Glass In Spaaaaace

AnKsT wrote to mention an article on NASA's site about creating and manipulating glass in space. From the article: "In microgravity...you don't need a container. In Day's initial experiments, the melt--a molten droplet about 1/4 inch in diameter--was held in place inside a hot furnace simply by the pressure of sound waves emitted by an acoustic levitator. With that acoustic levitator, explains Day, 'we could melt and cool and melt and cool a molten droplet without letting it touch anything.' As Day had hoped, containerless processing produced a better glass. To his surprise, though, the glass was of even higher quality than theory had predicted."

Comments

Re:Mr. Day? more Mr. Dooms Day

[fmobus]

What? No shark-mounted lasers? This is just not right.

Re: Your sig (OT)

[chriso11]

So, it says "He was placed in a grave with evil men". Errr - where does that happen? Please, since he was buried by himself in all 4 gospels...

And the part "And so he will see his descendants; he will live a long life". So, then, who was Jesus' wife? And what where their children's names?

And after all that he does, all he gets is "And so I will give him a place of honor, a place among great and powerful men". Huh??? Is that all that the son of god gets to do?

Of course, you probably have some way to weasel out of that. But those phrases are not a prophecy of the son of god.

Yes, I know this is offtopic.

Re: Your sig (OT)

[Eideewt]

Well, at least it's as true as it ever was.

obligitory...

[ianguy]

I for one welcome our new insect-killing overloards.

Re: Your sig (OT)

[Vo0k]

Yeah, "will be called Immanuel" and quite a few more. You need really serious "stretching of the facts" to make them agree 100%.
Please debunk all this. 100% of these please.

Re: Your sig (OT)

[Cerberus7]

I've done some cursory looking over of those "contradictions," and find that there is a lot of "stretching of the facts" going on to make them look like contradictions. For instance, number 143, where certain scriptures are quoted about the breaking of bones. The references point to instructions to not break the bones of the sacrificial lamb, and about righteous people not ever having broken a bone, both of which are appropriate references to Jesus. While not prophecies in the sense that they say "the Messiah will not have any bone broken," both of the referenced passages would be common knowledge to a Jew who studied the Scriptures and, given the path Jesus's ministry took, should be expected to be adhered to by the Messiah.

Also, item 144, where Jesus supposedly implies he will return during John's life. No, he does no such thing. He merely tells Peter to mind his own business. I find it hard to trust a source that pulls such tricks of semantics for the express purpose of refuting another source.

In reference to the name Immanuel, Jesus is referred to as Immanuel and Emmanuel by people even up to this day, so that prophecy turns out to be true. Determining whether it was self-fulfilling or not is left as an exercise to the reader.

No, I'm not going to sit here and go through every one of those line by line. It's quite obvious what the writer's agenda is and that they are willing to compromise their own integrity for the sake of refuting a source they have a personal stake in refuting. Seeing it, though, makes me wonder if I shouldn't make a rebuttal page and make this a long-term project. I wouldn't be surprised to find that this has already been done, though, which would save me a lot of work.