in water.

 

Astronomer researcher from Johns Hopkins University Baltimore (James Jee) using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope discovered a ghostly ring of dark matter that formed long ago during a titanic collision between two massive galaxy clusters.

 

The ring's discovery is among the strongest evidence yet that dark matter exists. Astronomers have long suspected the existence of the invisible substance as the source of additional gravity that holds together galaxy clusters.

 

Such clusters would fly apart if they relied only on the gravity from their visible stars. Although astronomers don't know what dark matter is made of, they hypothesize that it is a type of elementary particle that pervades the Universe. Credit: NASA

 

QUACK. You still have no proof, and we won't consider quackery without proof.

 

People *have* changed their minds (If you'd know SCIENCE, you'd know that... and you'd know the many many many many many examples of new theories that were shocking -- and ACCEPTED! wow. Amazing. How'd they do that! oh.. shoot! the small detail of supplying proof. Damnit, how petty scientists are. Damnit!

 

 

You don't know science. You're a quack. And you really are boring. The only reason this thread went over 4 pages is because I seem to keep trying.

[insane_alien]

I have viewed the photos that Marusa's team took, and there is some possibilities that the blue light they viewed from the dark matter may be a form of Cerenkov's radiation, as I predicted, which may be able to detect the dark matter of the ether consisting of WIT particles,etc.

 

i too have seen these photos and read up a bit about them.

 

there was NO BLUE LIGHT from the darkmatter. it is a flascolour image to start with and the blue bit is where darkmatter should be from inferrences based on the gravitational distortion of light observed. dark matter doesn't emmit light. and for it to be cerenkov radiation, dark matter would need to be charged.

[clinton]

I am new to this forum but I might be able to shed some light on MOO's argument with this thought:

 

As I am new to this forum I did want to reference a thought that could change Moo's thinking. I refer you to an article of interest by Antije Plannkuchen at: http://www.newvortex.de/vortexEnglishSum.pdf.

 

Please pay particular attention to page 2 and 3 wherein Helmholtz and Kelvin are referenced. Kelvin says "No sane person doubts the existence of the ether, we are sorely troubled when we are asked to describe it." Kelvin welcomed Hemholtz's vortex theory as did James Clark Maxwell and applied it to the ether. Ezra Pound also mention the "intelligent agent" created the Universe but did not equate it to a god.

[mooeypoo]

Definition: FACT

 

fact (fkt)

n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

2.

a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.

4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

Idiom:

in (point of) fact

In reality or in truth; actually.

(Source: The Free Dictionary)

 

Main Entry:

fact Listen to the pronunciation of fact

Pronunciation:

\ˈfakt\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere

Date:

15th century

 

1: a thing done: as aobsolete : feat b: crime <accessory after the fact> carchaic : action 2archaic : performance, doing3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

— in fact

: in truth

(Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary)

 

Definition: PROOF

proof (prf)

n.

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

2.

a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.

b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.

3.

a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.

b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.

5. Law The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.

6. The alcoholic strength of a liquor, expressed by a number that is twice the percentage by volume of alcohol present.

7. Printing

a. A trial sheet of printed material that is made to be checked and corrected. Also called proof sheet.

b. A trial impression of a plate, stone, or block taken at any of various stages in engraving.

8.

a. A trial photographic print.

b. Any of a limited number of newly minted coins or medals struck as specimens and for collectors from a new die on a polished planchet.

9. Archaic Proven impenetrability: "I was clothed in Armor of proof" John Bunyan.

(Source: The Free Dictionary)

 

 

 

Main Entry:

1proof Listen to the pronunciation of 1proof

Pronunciation:

\ˈprüf\

Function:

noun

Etymology:

Middle English prof, prove, alteration of preve, from Anglo-French preove, from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove — more at prove

Date:

13th century

 

1 a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

2obsolete : experience

3: something that induces certainty or establishes validity

4archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness

5: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal

6 aplural proofs or proof : a copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction b: a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph c: a coin that is struck from a highly polished die on a polished planchet, is not intended for circulation, and sometimes differs in metallic content from coins of identical design struck for circulation d: a test photographic print made from a negative

7: a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality

8

a: the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit

b: strength with reference to the standard for proof spirit; specifically : alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent by volume of alcohol present <whiskey of 90 proof is 45 percent alcohol>

(Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary)

 

I suggest you learn these, and take them to heart the next time you tell anyone you supplied proof, or that anything is a 'fact'.

 

Then, I may consider not thinking of you as a Quack.

 

~moo

[Sayonara]

I don't think this discussion is going to improve at all.