Does IT look like us?

225 תגובות

1. Eddie:
   I have written about the subject too many times and I have no doubt that your approach is fundamentally wrong.
   The state was established - as I have said many times - to protect the Jews from persecution because of their Jewishness - not because of their religion but because of how others define them as Jews.
   That's why the state was established to protect me - yes - me - even though I don't believe in the Jewish religion.
   The country was approved by the United Nations and believe me no one there cared about Judaism and all that motivated the vote were the people's conscience due to the suffering they caused the Jews whether by act or omission.
   This decision gives me the full right to sit here because - like every "Jew in the eyes of others" I too am entitled to protection.
   More than that: I was actually born here and built my life here.
   Even more than that: I - unlike most ultra-Orthodox - also contributed many years to the defense of the state and many taxes to its establishment.
   We have a conflict with Arabs, none of whom were born here and who - for some reason - demand ownership of the land.
   They are wrong in every possible way.
   A large part of the state's land in general was bought from them with full money.
   Another part was not inhabited at all.
   Another part may have been conquered during our Magen wars (and there is no precedent in history for the restitution of lands conquered in a Magen war).
   Don't get me wrong:
   If it were up to me, I might have chosen a different area (among other things to defend myself against nonsense claims but mainly to avoid conflicts with the neighbors) but this is the place where Oylam Guillem decided to put us and here we live by virtue and not grace.
   The main consideration for me - apart from defending myself against anti-Semitism - is the fact that I was born here.
   The Arabs kept the refugees and their descendants in the status of refugees as a tool for political confrontation and you join them in your approach. Nowhere else in the world does the second generation have refugee status. It only exists among the Palestinians. It is intended to serve the anti-Semitic interests of the Arab countries and for some reason religious people join the Arab countries in this matter and they also want to expel from here legal citizens and donors of the country.

   Beyond all this - this whole approach - which bases the right of this or that side on history is nonsense in disguise.
   Everyone can start history at a point that suits them.
   The truth is that there is no point in history that fits the Palestinian approach, but those who base themselves (with distinct immorality) on history to establish their rights should not be surprised that someone else - just as immoral as they are - invents the history that suits them.
   Are you really basing your right to the land on the fact that your ancestors committed genocide in Hivi, Frizi and Bibusi?

2. Michael:

   You came out a man.
   Unlike other anti-Jews, you are honest enough to recognize that the Law of Return and all the other Babylonians do not create Judaism, and in fact you do not identify yourself as a Jew, you see no need to apologize for it and you are certainly proud of it - and declare it in a bold manner.
   Accordingly, you are entitled to be evaluated by universalistic standards, and the truth is that this can be quite an honorable matter. This is the case with an assimilated person like Feynman - there is nothing between you and him - and Feynman is a respectable person, and so are you. Even the Greeks in the Hasmonean days were, in universalist terms, respectable people. So are all those who assimilated in Jewish history. And you are absolutely right that no one has the right to see you as inferior, and himself as superior, just because he believes in something that you think is foolish. I agree with you one hundred percent.

   The problem arises elsewhere.
   In terms of international law and in terms of any standard of human justice - your presence here, in the Land of Israel as an occupying force that stole the land of the Palestinians - has no justification, certainly not moral. All the bees about the 'historical right' were an invention, in terms of universalist standards.
   The only source of legitimacy for your inventions as an occupier in the space between the Jordan and the sea is by virtue of your being Jewish - and we agree that Jewishness is an essential matter, not a product of arbitrary forceful legislation by the State of Israel. The Jewish ideological system is the only one that creates legitimacy - 'historical right' - regarding the political right of Jews in the Land of Israel. Herzl understood this - and therefore, as a secular liberal, he proposed the relatively empty and backward Uganda of his time - and not the Land of Israel, as a place for a Jewish political entity. In the opposite direction - this was also understood by Lord Balfour, and as a lover of the Bible (like many of the British leadership at the time) and a Christian who believes in the Jewish document - he placed the Jewish political entity, and precisely within its biblical borders - in the Land of Israel.

   But the legitimacy of Judaism is not relevant to you!

   In your opinion, if you aspire to be a moral person - and a 'universalist' - I would expect you to draw the necessary conclusion, and migrate further, to some sort of Uganda, Azerbaijan, Argentina or - in modern and up-to-date terms - to Canada, say, where no one will persecute you because Being of Jewish origin, and there you can establish the rational framework that a universalist like you would surely like to reach, as much as possible in this world at this time.

   According to your opinion, on the other hand - only if you do not aspire to be moral to the end, according to your own opinion - you will be able to continue living in the Land of Israel, and come and preach to others, people whose alienation from Judaism is not permanent or not as blatant and deceptive as yours - how to think and how to live. And more in the language of your Jewish ancestors - the language of the Bible.

3. Eddie:
   Overall, I agree with what you said:
   I don't see anything in myself that is Jewish beyond the definitions I mentioned.
   I am very proud of it and I find no place to apologize for it.
   I think the one who needs to apologize is the one who thinks that because he believes in some nonsense he is superior to others.

4. Laddie,
   You are the product of a diaspora-rooted thinking that distinguishes the Jewish people is their religion,
   I doubt if my father was ready to give up his Judaism because Judaism is not just a religion
   Precisely people who freed themselves from the shackles of religious conventions founded the Jewish enterprise
   The largest in the history of the Jewish people and is the state of Israel today.
   Please tell me, do you think the Yom Kippur war is less important to the Jewish people than the Exodus from Egypt for example (let's say the event really happened) or the Hasmonean wars?
   ghost moon,
   The matter with the kindergarten is completely unfounded, and as someone who has been abroad I can tell you that I too was able to identify Jews, mainly based on their language which is Hebrew or their name, their family name, and any other possibility of identification is a paranoid delusion.

5. I saw a program a long time ago where they showed scientists who proved that there is a certain gene in Jews that is special only to Jews
   (as I understood the descendants of Aaron) and appears only with them. Don't know how real that is, but I can bet
   that almost every Jew (perhaps even non-Jews) can recognize another Jew anywhere in the world.
   Regardless of that, as far as I know according to Judaism a Jew is one whose mother is Jewish.
   Is that not enough to determine if a person is Jewish or not?

6. Mr. Eddy:
   That way you will get philosophies not answers.

   Ask Mr. Blizovsky if he doesn't mind giving up his self-definition as a Jew.
   And if he was willing to have his Jewish identification deleted from his official documents.
   It seems to me that he would have preferred to delete the link to his origin, at least as far as his identification as a citizen of the country is concerned.
   that his belonging to his Jewish origin is actually none of anyone's business.
   In his eyes, there is no difference between him and a gentile immigrant who became naturalized or a Sudanese refugee who received citizenship.

7. Ladi, if not the law, not my definitions of myself, not others' definitions of me, with that you have closed all possibilities and in fact I can't prove anything about myself.
   In any case, I am law-abiding, and as a citizen of the State of Israel, its laws apply to me. Therefore, the statement in the identity card satisfies me. As others have said, determining who is a Jew does not rule out unbelievers. I don't have to believe in superstitions, and I don't have to formally belong to another religion that believes in a different set of superstitions to please someone.

8. Michael Rothschild,

   I was curious to hear the opinion of Avi Blizovsky, so I waited patiently for his response in the last few days. But he doesn't respond...

   You, on the other hand, respond, and since you are not my father's guardian, I assume you understand that my question is directed, or could be directed, at you as well. That's why I tell you what I think about your claims in your last response.

   It is clear to you that when I asked my father 'what makes you a Jew' - I actually meant the question 'what is a Jew' and only as a derivative of that - 'who is a Jew' - and all this so that my father would answer the question 'what makes you a Jew'.
   Therefore, I did not mean at all an answer based on halachic norms - after all, these norms are based on the Talmud, and the Talmud is not considered in his eyes.
   I certainly did not mean the Nuremberg Laws - the Nazi standards are certainly not relevant to determining the question in question.
   Even an answer based on a casual opinion of the 'people around' is not a substantial answer, therefore it is also not relevant.
   An answer based on the laws of the State of Israel is also not a relevant answer - and I justified my position in my last response. I am personally loyal to the country and love it and identify with it, and fulfill my civic duties in full - but I do not think that it exhausts the Jewish essence. It is a national political instrument (important!) of people of Jewish ethnic origin, - nothing less but nothing more than that.

   In my question I meant a material Jewish element - a value, unique to Judaism, a foundation on which Judaism can be placed as a historical value phenomenon. Of course, I don't mean a specific religious belief - my father is not a religious believer.

   I did not receive such an answer.

   I wonder if there is even a positive answer to my question, as it was posed: Is there something about people like my father, or like you - that makes them 'Jewish' from a fundamental value point of view - beyond all the formalistic legal/halachic definitions or the purely political/social contexts.

   In general, in my opinion - people who overwhelmingly reject all the corpora of the values ​​and narratives of Judaism, people for whom these corpora have no meaning whatsoever in their lives, people who do not try to examine them seriously in order to reveal their layers and differentiate between their different contents and between their different forms of expression, out of a reluctance to stand On some measure of their true value, when they rely on a totally deceptive mechanistic view, and accompany their attitude with expressions of contempt and mockery - it seems to me that they cannot take and appropriate Judaism and Jewishness for themselves.

   And anyone who claims to be 'Jewish' - come and consider which of the above rubrics he falls into.

9. According to what I heard on some television show, I understood that every organism in nature strives to waste as little energy as possible.
   Provided that extraterrestrials or intelligent beings exist, there is a possibility that they will be "in a state of accumulation" of gas. Maybe some kind of bubble
   or something like that. In this way they will have complete freedom of movement, and they can be a form of energy that maintains interactions with the help of some other unknown force.

10. personal opinion

    Sometimes the creators of science fiction films...in the very act of dealing with it, come up with theories by simulation that are better than all the scientific researchers who work on it...

    Below in the movie K - PAX our alien answered that on earth the best shape is two eyes and legs and hands and therefore that's what he was wearing..whereas in another place he simply didn't.

    And that's actually the whole principle - how arrogant and presumptuous it is to think what aliens would look like, since we still don't even know what conditions make life possible (especially every time we find some new species that lives right on the mouth of an active volcano in the sea)

    If there is one thing that is certain about evolution, it is that it adapts itself to the conditions of the terrain in one way or another. Every animal that was created somehow adapts to its original environment... the same for them... if it will be in conditions of great gravity, then having many legs will be useful... and if in conditions of sight or breathing or maybe everything is full of water And there is even a deal here with a water creature...
    The possibilities here are amazing in their diversity...and only here on the earth with millions of species and others that have not discovered it is sometimes difficult to believe in certain forms that have been created and it is easier to look at them as extraterrestrials
    So really

    A little modesty
    At least call it a theory and not a statement

11. Eddie:
    It is not clear to me why a person needs to defend the claim of being Jewish.
    In my opinion, all the artificial separations that religions make between people only cause damage, and in my eyes the desire to belong to a group of people defined by religion is in conflict with the desire to be a person who knows how to appreciate all other people for their humanity and not for being Jews or Maccabi fans.
    I am defined as a Jew by others and people like me who were defined as Jews by others and were persecuted for that established the state as a refuge for the Jewish people (not for the Jewish religion but for the Jewish people).
    Therefore the State of Israel is a political instrument of the Jewish people and not of the Jewish religion.
    Disabled people are helped by the organization for the disabled, but they are not disabled by choice.
    People who belong to the Jewish people (even if not by choice) use the political instruments of the Jewish people.
    A disabled person does not want to be disabled, but in order to be helped by the organization of the disabled, he wants to be recognized as disabled.
    A Jew does not necessarily want to be a Jew, but in order to use the political instruments of the Jewish people, he wants to be recognized as a Jew.
    The Jewish people is defined by the Jewish religion by racial considerations (if she is Jewish) and therefore, as someone who accepts the laws of Judaism - you should have no question about my father's Jewishness.
    My father belongs - both according to the laws of the Jewish religion and according to the Nuremberg laws to the Jewish people and in your question you are actually demanding a different affiliation from him. Can you define what that affiliation is that you are asking him to justify? Perhaps it is an affiliation that he does not want at all and that, contrary to the protection that the political affiliation gives him - does not give him anything?

12. Avi Blizovsky,

    Further to response 152 and in response to response 164:

    The Law of Return is not a standard for evaluating or determining a person's Jewishness. This is what the language of the law states, and this is how it was decided in a series of High Court rulings in the 60s and early 70s of the last century - the definition that appears in this law is only for the purpose of the law itself, that is, for the purpose of citizenship rights in the country (which was once supposed to be Jewish and at the end of Dever ceases - in a gradual and consistent process - from even being a state of 'Jews').

    Judaism is a unique and fundamentally defined civilization. It preceded the State of Israel - one political entity out of about 200, and is not dependent on it at all. It is strange that for an answer to the question 'What is Jewish about you?' You need a definition of a naturalization law created by a political body. Such a definition is irrelevant to the issue; And she also did not intend to be relevant to anyone's opinion, including the legislator.

    The question remains: what makes you a Jew?

    I would like to emphasize again that my intention is not to clash or argue, but to clarify a matter concerning you and people like you. - The need for clarification arises in light of the fact that you manage and edit (and comment on) an important website and quite actively and demonstratively try to present a certain, value and philosophical agenda, which can be argued with - but it is also necessary to put it in its context, without any nonsense.

13. Someone else entirely:
    I would be more strict with my hypothesis and say that not only is it not completely founded but it is completely unfounded.
    It seems to me that for animals living in water the blood temperature is less important because the temperature changes in water are more moderate.
    The truth is that even regarding the blood temperature of dinosaurs, I have already read about controversies and there are those who claim that at least some of them were warm-blooded.

14. to Michael Rothschild. Octopuses have demonstrated an ability to solve certain logical problems
    And thus they overcame quite a few warm-blooded people; considering they are built differently
    Totally from us, your hypothesis about the need for warm blood is not completely founded.
    Even if we assume that blood at a constant temperature is necessary for existence of life, in a sense
    The broadness of the word, after all, which is liquid like water in the earth, or armor plates
    (in crocodiles for example), can regulate temperature and activity - and in places
    Others may be enough.

15. Rah:
    It can be presented in several ways and also the way I presented it in the question itself is actually recursive. The problem with recursive calculation methods is that they take a long time when the input numbers are large.
    What is expected as a solution is a fast way to perform the calculation and not a recursive way.
    As I said to others, I do not want to publish the solution above the site pages because these questions are used by me to expose false claims of various kinds.
    Therefore, if you want to discuss the solution, I would appreciate it if you could send me an email address or phone number through Avi Blizovsky.

16. Michael,
    Regarding the numerical question. At first the table looked simple but it turns out that it is actually a beautiful fractal with surprising symmetry properties. I still haven't been able to find a simple method to calculate a number according to the X and Y although I can build the table and its legality is clear to me. Is it possible to get some hint regarding the construction formula? I assume it is recursive in the form:
    z(x,+1,y)=fn1(x,y) b
    z(x,y+1)=fn2(x,y) b

    Am I talking nonsense?
    (Ignore the b, it's just written so that the English is clear)
    Anyway, I liked the question.

17. Ghost:
    Every number has multiples.
    The multiples of 1 are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, …….
    The multiples of 2 are 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, …..
    The multiples of 3 are 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, ….
    The multiples of 4 are 4, 8, 12, …..
    And so on.
    A common multiple of two numbers is a number that is both a multiple of the first and the second.
    For example: 6 is a common multiple of 2 and 3
    For example, 30 is a common multiple of 10 and 6

    A least common multiple of a set of numbers is the smallest natural number that is a multiple of both.

    For example - both 18 and 36 are common multiples of 9 and 6 but only 18 is their least common multiple.

    Examples of groups of numbers that meet the requirements of the problem:
    A: All numbers from 501 to 1000
    B: The number 2 and all the odd numbers greater than 500
    C: The numbers 41, 53 and 900

    The set of all numbers from 1 to 100 does not meet the requirements because each number is a common multiple of itself and 1.

18. Michael, thanks for the recommendations. I have a few questions regarding question 124:
    What does it mean "that the least common multiple of any two of them is greater than a thousand"?
    If it is a set of numbers between 1 and 1000, then the multiple is 1000 because it is the minimum that is divisible by 1 and 1000. If we sum up their inverses, one or something comes out, and as the multiple increases, the result always comes out as one or something, but less than 1.5
    I know, it sounds stupid. But my knowledge of mathematics is on the surface.
    I'm sure I misunderstood the question, could you please explain and correct where I misunderstood based on the answer I wrote? Thanks in advance for your help.

19. Dan Shamir:
    This is indeed a difficult question and there is only one person besides me who I know of who solved it (I did not see his solution but he told me he did and I believe him - this is Professor Noga Alon)https://www.hayadan.org.il/pais010504/).
    I presented the question to many good people - including Lev Radziblovsky - the coach of the Israeli team for the Math Olympiads and no one was able to solve it.
    Lev Radziblovski asked me for the solution after something like a whole year of struggles.

    Stratgit is just a jerk and anyone who has not yet solved the question can know that he is in good company that Stratgit is not a characteristic of.
    The truth is that I did not expect such a degenerate discussion at all.
    A person with a modicum of self-criticism would not have dismissed the nonsense that Stragit thought, so I expected that his response to the presentation of the question would be a long silence, at the end of which I would say to him, "You see? Talmudic thinking does not include mathematical thinking" but Stratgit chose to give me a kingdom instead of Athens and gave a show of horrors here that showed everyone how far faith can degenerate a person.

    Ghost:
    One of the things I really didn't mean was to become (again) the subject of the discussion.
    I wanted to expose the nakedness of Stragit's Harab claims and the very discussion of me is only a result of the practice that people like him have of attacking those who put their claims to the test of personal attack.
    My IQ is indeed high but this is not the place to discuss it.
    As for learning mathematics - there are many books, but most of them deal with one aspect or another of mathematics and are intended for people who really want to learn the subject and know in advance that they will have to read a lot of books to do so.
    I can recommend two books whose whole claim is to "give the taste" of mathematics.
    One of them is the book
    Mathematics – A Human Endeavour
    Compiled by Harold R. Jacobs
    and was published by Freeman in 1970
    here Link to new edition on Amazon

    The second is the book When Least is Best
    But this is a book intended for people who already have a certain background.

    I highly recommend the first book, which I have already lent many times to friends' children and they all became math lovers after reading it.

20. Michael
    There is no doubt that you have a lot of knowledge in mathematics and other subjects. Could you tell me, please, what is your IQ?
    And even if you can, recommend a book/s or bring links from the Internet, related to the study of mathematics
    But those who explain there in the simplest way, for those who do not understand mathematics.
    Thanks.

21. Star Git. to your last response (200). Your quarry and not "the source of your quarry" as you wrote; And DL... do you know the source of the quarry reactor?
    Do you know the RAT of what this and DL is?

22. I've been working on the first question for quite some time and it's hard for me to say I managed to get there
    For something approaching proof and I'm pretty sure this question is beyond the capabilities
    My maths but I don't give up yet.

    To Michael:
    I see in your addition that you asked Stratgit if instead of 1000 the number
    There was a million as a possible clue to the solution method, I'm still very skeptical that I can solve
    But the question is very interesting and challenging.
    I'm a bit sorry that the whole discussion between us and Stratgit about the Talmud and its place in today's culture was perhaps a bit unnecessary, it is already "there" and has lost all its potential
    The critics are skeptical towards anything related to the Jewish religion.

    Stragit, you jumped a bit too fast and declared that the question was easy and for some reason after 5 minutes of reading I came to the conclusion that the question is not even close to the concept of easy.
    Besides, you've proven yourself that you probably don't understand the difference between an essay result and a mathematical proof.
    Why are you avoiding, Michael proposed my father as an arbitrator, my father is the editor of the site you are currently browsing and his credibility is not in doubt.

23. It is impossible to reach the stars because the gate to them is closed

24. Stragit:
    Is it on purpose that you ignored response 199?

25. The skeptic:
    The fact that I know more mathematics than anyone who follows what is happening on the site knows, but since Stratgit claimed that Talmudic thinking is superior to mathematical thinking and includes it - I wanted to show him that according to his definitions - either his claim is false or that he does not even have control over Talmudic thinking.
    More than that - in order to rule out the second possibility and leave only the Talmudic thinking to be humiliated - I offered him to help anyone he could find - including his rabbi and his yeshiva friends and whoever he wanted.
    I wanted to show that Talmudic thinking does not include mathematical thinking and what I got - someone who proves that Talmudic thinking - at least his own - is simply stupid.
    Really, that's not what I meant, but it's probably just a problem of Stragit lying and twisting and evading non-stop.

    As for the questions - the first appears in response 124 and the second in response 140.
    I posted the numerical answer to the question that appears in response 140 in response 149 and there I also posted a question based on the same mathematical structure with other numbers.

    I do not want the solutions published.
    If you think you have a solution to any question please be sure to send me an email or phone through Avi Blizovsky and we can discuss the matter privately.

26. M. I. K. A. L
    You don't read the scriptures, I didn't repeat anything, you are arrogant and rude and I doubt if you have a clue about mathematics.
    I asked you if you could prove the convergence of the sum of all the inverses to 2.3 of the number and beyond every time the number increases by a factor of 10. You don't even know what this is about, you're not reading anything. In my opinion, you are just an eyewitness, you have not provided any meaningful information so far except speaking rudely and slandering.
    According to all the rules, you confirmed the fact that you are finished with the country and hate the source of your quarry.
    You accuse others of lies which is what you do all the time. I thought you had some sense and decency you don't you are all full of yourself. Talking to you is like talking to a wall. You only hear yourself. go bye

27. By the way, Stratgit, since all your ramblings are irrelevant, I didn't know what sums you were talking about and what increased by 2.3, but the fact that the sum of the inverses of all the numbers up to N is approximately (Ln(n) I of course know and that when multiplying numbers the logarithms add up I probably know from home An elementary book so that this amount (which as mentioned - has nothing to do with the problem) is clear why multiplying by ten adds (Ln(10) which is approximately 2.3 sir does not understand anything

28. Michael, you have proven beyond any doubt that Star Git does not reach your mathematical level, not that kind of wisdom. I'm also sure that there aren't many who can, regardless of how much Talmud they studied... 
    So I don't think it's necessary to continue this stupid discussion...

    Now, can you repost the two puzzles you gave Mikedoom?
    I can't find them and I don't have the energy to go through this whole discussion (which has nothing new or interesting)
    I really enjoy solving your riddles (or at least trying to) in general I would be happy if you published all the riddles you posted on this site in a group... a pleasure of riddles...

    Thank you

29. And it's no wonder, Stratgit, that you keep avoiding anything serious. You don't talk to a math teacher (although right now I would suggest you talk to a psychiatrist instead), you don't ask someone reliable to see the proof and tell you it exists and you don't face the numerical challenge.
    When things come down to the truth, you just feel like a fish out of water.

30. Stargate:
    You simply lack basic understanding and there is no point in talking to you.
    You have not shown any proof but everything you are told you are lying that you know.
    Your lies don't interest me because they are so transparent that a baby can detect them.
    The sum of the inverses of all the numbers does not converge to anything - it aspires to infinity.
    The sum of the inverses of the primes also does not converge to nothing but tends to infinity.
    If you keep repeating the sum of the inverses of the squares - this is a well-known theorem that does not belong to us.
    Stop babbling, my love.

31. Who is God?
    There is no need to hide the location, in my opinion no one will come to disturb because it is of no particular interest to anyone.
    Mr. Yedani is with the people of the country and knows how to make sermons like the people of the country. Anyone who understands the nature of sermons hears enough of preachers who annoy the audience at every opportunity. And if they don't listen to these why should they listen to this nonsense. This forum is accessible and anyone can respond in their own time and at their convenience. But to travel and bother to listen to a lecture, you really think it's interesting to someone. Look here, everyone is interested in something else. You don't even bother to read except for the sentences that interest you. Everyone does the same thing. For example, you like to win arguments, it's good for you, but for me and many others, it's a boring goal.

32. Who is God?
    Yes, I know that now, because now I calculated according to the density of the primary half-numbers. For 1000 it was enough to make a rough estimate and get rid of the multiples of 2 3 5 7. Therefore it came out easily.
    And according to the conditions of the problem it was enough.
    But now let me ask you-
    - Question why when I multiply each time by 10 and it increases as you wrote to a million billion etc. Why does the sum of all the inverses say a million to 10 million and so on increases by 2.3 and in fact as it increases it always converges to this number 2.3 Can you prove it sir mathematician.

33. Stragit,

    You wrote: "Talmudic thinking is infinitely superior to mathematical scientific thinking, it contains it"

    Are you ready to expand on the topic?

34. Eddie and others:

    Since Yaron Yedan has been slandered here a lot, those who are interested in getting to know him and checking if the slanders are true should meet him.
    In the near future he is going to give a series of lectures on the topic of knowing Orthodox Judaism.

    The series will include four meetings.

    First meeting - February 8th - Why do you study Talmud in yeshiva and not the Bible - the relationship between the written Torah and the oral Torah.

    Second meeting - February 15 - Jewish bookcase - Mishnah, Gemara, Rambam, Shulchan Aruch...

    Third meeting - February 22 - study of a page of Gemara with Rashi. Tract Shabbat, page XNUMX, page XNUMX.

    Fourth meeting - March 8 - Jewish morality in Halacha.

    I did not publish the places where the lectures will be given and this is no accident:
    There is no intention to turn the meetings into ugly wars such as those that some of the commenters here tend to conduct.
    More reasonable commenters - like, for example, Eddie - are welcome.
    How will these responders know where the meetings are held?
    I agreed with Avi Blizovsky that they could request the information from him.
    My father will receive the information, verify the identity of the respondent, and after finding out based on his past responses if he is a person capable of conducting a cultural discussion, will give him the locations of the meetings.

35. Stragit:
    So here we have more proof that you don't know what you're talking about.
    Both with 1000000000 and with 1000000000000000000000000000 the 1.5 block will keep its value.
    It really doesn't matter what the big number is - the sum of the inverses will always remain less than 1.5

    Besides - tell me - do you not even know how to count to 2?
    You got two questions from me! Why do you claim I only have one?

    You want more?
    You will get as much as you want!
    I really don't mind you continuing to be humiliated. Just ask.

36. Apparently there is only one question in your question, it turns out that you are afraid of losing it, some nonsense.
    Regarding the multiplication by 10 each time I did a rough analysis and arrived at a series of multiplication by the inverse of 2 to the power of the inverse from 1 to N +1. In fact, the sums converge to around 2.3 with each increase of the exponent, multiplying by 10
    And the sixth ratio is approximately constant. Although in this case you have to go the other way around and calculate according to the number of initials which I imagine is in some logarithmic relation to the number you set as the limit of the group.

37. Stragit:
    You're the one who doesn't give factual answers to almost anything and you still haven't answered why you didn't do everything I suggested you do to prove myself right.
    I explained well why I won't give you the solution and I repeat: I won't give it to you! There's no point in you swinging and there's no point in you trying to get him out of me by making stupid claims like I don't know him.
    I won't give it to you because you are not the last impostor I have to deal with and I reserve the question for those who come after you.
    I didn't understand what you said in the same formula you gave in response 187. I didn't ask you for a formula but a number.
    What should 1.5 be replaced with if 1000 is replaced by 1000000000

    Is it difficult for you to give a number?

38. I bother to answer matter-of-factly and you are just teasing. If I'm wrong, please show me where.

39. Every time you multiply by 10, you will get a smaller sum than the previous one in the ratio of the next inverse to the root of 2, you will get a series of inverses of 2^(1/n+1)

40. Stragit:
    The one who dodges all the way is you.
    I showed you ways to prove both that your claim of proof is wrong and that I have a correct proof.
    You refuse to take these paths because in the secret of your heart you know where they will lead and are afraid to admit your failure and the way of the Talmud.
    Can you explain to me why you don't talk to a high school math teacher?
    Can you explain to me why you don't ask me to show my solution to someone normal who will tell you that he got a correct solution from me?
    Can you explain why you don't answer the numerical question?
    Can you explain why you do not accept the challenge in response 184?

    I can tell you why you're not doing all of these: you're avoiding it!

41. Who is God?
    You haven't written anything meaningful, you're just a slob walking around and dodging. Maybe you don't know at all.

42. By the way, Stratgit:
    If instead of 1000 I would write 1000000000:
    What do you think I should have replaced 1.5 with in order for the sentence to remain true?

43. Stragit:
    I suggested you talk to someone who teaches high school math and ask them if your proof is a proof.
    Do you know someone who teaches high school math? Have you ever taken high school math?
    If so - this really shouldn't be a problem for you.
    As I said - there is no need to know the proof of the sentence to see that your words are nothing but nonsense.

44. By the way, in a rough analysis, this still does not sift out all half-numbers with a common denominator less than a thousand, therefore the group is larger and even then it is smaller than 1.5

45. I think you're just avoiding it

46. Who is God?
    It belongs and another way because the sum of the inverses 1 to 9 multiplied by 3 = about 8.4 is greater than the maximum sum of all the inverses all from 1 to 1000 divided by 6 to get rid of all the numbers with a common denominator less than 1000.
    Prove that the analysis is incorrect.

47. Stragit:
    I do not need to prove that it is not true just as I do not need to prove that the sentence "a chair has four legs" is not a proof.
    There is no connection.

48. Stragit:
    I stop answering you because you don't understand anything even after being told it many times.
    I will not present the solution.
    It is not based on the nonsense you presented and does not belong to anything at all.
    You can ask me to show the solution to the people I named or to another person who seems normal to me and I can also trust him not to show the solution to types like you or like "her laugh" and he will tell you that I did show him the solution and if you want he will also confirm that it has nothing to do with any nonsense you said
    This is the only option you have.
    point.

    Her laugh - continue on your way. you are really funny

49. What evil does he say?
    In general - with you - what is written in the Torah - ...
    To you and not to him and since he excluded himself from the rule...
    If he had been there he would not have been redeemed!
    Really enough, it's not funny anymore.
    An argument between two limited, obsessive, and petty people.
    Come on ! Let one do to the other na na na na na na, and stop the shame he is doing to himself.

50. Who is God?
    Bring the proof and show me that it is not based on the calculation of half the sum of the short series that I brought before.
    Regarding the meaning, this is a very careful method. That's why I directed you to issues that apparently have a logical structure and after you study and understand the matter you can easily see that these are combinations of abstraction, etc., the things I wrote before.
    Dan Shamir,
    This is exactly how the Gemara tells the story of Rabbi Hona ben Torta telling the above story

51. Stragit:
    Don't you really get it?
    My heart is for you.
    If you had any idea how to solve a mathematical problem you would know that a proof of a theorem is not necessary to show that another proof is false. There is simply no connection between the two things. The last "solution" you presented is just nonsense. You could have written on the same page "A rooster likes chickens, so the sum is less than 1.5"
    You are welcome to go to any high school math teacher and ask him if this is a proof and he will be able to tell you no even though he did not know the correct solution (and in fact he would not be able to be sure that my claim that the sum is less than 1.5 is correct).
    If you want to be sure that I have a solution - the way I suggested is open to you.
    If you want to be convinced that I understand math much more than you will ever understand, you are welcome to read this article:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/being-a-mathematician-2311093/

    Regarding the Talmud - I did not bring any argument about the Talmud. I just quoted from it.
    Do you think these are bullshit? You're right!

    In general - with you - what is written in the Torah - is not the true meaning - which should be sought in the Oral Torah, which also does not have the true meaning written. Everyone invents the real meaning according to their own insanity - just as Roy wrote in this article:
    https://www.hayadan.org.il/believers-estimates-of-gods-beliefs-are-more-egocentric-0612099/

52. That a woman bought from a Jew refused to work on Shabbat because she was used to it?
    Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm???????????????????????????

53. By the way, Rabbi Hona ben Torta was named after a resident who converted because his wife, who he bought from a Jew, refused to work on Shabbat because she was used to it. He easily discusses himself. What is a cow that does not have a mind that knows the mitzvot of the Torah and observes Shabbat, so surely he himself should know. That is why his name was called Son of Torta.

54. Who is God?
    You are just arrogant. If your proof contradicts the last solution show it. Surely it won't be a big effort for you, just copy and paste. Otherwise the excuse is not convincing at all, certainly because it will turn out to be very similar to the solution I presented.
    In relation to the arguments you bring about the Talmud, they are quite poor, simply due to a direct interpretation. You think that what is written is the meaning. It's a real waste of time and it's definitely not like that. All these midrashmes are aimed at matters of Kabbalah and the Secret Doctrine. To understand that this is so, you need to read Rabbi Bar Bar Hana's Midrash, where you will see it more clearly. But more than that, just from studying seemingly logical issues, you will be able to easily see that various combinations of abstraction are the mainstay of all these articles. And not as you think a direct interpretation.
    Take the simplest issues in the depositor chapter for example. In general, in one of the three sections that deal with the laws of appointees.
    Or issues of a different type in tractate Chulin or you will notice and you will see that the issue of abstraction is primary and fundamental.
    Therefore, all the midrashim you brought were brought for the purpose of a certain abstraction of fundamental matters in Kabbalah.

55. Dan Shamir:
    Stragit is right.
    The Talmudic principles of thinking are really impressive.
    See some examples of the achievements of these principles:
    This time on taxonomy issues:
    Lice are created from human sweat and mice from mold.
    Enjoyed? read more:
    The Erod can be created as a result of pairing a snake with a turtle: "Rabbi Hona Bar Torta said: Once I went to a council and saw a snake that was wrapped around the turtle, later an Erod [a type of snake] came out from among them", Chulin Kakhz p.a.
    is funny?
    That's not all, of course:
    In tractate Avot, Chapter XNUMX, Mishna XNUMX, it is written: "The tiger is bold-faced because he is a bastard like the mule [!] which [the tiger] is the son of the wild boar and the son of the lioness. Because during the heat of the lions, the female puts her head in the thickets of the forest and growls and demands the male, and the pig hears her voice and chases her, etc. And since he is a bastard, he has a fierce face."
    And how about that?
    http://www.daatemet.org.il/issues.cfm?ISSUE_ID=759

    And in order not to detract from the Jerusalem Talmud, I will also quote from his words:
    In the Jerusalem Talmud it is known to say that: once every seven years God changes his world, the louse after seven years turns into a scorpion, a male hyena turns into a female and a mountain mouse turns into a wild boar (Shabbat chapter XNUMX page XNUMX column XNUMX / XNUMX)

    In conclusion - Talmudic thinking would have been very good for stand-up comedy if it hadn't been so funny that the stand-up artist himself would have laid down laughing.

56. Ghost:
    The only way I can seriously answer these questions is to say that we have no way of giving them a serious and well-founded answer.
    Therefore even scientists who at all express an opinion on the matter - differ in their opinions.
    If I had to guess, I would guess that there is other life in the world, but there is none in it - or almost no intelligent life in it other than us (but, because, as I said, it cannot be answered seriously, this guess is not serious either)

57. Stragit:
    I won't present the proof because I have to save the problems that haven't been published anywhere for arguments with pretenders.
    I've said it many times.
    Does this prove I'm just rambling arrogantly?
    Maybe according to the Talmud, but according to true logic, not at all.
    By the way - if you want proof that I know the solution, I am ready to present it to Abi Blizovsky or Roy Cezana or Aryeh Seter or Ehud, if you believe any of them, and ask them not to publish the solution but only to tell you if I showed them a correct solution.
    By the way - to see that your "solutions" are not correct you don't need too much understanding and in my opinion anyone who understands even a little math will tell you this.

58. Michael
    Can you seriously answer the questions:
    Do you think there is extraterrestrial life?
    And what are the chances that scientists estimate for the presence of life (not only microscopic but also intelligent) in outer space?
    If the answers are yes, do you think the idea of ​​an intelligent being that exists outside of Earth is proven in this case?

59. Dan Shamir,
    In the Talmud there are many concrete principles relevant to the development of ways of thinking.
    Among them are the identification of borderline cases, symmetries and balance in different standards, testing and creating paradoxes and much more.
    As far as you are concerned, you are probably right from your point of view. All in all, I argued that those who have not seriously studied and delved into the Talmud should not visit pointless things. It is true that the Talmud did not create the computer, but it is the source of the Jewish genius that created many things.

60. Who is God?
    Show your proof of the first problem. Otherwise you're just rambling arrogantly.

61. My bet is that life is a common phenomenon in the universe.
    Intelligent life also exists here and there.
    As for what they look like, a difficult question...
    In my opinion we need to find them and check, maybe we will find them and maybe not, the main thing is that we look...

62. According to the Law of Return, a Jew is someone born to a Jewish mother or a proselyte (and the ultra-Orthodox always try to add the correct word to claim a monopoly on their proselytism)
    It has absolutely nothing to do with his actual beliefs.

63. A bit unpleasant 3 in a row but:

    Today's international Talmud is google

64. Lestergit,
    Without for a moment underestimating the literary importance of the Talmud, he did not create the computer and the Internet thanks to which we currently communicate, no he created all the technology that surrounds us and is used by us (and that includes you) every second of our lives, no he caused us not to fall asleep from every germ and infection circulating in the air, no He caused (the opposite) the understanding that all human beings are equal and I can go on endlessly.

    The Talmud has been an important part of Jewish practice for generations and its importance in the Jewish past was enormous, but for today it is simply not relevant, not appropriate in terms of the spirit of the times and morality and scientific knowledge (although according to your answers it is possible to think that all the technology together with an instruction sheet for building a computer is coded somewhere, we just don't know to read)

65. to Eddie
    Without infringing on my father's right to respond/or not to your question, I must tell you that you already know the answer, because in the first place, without any doubts, you came to the conclusion that my father is indeed Jewish, and then for some reason you asked a question that basically invalidates your premise yourself?

66. Among Feynman's virtues I forgot to mention also being a "sparkling burglar" of every lock and safe.

67. His lawyer:
    To me, 2012 is simply a safety valve that allows the crazy to break free and saves other articles.

68. Eddie:
    The method of presenting anyone who disbelieves in Judaism as a captive baby or as someone who is not a great sage is a well-known method and in my eyes is despicable.
    This is a method that can always be used and you use it shamelessly on the people who have not demonstrated superficiality in any area of ​​their lives!
    If you take Feynman, for example, in addition to being a great physicist, an inspiring teacher, a musician and an art lover, he was also the one who led to the deciphering of the Challenger disaster and when he was asked to help prepare the school curriculum, it became clear to him when he arrived at the committee meetings that he was the only one who read - in preparation - All existing textbooks in the field discussed.
    So yes - surely he treated Judaism differently than anything else - otherwise how could he have denied it?
    I'm sorry but it's not serious.

    Your unfounded judgment regarding my examination of the correctness of Yaron Yedan's words is also not serious.

69. Eddie
    It can be assumed that the comments are blocked since to avoid long and never-ending arguments like this.
    I'm interested in why the article about 2012 hasn't been blocked yet... would have saved us a lot of crazy people.

70. Stragit:
    Are you saying that the Talmud teaches you an algorithm for solving problems?
    If so - your series of comments is conclusive proof that the algorithm does not work.
    And no! None of your responses regarding the question I asked you comes close to being correct and they all betray a misunderstanding of the most basic things!

71. Avi Blizovsky,
    Why is it not possible to respond to the article 'Is science the new religion'?

72. Michael Rothschild,

    Regarding your response 102:
    I really appreciate your abilities, including your criticism.
    In the matter of that 'Rosh Yeshiva' you behave with a very surprising innocence, an innocence typical of a 'Hasid' in his relationship to the Rebbe.

    Regarding Feynman - allow me to make a very reasonable assumption that when someone told Feynman, on one leg and in a light conversation, what the 'Talmud' was, he did not use his superior abilities to 'check the facts on his own' and get down to the depths of this cultural/religious entity. He didn't have time for that - and above all he didn't have any tools (with all due respect to his achievements and abilities in the field of theoretical physics). He did something else, much more simple and simplistic: to continue the materialistic line that Oro was educated in, like any physicist who only knows physics - and to reach the ingenious and amazing conclusion in its equanimity and depth, within minutes or maybe seconds - "that Judaism is not something that should be adhered to". What genius!

    The same things are said about Weinberg, who is a very small 'enlightened' in everything that is not directly related to physics, the type of brilliant scientists whose every expression of opinion on a non-physical matter may, in its scarcity, embarrass the listener or reader.

    Regarding Einstein - I have no intention of underestimating his one-time genius in physics (in my humble opinion, his intellectual achievement was greater than Newton's, but this is definitely a personal opinion). But you will be surprised - if you examine the scriptures with an unbiased eye, it will be proven that he was also not something special in any field that was beyond physics (and even in the mathematics of his time he needed perfections) - and the barren concept along the lines of 'God does not play with dice' is only an expression of the problem (in the eyes of God Don't teach God how to play Burr's dice - he's much smarter). In any case, in the field of Judaism it is certain that he did not know or understand anything - he never studied Jewish sources in any depth, except perhaps a few 'recitals' from the Bible, and he did not have the opportunity to live a Jewish life.

73. Who is God?
    I did not come to disrespect you and on the other hand I am not hurt by your words even though you do not consider your words too much.
    Regarding the proof again, I referred to the problem with the half-numbers from 1 to 1000, I did not present the way in an orderly manner, but what I wrote is the correct calculation. I admit this is exactly the orderly way you are used to seeing proofs. But this is exactly the point that I am interested in completely different things in the field of mathematics than you are. That's why I asked you about an algorithm. In learning Torah there is a lot about the way of thinking to solve problems. Proof of problems is a very narrow matter if you solved one problem you are not guaranteed to solve another.
    And the Talmud adjusts to this matter exactly.

74. Avi Blizovsky,
    For response 101:

    From your words I understand that the Talmud has no practical relevance to your life (you know, because of the lice that form from sweat, and all that).
    The same as above, I suppose - also regarding the Torah.

    I assume that only scientific 'scientific truth' is important to you.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to tease, I'm trying to understand you.
    Please explain to me, in your opinion -
    1. What is it about Feynman that is Jewish?
    2. What is it about you that is Jewish?

75. Stargate:
    I do like to solve problems and know how to do it well.
    There is no algorithm for solving problems because if there were, there would be no problems at all.
    It is very easy to drag me into a conversation about the subject, but this time I will not allow myself to be dragged.
    The question at the moment is whether Talmudic thinking includes mathematical thinking and it seems to me that you have helped us to prove that there is nothing further from reality than this claim (which, I remind you, you claimed).
    In general, mathematics and mathematical logic are the only orderly ways we have as humans to draw the correct conclusions from the data.
    That is why mathematical thinking (and not Talmudic thinking) is used in deciphering the norths of nature in all branches of science.
    What could easily be seen in our argument is that what you lack is much more than a talent for solving problems (even many people who studied mathematics are not necessarily talented at solving problems). What you lack is a basic understanding of basic concepts like "proof" - concepts without which logical thinking is not possible.
    These basic concepts can of course be learned (although honest people know this even without learning - and I didn't use the word "honest" by chance - I think that these are the understandings that develop in a person naturally and it takes a high level of self-deception to deceive ourselves to the point that we think that "there is no proof" It is a proof. It is, for example, a failure for someone who has studied mathematics - most likely he will not fail it. He may not find the proof, but usually he will not provide idle sentences as if they were a proof).

76. Who is God?
    Obviously the answer is not 124 I meant the number of your comment in the chain.
    I addressed the problem before me when I did a different and simple analysis.
    I have not addressed this problem yet, although I have read it and it seems to be nice and interesting no less.
    And of course the proof is more intriguing than reaching the result.
    I see you really like math.
    Do you know how you know how to solve problems? Can you apply such an algorithm to others.

77. Stargit and Ghost:
    The correct answer is 12305559768355756
    This, of course, differs (slightly) from 124
    I have no doubt that the number that Stratgit threw out was only meant to mislead the public as if the gate has not yet closed and it has no idea how to start looking at the problem.

    Ghost:
    This is one of the problems that I decided not to publish the way to solve them.
    You see it is well used in spotting imposters and I'm afraid I'll have to do it another time or two.
    What's nice about this question is that I can post an answer and straight away, without much effort, ask the question again with different numbers.
    This kind of question is especially important when you encounter someone who tries to translate his lack of reading comprehension, through smears, into a misrepresentation as if he understands.
    There are not many words to be said here - there is only a number to be given as an answer.

    Stragit:
    Your attempts to continue to deal with the first question evoke something between ridiculousness and pity.
    I don't know why you can't admit that Talmudic thinking just doesn't help when real thinking is needed.
    I'll let you try your luck again with the number problem.
    Please think
    (F (9866545657898, 6556589111

78. Dan Shamir,
    Another definition please correct me: there is no pair in the group whose common denominator is less than 1001.
    The sum of the largest group that meets the conditions does not exceed:
    Half the sum of the inverses of the 9-term series from 1 to 9. Equals less than 1.5

79. Michael
    It doesn't seem to me that Kochash'ar knows the answer, if so far he has answered incorrectly, you can write the answer
    For question 140? Or at least give a hint in which equations or ways it can be solved?
    I don't understand much in mathematics so I would appreciate an answer as simple as possible. Thanks.

80. Lestergit!
    Your Talmudic reading comprehension is nothing,
    You don't understand what that means to both of them!!!!!!

81. Stragit:
    Babble and more babble.
    The solution is not 124 and your attitude regarding the proof problem continues to be a disgrace.

82. In short, the largest sum according to the conditions is equal to half the sum of the inverses of the series from 1 to 9

83. Who is God?
    The solution to problem 124

84. tell me strgit:

    Have you no shame?
    Repeat and prove every time in a different way that you do not understand what you are talking about?!
    Did you even read the problem?!

    You have already failed in this matter with every possible failure and there is no point in inventing more failures.

    In order to prevent a repeat of this humiliation, I suggest that you simply recruit all the people you know and all the people they know, and in my opinion, including Chazal, and together try to find the numerical answer to the question in response 140

85. Who is God?
    A more rigorous analysis of the previous problem leads to the following result.
    The maximum amount of the largest group according to the conditions:
    2/(1+1/2+1/3+1/4+1/5+1/6+1/7+1/8+1/9)
    <1.5

86. Stragit:
    So that's it - you managed to make me work a little hard to prepare a question that you can't avoid.

    Solve the following problem:
    http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgz8mg3w_383g9b9tjhj

    There is no need for you to confuse our minds with your musings on the solution.
    If you solved - just tell us what the numerical value of
    (F (12376567807986465,87666078685324

87. Michael, you invest so much in your answers, even for religious fanatics, who try to prove that the Torah contains the innovative principles of quantum physics, that if someone had told me that you had shares in science, I would not have been surprised :-))

88. If you ever need an alarm system, intercom or home cameras, I'd be happy to help 🙂

89. Chen T:
    Thanks for the encouragement 🙂

90. Hello Michael 🙂
    Thank you very much for your detailed and impressive answer.
    The knowledge I get from the scientist to the rabbi is tiny compared to what I get from your answers.
    Also, thank you for the fact that in your answers you usually explain things in simple language for a layman in the field.

91. Stragit:
    It turns out that you don't even understand what proof is.
    Your words are just gibberish but there's no way you'll understand that.
    I see that instead of a proof problem (since you don't even have a green idea what a proof is) maybe you should be given a numerical problem (just to allow you to save some of your dignity since you already proved what I wanted you to prove and that is that you don't understand what you are talking about).
    I have a numerical problem that I can give you but it takes work to explain it and it includes drawings.
    I would not invest this work in you, but I know that there are many people of your type who do not even begin to understand what a proof is (and therefore make all kinds of delusional claims in any field) and that a numerical problem is needed to put them in their place.
    So it will take some time but eventually I will post the new problem.

    There is no point in you continuing to deal with the old one because it turns out that you and your friends don't even understand the words that appear in it.

92. Who is God?
    You know another analysis. Every problem has many solutions. I showed that the maximum amount from your group is less than the above amount.

93. Michael, regarding question 124, my answer is that your sentence is a true sentence.

94. Stragit:

    And one nonsense!
    Who limited you to squares?
    You are talking about something that has nothing to do with the matter.
    You remind me of the one who prepared for the zoology exam and thought the teacher would ask about worms, so that's all he studied for the test.
    When the teacher asked about an elephant he said:
    The elephant is a large, gray animal that has a trunk that looks like a worm.
    The worm is…. Complete speech….

    Maybe you will finally deal with the problem?

95. Who is God?
    The solution is simple and can be based on the limit I mentioned earlier, that is, the sum of the inverses of the squares.
    Because your condition basically means that this is a group in which no pair has a common denominator smaller than 1000.
    If we take twice the series of quadratic inverses starting from 2 onwards it will be greater than the series according to your condition. Because all the squares will be the lowest common denominators of all inverses. And certainly smaller than 1000 as a common denominator.
    The amount you will receive is about 1.29 less than 1.5 according to your definition.

96. Stragit:
    I remind you that I did not ask you how easy or difficult it is.
    All I asked was for you to prove.
    In the meantime you only prove ignorance because even though the sum of the inverses of all squares is finite and it is known that the sum of the inverses of the natural numbers (without a square) is infinite.
    Anyway - you haven't started getting close to the proof yet.
    Are you really not in control of Talmudic thinking?
    Or should I understand that these evasions are part of Talmudic thinking - the same part you call (grossly mistaken) mathematics

    Raul:
    I don't know if you can find it online. I think not. It can also be assumed that Shaar HaKohav already tried it and the fact that he did not give an answer but only gibberish shows that he was not successful.

97. Michael, he can find it on the Internet.

98. Who is God?
    The limit of the sum of all quadratic inverses over the entire field of normals converges to about 1.6
    which is very close to your limit - 1.5.
    However, according to your condition, all multiples smaller than 1000 must be subtracted
    So it seems pretty easy. Although it seems to me that a more suitable trigonometric series can be found.
    Regarding Mr. Yedani, it was his ego and arrogance that failed him.
    The content of his claims indicates a lack of basic understanding of Torah study.
    Or alternatively an attitude that stems from a personal grudge.

99. Jewish:
    You have a friend who is a liar (and no wonder).

    Stragit:
    I really don't care what you think - give proof. I do not back down from the assumption - you are welcome to involve all your friends in solving the problem that seems quite simple to you.
    If you manage to prove it, you might also realize that the name of a scholar is not a scholar.

100. Who is God?
     Reading Mr. Yadani's arguments proves him to be a perfect country man.
     The problem you presented is interesting and on the face of it seems quite simple.
     Because it can be proven that the sum of the squared inverses from 1 to infinity converges to approximately half a pie.
     I imagine that suitable trigonometric functions can be found by means of which the conditions you have set can be generalized and the necessary limit can be shown.

101. Stragit:
     Knows what? I will give you a discount! I allow you to use all the members of your yeshiva and the head of the yeshiva together.

102. By the way, Stratgit:
     You said that Talmudic thinking contains mathematical thinking.
     Please, then, demonstrate your talmudic thinking ability and prove to us that in any group of natural numbers between one and a thousand the least common multiple of any two of them is greater than a thousand - if we sum up the inverses of all the numbers in the group (when the inverse of a number is one divided by the same number) we get Always an amount smaller than one and a half.

103. Stragit:
     It is not necessary to study Talmud to know that the name of a scholar is not a scholar.
     There is no need to study Talmud to draw from the fact that people testify that Yadan was the head of their yeshiva the conclusion that Yaron Yadan was the head of their yeshiva.
     It is not necessary to study Talmud in order to correctly answer the question when did I study Talmud.
     It is necessary to study Talmud just to believe all kinds of nonsense that people like you believe.
     Apparently studying Talmud only - without meaningful studies causes the terrible failure you demonstrate in drawing illogical conclusions.

104. Dear Michael
     I have a friend who studied with Mr. Yedan. Be sure that he was not a Yeshiva head and far from it.
     He was a talented young man who wanted to advance to be appointed head of the whole. But he was refused for reasons unknown to me. In any case, from my impression and the impression of people who surrounded Mr. Yedan, they did not glorify his intellectual level as much as you present him here, at least.

105. Who is God?
     You need quantitative proofs, you only understand the language you are used to.
     I don't think this is the right forum. Talmudic thinking is immeasurably superior to mathematical scientific thinking, it contains it. It is possible that in the future this matter will become clear to you in your language.
     To know that Mr. Yadani is with Haaretz pretending to be a TA, you only need to read his words and arguments on his website.
     Every person who has studied and knows the true way of learning immediately understands that a knowledgeable person is the people of the land.
     whose purpose is only to anger. He is not the only one whose negative emotions have affected his thinking.

106. And by the way - Stragit, I agree with part of what was said in your response 94 - the same part where you indirectly say that studying the Talmud is pointless.
     Therefore, it is also clear that it is not necessary for the purpose of drawing the conclusions that I draw about Yaron Yadan or about your money or about your chauvinism.

107. Stragit:
     Do you really not understand what you are reading?
     Please tell me what consideration you find in my saying that I needed knowledge of the Talmud to consider it.
     I repeat - the things in which you must find the same Talmudic consideration are my following claims:
     1. I have seen yeshiva students and former yeshiva students who said that Yaron Yedan was the head of their yeshiva.
     2. I studied Talmud.
     3. There is no need to study Talmud to conclude from claim number 1 that Yaron Yedan was a Rosh Yeshiva.

108. In the matter of chauvinism, these are things that are mentioned in the Talmud and come to emphasize that learning Torah is not about counting and calculating quantities. The female way of thinking is different from the male way of thinking precisely in this matter. When abstraction is required on a large and complex scale it is more suited to the male way of thinking than to the female. This is a general rule, of course there are exceptions. In the simplest way, everyone understands that there is a fundamental difference between these two ways of thinking.

109. Who is God?
     Logic and mathematical scientific thinking are completely different from the Talmudic one.
     Therefore, you don't have the tools to understand, let alone criticize the Talmud.
     Mr. Yadani's arguments stem from his being with the country, everything he learned he learned the way of lies.
     and never came to a true understanding.
     These things are known and clear to anyone who has directed his mind and studied Torah for the truth.

110. Yes, and of course - there is a connection between your idiotic chauvinism and Talmud studies.

111. Stragit:
     What is so difficult to understand?
     You make up how I learned Talmud without having any information about it.
     You allow yourself to state this because you are simply a liar.
     You keep talking about my Talmud studies as if they have something to do with the topic of discussion even though they have nothing to do with it. It is not necessary to study Talmud to see that yeshiva students who studied with Yaron Yedan say that he was the head of their yeshiva.
     It may be necessary to study Talmud in order to invent lies like the ones you keep producing, but I am not required to do so, so I could manage even if I had not studied Talmud.

112. For the answer to 113, see 112

113. Dan
     The Talmud does not collect information that can be quantified. This learning contains quality not quantity. And so this is an oral Torah.
     Active learning is required to assimilate this way of thinking. Those who have really studied know the difference between the kind of information you are used to and Talmudic thinking.
     This matter is unique to the Talmud and does not exist in science or any other textual files.

114. Stragit, for now you are the one that repeats itself like a record parrot.
     Every time you are required to give an answer or a serious reference you simply avoid and say you don't understand and only if you study for years and blah blah blah..., how convenient!!!

115. You learned just like a record learns. completely meaningless.

116. Stragit:
     Unlike you, I'm not a broken record.
     Re-read my previous response because you haven't made any progress since then.

117. My father, who is God, Dan,
     (internet fault)
     All of the above again

118. My father, who is God, Dan,
     You are talking about something you have never learned.
     The comparison of studying Talmud with other types of studies is not helpful.
     The thought processes and way of abstraction that the Talmud deals with are acquired through hard work.
     The way Talmud is taught as if it were a Chinese law book or a historical or philosophical matter is irrelevant to its essence.
     The Talmud is defined as an oral Torah and to this day it is still so in the sense of acquiring dynamic knowledge of ways of thinking
     Reading a Talmudic text can also parrot.
     The acquisition of Talmudic skill includes many areas. Complex moves and large scale integration complicated thought experiments and more and more.
     The Jewish genius originates from studying and acquiring this way of thinking for many years.
     Mr. Yedani on his site refers to the Talmud indeed as a collection of Chinese laws.
     And for this reason it is clear that he is the people of the country who never studied Talmud and knew how to study at all.

119. Lestergit,
     I want to understand, you admit that the Talmud only cultivates thought processes and its content is only marginal so it doesn't really matter whether it is really "divine"
     or vanity vanity.
     To say that Liron Yadan has no knowledge of Gemara is a bad joke, you are influenced without checking
     From a series of slanders that the entire religious establishment makes towards him because he is a threat to them
     It is new with which they do not know how to deal (ie: "secularists speak their "language").

120. Stargate:
     seriously?
     First of all - I studied Talmud and you are just shamelessly making up details of my biography.
     Second - I wasn't talking about the Talmud at all, but about the lies you spread about Yaron Yedan.

     By the way: how did you get infected with your ugly chauvinism?

121. Stragit, I explained that the Talmud is as relevant as the voodoo book or as ancient Chinese law books. It is relevant to the researchers of the period to understand the historical background, not beyond that. Every student in Israel is exposed to the Talmud as part of the Tusheba classes, and luckily for you, a few issues are brought there just for illustration, and of course, by way of natural selection, these are among the few issues that are relevant for today.

122. Father, who is God,
     You both refer to the Talmud that you have never studied and have no idea.
     Its essence is not a religious matter at all and the laws of eggs born on Shabbat.
     It is a dynamic of thought processes that is defined as Talmud Torah. The study of the way of studying thinking.
     And the students of this matter are not called doctors, professors or scientists. They are defined as talmidh tachami even after they have studied the entire Talmud many times they will be called talmidim tachami and nothing else.
     This learning method must be acquired with effort. Anyone who has not been exposed to this method has no idea what it is about.
     And therefore reference according to content standards. Such as donkey rabbits and eggs, there will always be the same visitor who came to the zoo and claimed that there is no such animal.
     In short, you are referring to something you have no knowledge of at all.

123. Father, thank you. There are simply no words
     simple -
     You made me laugh.

124. Stargate:
     You remind me of the following joke:
     One man enters a zoo, sees a giraffe and says "Impossible! There is no such animal!”

     The arguments you put forward against the possibility that Yaron Yedan was Rosh Yeshiva are arguments that show that now he is not Rosh Yeshiva, but not that he was not.
     After all, with the same lack of logic, you can say that just from the fact that he is deceiving Judaism, you can conclude that he was not a Rosh Yeshiva.
     I suggest you start thinking logically.

     Besides - it won't hurt you at all to be cured of your ugly chauvinism. There are many women who are a thousand times better than you in any field of thought.

     Eddie:
     I find no point in a hypothetical discussion whose entire purpose is to defame a person.
     I told you that I know people who studied with him when he was Rosh Yeshiva.
     This whole section of the discussion seems to me to be simply delusional.
     There is also no doubt that he controls the written material of the religion more than the vast majority of the religious and that his understanding exceeds that of most of them - again - I know this from personal acquaintance (it is true that I do not know the majority of the religious, but in the case of the religious I base my opinion on a fairly large sample that I do know).

     Regarding Richard Feynman - the nickname "assimilating Jew" is a stupid nickname.
     This is a man who was born in a Jewish home (this is a historical fact and not just speculation based on the name) and decided for himself - after examining the facts (and his ability to examine the facts also won him a Nobel Prize) that Judaism is not something to adhere to.
     You could say the same about Einstein or Weiberg.
     It's a cheap and demagogic way to dwarf the words of geniuses.

125. To Eddie, the Talmud is a literary masterpiece like some of the Greek philosophical books, but just as we do not lead our lives according to Aristotle, there is no need to lead our lives according to the thoughts and opinions of people who lived two thousand years ago in the Land of Israel and Babylon and were interested in the practical problems of that time - an egg that was born on Yom Tov and the like.
     It may be that some of the things are interesting like the story about the man who threw stones from his yard into a public area and a wise man came to him and said to him why are you throwing from an area that is not yours to your area, he laughed at him and did not know what he was talking about. After a few years he got off his property, passed by and ran into one of the stones he had thrown out earlier and was injured. But the problem is that for every such story there are a thousand examples that are absolutely irrelevant to today and that lack scientific foundation (lice created from sweat for example). Therefore, I recommend not living your day-to-day life according to this book after such a long time.

     In addition, the holders of scientific knowledge at the time believed in things that today are known to be false such as the fact that the sun revolves around the earth instead of understanding that it revolves around the sun, and believed that every action in nature is a product of God's intervention. Today we know enough about the mechanisms of nature that we will not need this explanation - and this is another reason why we should not live our lives according to the Talmud.

126. Eddie - strong and blessed
     I propose to establish a new site whose entire purpose is the fascinating confrontations
     Between you and the gentleman. (And maybe this site will turn to net science.)
     By the way -
     If I read someone here named "Gabir" then can I ask him for financial advice?
     Because I see that someone called someone else out of respect and affection "the rabbi the genius" and the master already "made him a rabbi."

127. Mr. Blizovsky,

     You write:
     "Richard Feynman, it is clear from his name that he was Jewish"
     I assume that you understand that he is a Jew who assimilates in the United States of America, and that the country is finished with everything related to Judaism at least, which explains the fact that "after receiving an explanation of the essence of the Talmud he realized that this was not necessary" immediately - and sharp and smooth, with the ease of a mathematical exercise ( After all, he is a novelist in physics...).

     I can understand Feynman, who assimilates with the country, and in fact I have no objection to him. But you - do you also believe that 'there is no need for this' - is this work really worthless in your eyes?
     If you tell me yes - then you are not different from Feynman at all.
     If you tell me no - then it's a shame that you, especially in your position as the editor of the website, post comments with such quotes.

128. My father, did you not understand that being a dos is profitable, they don't join the army, they don't work, they don't pay taxes, the state is afraid of them and while they are enjoying themselves like lovers, they send their wives to work. I'm not a big believer, but maybe being a dos will free me from working 12 hours a day from reserves and other things

129. Avi- the approach you are talking about is the purposeful halachic approach.
     While the whole point of the Talmud is the development of interpretive thinking on four layers of paradise.
     This is its essence and hence the origin of the Jewish genius. Without the habits of thinking that were inculcated over the generations by the Talmud, Einsteins and Feynmans would not have grown.

130. The Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman, whose name is clear that he was Jewish, once asked ultra-Orthodox hosts where he was staying in New York when he arrived at an inter-religious and inter-religion-science conference in the fields of morality. After receiving an explanation of the essence of the Talmud, he realized that this was not necessary
     Those who live according to the Talmud and worse, but who want us all to live and take advantage of the weakness of our politicians to pass draconian laws such as a prison sentence for eating chametz on Passover (I know I'm exaggerating a bit, but the tightening of the chametz law is the first step on the way if our public messengers don't come to their senses) , in addition you pour milk in the barns (at the expense of the taxpayers, of course it's not them), force us to pay for kosher to 10 different parties for every product we buy and make the purchasing power of the Israeli one of the lowest in the western world) and force us to prevent women from singing.

     If someone starts a war who should not expect not to grab ricochets.

131. The Talmud developed the art of Gedankenexperiment to a very high level of sophistication.
     Many, many years before it became such an important tool in the hands of Einstein and more.

132. Eddie-Machal
     The content on Mr. Yedan's website points to a similar approach that denies interpretation.
     It is implied from the fact that he never knew how to study Gemara, it is not possible that he was a total leader or rabbi.
     The entire Gemara is built on the development of interpretation according to clear rules such as 13 midods. And additional rules that derive from the perception of the Torah as a 4-layered interpretive template, simple, hint, command, secret.
     Most of the Talmudic text as a whole is not required for Halach but for interpretation in various ways. and testing even far-fetched viewpoints in the form of thought experiments. This is the essence of the Talmud, the way of thinking that is unique to it.
     This is also the source of the Jewish genius.
     And anyone who tries to examine the Talmud from a legal point of view and as a collection of facts is defined in the Talmud as the people of the land.
     This is also the reason why women are considered to lack the ability to study Talmud. "The article all that teaches his daughter Talmud as if she were teaching tifilot" refers exactly to the fact that women generally have a purposeful objective approach, that is, of checking the facts without interpretation and drawing conclusions that have a purposeful meaning.
     Whereas the Talmud is exactly not that.

133. Michael Rothschild,

     Regarding the 'texts' - we are in dispute.

     Regarding the birth of the moon - I believe that there is no clear historical evidence regarding the date of its creation and the identity of the creators of - System-B. The association that the link in response 80 makes between System-B and the Babylonians or Hiparchus is of late Roman origin, and the thesis of P. Schnabel on the subject received criticism from important scholars on the subject. Theoretically there is also no possibility to determine who learned from whom.

     Be that as it may, I do not see the issues of the moon, etc., as a subject for religious discourse (proof of the existence of God, etc.), and all such 'proofs' are provided if not empty of content. And there is no disagreement between us. I mentioned the matter of the moon only to set things straight, to the best of my knowledge - and there is no doubt that I still have a lot to learn on the subject.

     As for Mr. Yaron Yedan -
     It was a mistake on my part to go into personal criticism, especially when the person is not present and also because for legal reasons I cannot say more concrete things and therefore the claims come out too general. I also feel uncomfortable when I am forced to make personal comments, especially when I have no first-hand personal knowledge about things and we are both fed by second-hand testimonies.
     I got into the matter only because I noticed that you rely on the man and his words as if they were an idea fix, and I know that you have a desire for the truth.

     I will limit myself to general comments, and if you know how to relate them to concrete reality - they will also be useful:

     Regarding the issue of 'head of the yeshiva' and the title 'genius', I can understand your mistake - anyone who is not in the ultra-Orthodox state will make the same mistake. You are not aware of the huge difference between a 'Rosh Kollel' and a 'Rosh Yeshiva' (usually a Rosh Kollel is just a businessman who knows how to raise funds and/or manage paperwork with all the tricks in front of the Ministry of Religion or someone who knows how to let loose 'and knock personality'. There are very few between heads including those who are at the rank of 'talmidi chamesh', not to mention the rank of 'rosh yeshiva').
     You are also unaware of the fact that the title 'genius' is given today to anyone who is just a 'head of the general', and this is part of a whole culture of exaggeration and regard for appearances that the ultra-orthodox Lithuanian public started about 30 years ago. Sometimes the title 'genius' is affixed to someone only as a currency passed to a merchant in exchange for some kind of entertainment or financial interest. Often the title is affixed to a person who is among those who have repented, in order to make him dearer in their eyes. In the conventional hierarchy, when on every street corner in Bnei Brak or Jerusalem you find an inflation of holders of titles of the type 'righteous genius' 'great genius' 'The arbiter of the generation' and 'rabbi of all the diaspora' in general - you must understand that 'genius' for nothing, especially in self-interested circumstances or just a private attitude - is gornisht min gornisht. We even found some ultra-Orthodox members of the Knesset and many more of the businessmen who were sometimes referred to by the title of having this dubious resume...

     Another source of error: note that there is a huge difference between the yeshiva head of a standard yeshiva, and one who serves as the head of a 'yeshiva' for converts (or dropout youth). Of the latter type there are those who are sometimes not able to study a page of Gemara carefully, and often have difficulty even in Pashto. Not to mention significant ability in subjects other than studying Gemara. I know of only one yeshiva of converts that the ultra-Orthodox world recognizes as a real yeshiva (Netivot Olam, in Bnei Brak). All the rest are a kind of camps or a kind of preparation - Yeshivas in oil (including for support), but certainly not in their status.

     As for my sources of information: I don't know if, in relation to all of them, they are exceptionally wise - it is not required either. But these are people I hold to be very honest people.

     So who to believe? - I am faithful to the words of the general rule 'to consider a problem'.

134. Eddie-Michael
     The content on Mr. Yedan's website points to a similar approach that denies interpretation.
     It is implied from the fact that he never knew how to study Gemara, it is not possible that he was a total leader or rabbi.
     The entire Gemara is built on the development of interpretation according to clear rules such as 13 midods. And additional rules that derive from the perception of the Torah as a 4-layered interpretive template, simple, hint, command, secret.
     Most of the Talmudic text as a whole is not required for Halach but for interpretation in various ways. and testing even far-fetched viewpoints in the form of thought experiments. This is the essence of the Talmud, the way of thinking that is unique to it.
     This is also the source of the Jewish genius.
     And anyone who tries to examine the Talmud from a legal point of view and as a collection of facts is defined in the Talmud as the people of the land.
     This is also the reason why women are considered to lack the ability to study Talmud. "The article all that teaches his daughter Talmud as if she were teaching tifilot" refers exactly to the fact that women generally have a purposeful objective approach, that is, of checking the facts without interpretation and drawing conclusions that have a purposeful meaning.
     Whereas the Talmud is exactly not that.

135. Eddie:
     I stand by my opinion regarding the texts that need interpretations.
     If the texts are unintelligible because of the time that has passed (and there are certainly some that were even written in a language that has passed away from the world) then no matter how sophisticated they are - it is impossible to rely on their misunderstanding as proof of their wisdom.
     Be that as it may, the whole idea of ​​the moon being born in Judaism and in reality is a wrong idea as proven in the links I provided and others.

     As for Yaron Yedan - I met people who were his students when he was head of the collective and whoever told you that he never served in this position is just a liar.
     I also saw a letter from Rabbi Dov Yaffe of Marchesim in which Rabbi Dov Yaffe defines Yaron Yadan as "the genius Rabbi Yaron Yadan." It is interesting, by the way, if he also says that Yaron Yedan was not head of yeshiva.
     You can ask him and you can also ask Rabbi Brandis.

     Yaron Yedan served (not at the same time) as head of yeshiva both in Tiberias and in Raksim.

     I know him personally. I don't know those acquaintances of yours, but I tend to believe that even if some of them are smart and if some are honest, none of them is endowed with both of these qualities.

136. Shay, here is the missing picture:
     http://www.molvray.com/sf/images/dinoman_neoteny.jpg
     And here -
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosauroid#The_.22Dinosauroid.22

137. Michael Rothschild,

     You are probably right about the averages. No one claims that the figure of the synodical month is not average.

     In the matter of the writings (and the stars) - I suggest you look at the Tractate of Blessings and try to understand the designations of the orders of magnitude. Etymological tracing will certainly help here. The text uses technical language that must have been known precisely at the time of its writing, but the distance of time makes it difficult for readers - such as Israel or any other reader - to understand the things precisely, and therefore the need to make an effort and trace to reach the correct interpretation arises.
     By the way, this rule is true for any ancient document that contains technical terminology. For example - the historians from the Ionic-Roman tradition often describe the arrays of military forces and war tactics. Today it is difficult for the average reader to understand exactly what is being said, although each of the historians was 'smart enough to express himself clearly' as you say. None of them tried to 'deliberately obfuscate'. Still, we need a professional interpretation to understand them correctly.

     As for Mr. Yaron Yedan - I don't know him personally, but I know people who knew him personally, and from them I hear things that are different from what he was predicted to be, in the past and about different developments than what can be understood from him. I am of course not harsh and I don't want to harsh any objective statement, except for the fact that he was certainly never a 'Rosh Yeshiva' or something similar to that, as some of his followers and perhaps he himself tries to claim. In my personal opinion, he was other things, in my opinion not necessarily positive.

     In my opinion this man does not have enough knowledge and above all he does not have enough understanding of Judaism. It is perceived as small, trivial and bizarre (and even so, as far as I could prove, quite superficially and out of proportion), and makes all of these 'main', while taking advantage of 'charms' that developed on a concrete and limited historical background, instead of focusing on deep meanings and seeing the main point; When the real goal is not to assert an essential 'truth' but to clash at the formal and technical level, out of personal motives. His perception of Judaism is from the technical angle, and it does not seem to me that he has essential intuitions, or any kind of historical understanding or philosophical ability. I was not impressed by his intellectual power - on the contrary - his whole concept seems to me to be somewhat primitive, and in this regard he is no different from some of the 'answer-holders', or from types of preachers, only in the opposite direction. It seems to me that he never knew what Judaism was, and his entire Jewish journey was reduced to trying to master technical control of Talmudic texts and observing mitzvot as a kind of robot (unfortunately, in this respect he is no different from certain parts of Judaism), and not necessarily 'for its own sake' either.

     I am personally not sure that the man is as 'smart' and as 'honest' as you seem.

     In my opinion, he is not the man that people with intellectual strengths or pretensions should rely on him and his words.- I again recommend taking him and his words critically, as you should take any other scientific or intellectual statement or position - and of course in light of the ideological and personal biases in Mr. Yaden's actions.

138. ghosts,
     Pioneer 11 was sent on its mission with the wish that something or someone out there would see it, understand what it meant and maybe even pick up the phone here.

139. Rach
     "How to explain to someone unknown who we are." - You mean on the condition that this something exists, yes?

140. Eddie:
     There is a lot of information on the subject of the synodical month and I suggest that you read the links in their entirety.
     One of the clear facts is that this is an average and it is really not a problem to reach such accuracy in calculating the average and no sophisticated measures are necessary for this.

     As for the matter of writings that require an interpretation for their understanding - you know what I mean.
     I completely reject the interpretive approach.
     Whoever writes a text writes the things he means. If he meant "commentary" he would have written the commentary.
     If he is not smart enough to express himself clearly or if he obfuscates things on purpose - he is not worth attention at all.

     I read the words of "Deat Emet" critically, but I only quote from there things that pass the test of criticism (not that I found anything there that does not pass the test of criticism, but I do not read there for pleasure and have not seen all the contents).
     Yaron Yedan is an honest and wise man and he is indeed a true authority (unless you think that a rabbi, head of yeshiva and halachic judge is not qualified).

141. Yair
     All in all, there is agreement between us and we are somewhat chewing on the same thing. All I wanted to do was comment on the judgments in your assertions about what technological life on another planet looks like. I agree that one should start with some assumptions, but one must always remember that they are very loose assumptions based on the only known example.
     This is also the problem that faced Carl Sagan and the others who designed the plaque on Pioneer 11, how to explain to someone unknown who we are.

142. Rach
     I actually read Solaris
     As far as I remember the ocean mainly reacts to the actions of humans.
     Do we have to assume that all life will be based on DNA? I did not claim that, at all. I said that life developed in biological evolution, which may be different and unfamiliar to us. If there is life in any form in the universe except in the land, it developed through natural processes, whatever their physical, biochemical, and physical characteristics were. Unless you prefer religious answers.
     If life has evolved, not only the unique biological constraints on their site act on them, but also the gravitation of that distant planet, so even the distant superintelligences would not be able to take off without developing useful energy. Even if we assume the grandiose proposal of Solaris, it is still necessary for the ocean to channel energy to get out of its place, or at least to get other factors out of its place.
     If I didn't know an octopus, could I imagine him? People imagined like Solaris countless unknown things.

143. Michael Rothschild,

     I was glad to see you back and participating in the site.

     For our purposes, and just for the sake of accuracy:

     Regarding the length of the synodical month:
     The figure that appears in the Gemara is accurate to a thousandth of a second. To the best of my knowledge, this figure is much more accurate than anything known in the ancient civilizations until the very recent times.
     By the way, the Gemara ascribes the data in advance to 'Halakah to Moses of Sinai', that is, to knowledge that does not originate in human scientific wisdom.
     This is different from another figure - the length of the summer year - which the Gemara gives as an approximate figure and it testifies to it as a deduction from scientific wisdom. This figure is indeed less accurate.

     As for the number of stars in the universe:
     The pronouns for the orders of magnitude that appear in the relevant Gemara section - are definitely subject to interpretation, and therefore the calculation made by Israel with a certain understanding of the pronouns - may certainly be wrong in the order of magnitude you mentioned. But what is most important to notice, and this is the main thing, that the Sage's concepts regarding the order of magnitude of the Sabbath stars in the universe were much, much closer to those of modern science than those of all other cultures and human concepts until a few decades ago, and this without any 'scientific' basis contemporary It is even possible that the proper interpretation of the names indicates a much larger number of stars in the universe than modern science knows about today. We will probably only know about him in the future, if at all.

     Knowing the critical sense with which you are gifted, I also suggest that you take the contents taken from 'Deat Emet' with a certain criticality, and not as 'Torah from Heaven'. After all, this is not a writer/producer/publisher who is a real authority, despite his claims. There are also legs to the belief that his personal background and personal and ideological motives have some impact on the degree of reliability of the distributed content.

144. Anyone who wants to read a faithful description of all the reactions of the Pantheists (including those that are much more serious than Israel) is welcome to read HERE

     Anyone who wants to read why Israel fell victim, is invited to watchYaron Yadan's lecture

145. And regarding the "evidence" you are talking about - if you find it, it will at most be evidence that that "scientist" did not study the material.
     The order of magnitude of the number of stars in the galaxy is hundreds of billions.
     The order of magnitude of the number of galaxies is hundreds of billions.
     I hope your scientist knows how to do simple multiplication.

146. Israel:
     This site is managed by a man who was a rabbi, head of yeshiva and halachic judge.
     His knowledge of religion and Torah exceeds yours by tens of thousands.

     Regardless of the above, the explanation given there about the subject of the Moon's birth is correct.
     In the same matter, you are welcome to read here:
     http://www.hofesh.org.il/religion_merchants/metifim/DR2_Dont_Believe_Them_2.html

147. Yair, you deduce everything from what you know and I agree that it is hard to imagine something completely unfamiliar.
     Read, for example, Stanislav Lem's book - Solaris, which talks about the ocean as a living organism, where he tries to imagine a biology completely different from the known one.
     You are probably right in your assumptions. But what bothered me is the discontinuity with which you jump from assumptions to conclusions about things for which there is no evidence, and we really have no evidence except for life on Earth.
     Notice how diverse the life here is, even though if you examine in depth all the organisms are much more similar than different from each other. If you didn't know an octopus for example, could you imagine it? And an octopus is made suitable with ribosomes and DNA so describe to you productions based on completely different biology.
     Do we have to assume that all life will be based on DNA because that is what we know? The same goes for marine creatures, will they necessarily not be able to develop technology?

148. Eddie
     I agree and disagree with you. In any case, I will ask those responsible for the email you send me.

149. Michael
     Regarding truth, I wonder about you. An educated person quotes from such an ignorant site.
     But fine, anyway, I'll try to get my evidence written that a scientist at NASA actually thinks like me.
     In the matter of the stars it is exactly the same. Please bring me a link.
     Regarding the covenant, I don't see it as a coincidence because let's not forget that the commandment was given more than 3000 years ago so they had no idea about biology. If you check things in depth you will see that before the eighth day there is no chance of making a pact and if after that much later.

150. Michael, I thank you for the great link (71, for those interested). If the hominid went down to the sea let's say 2 million years ago, maybe he would have turned into some marine animal that 2 million years later would have been used to test intelligence in animals by Neanderthal Homo scientists. Regarding the intelligence, in my opinion marine mammals have improved their intelligence compared to their terrestrial relatives.
     If we go down to the sea today, we will plant our civilization in the sea and continue to live similar to our lives today, hunched in front of the computers.

151. Israel:
     And this is the nature of your "proofs":
     Regarding the moon:
     http://daatemet.org.il/articles/article.cfm?article_id=5

     Regarding the number of stars, this is simply a joke - the number you mentioned is about ten thousand times smaller than the number of stars observed by astronomers - and note - we are only talking about the Saturday stars and not about the planets, and if you add them, another order of magnitude will be added to the matter!

     And regarding circumcision - leave us from meaningless coincidences.
     I wonder if the idea occurred to them that without circumcision the blood loss would decrease even more and babies whose blood clotting is slightly delayed would be left alive.

152. Rach
     And what are the cited experts based on?
     My claims are based on much more than one unrepeatable observation. Millions of species have already evolved and many of them have already disappeared, and every single one of them is in terms of an observation that teaches something.
     The claim that only one species evolved into technological capabilities is quite problematic. The Neanderthal had similar technological abilities to the sapiens of his time. We must not forget that almost all of our technology has developed in the last 15000 years, and almost all of it in the last 5000 years, and almost all of it in the last 100 years. Under slightly different conditions it is not impossible that other species known to us only as fossils would have developed into those with high civilization and technology.
     A first assumption you are welcome to challenge is that all life in the universe developed in biological evolution.
     A second assumption is that in order to create technology it is necessary for the developer to be able to produce devices. Should we believe that biological evolution will produce a creature with biotechnological capabilities that will allow it to do feats similar to or superior to human feats?
     Third, it is necessary for the developer to have energy other than his own body energy. You may consider this assumption to be a baseless assertion, and therefore you are invited to explain how it is possible to produce devices by which the manufacturer goes beyond his body and his immediate environment without external energy to him, energy that allows him to operate devices without self-harm unless we believe there are fire-emitting dragons.
     The claim that there must be solid ground is admittedly based on observations of flying animals that require solid ground even for the process of procreation and raising their offspring, as well as marine animals of all kinds. If you can explain how it is possible to use energy in water and how it is possible under these conditions to maintain a civilization (original, and not transplanted after its development on land), then you will indeed be able to show that my decisive assertions are wrong.
     I am not claiming anything about the form of an intelligent species.

153. By the way, Yair, I completely agree with your comment about the religious catalyst.
     The problem is that the religious catalyst is manifested not only in discussions about science but also in the determination of the laws of the state and if he is allowed to rule over us the beliefs and laws of ancient and unintelligent tribes - please do we come?

154. Year:
     How about this example:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3xmqbNsRSk
     Do you see intelligence here?
     Do you see here the use of energy outside the body?
     Do you see some things here that can be done without hands?
     By the way - the use of tools is also demonstrated by birds.

     And one more thing:
     If man is obliged, due to the deterioration of conditions on land (for example due to radiation) to move to live in the sea - do you think he will lose his intelligence?

155. Israel,

     I peek from time to time in the discussion you are conducting, and if I had the free time I would tell you this first: stop! And in the spirit of the American saying "if you're not going to do it well - don't do it at all".

     I tell you this as a believer ('Orthodox' - if that's important) who observes the mitzvot carefully, studies Torah every day and sends his sons/daughters to the good black synagogues and to the Beit Ya'akov seminary (convinced that this is the least bad educational solution). But I am telling you this mainly because I see the bias that is being made here on the site - that is, a trend of anti-religious incitement, mainly anti-Jewish, covert or open - and I am sure that unprofessional counter-reactions only strengthen this trend, and cause damage to your religious cause, mine and the readers' more on the site.

     At the heart of the matter - the Torah cannot be sufficient 'proof' of the existence of 'God' - not philosophically, not scientifically and even - and this is the main thing - not historically (to understand this I suggest you learn about historical methodology). In this context, the degree of 'innocence' is not the desired quality. In any intelligent and thorough discussion - the 'Torah' (or what can be understood from it) can at most be a 'principle of evidence', but it is evidence for the Korith, evidence that can be doubted.

     The complete proof of God's existence had to be philosophically logical. Empirical evidence, which is probable but not conclusive evidence, including evidence that has an accumulated weighted value, will also contain certain scientific elements - they are also legitimate.

     This evidence does exist. In the past, about a year ago, I proposed in a debate with Michael Rothschild (around that time I claimed that evolution is 'proven' on a limited scale, but it is a hypothesis whose main point is 'missing from the book' on a large scale, and therefore it cannot claim the status of a scientific theory and no extraneous insights can be derived from it science) to write an article(s) on the subject, and he in his integrity accepted this offer.

     The site's system did not 'pick up the ball'.

     I was then referring to some of the ontological proofs, mainly those derived from Anselm's argument, such as the modern variation of Adams (a masterful modal proof that since it was written about 40 years ago, no logical flaw has been found in it), or by Plantinga or Malcolm, with certain necessary changes, or by The greatest logician in history - Kurt Godel. I also pointed to some empirical evidence, mainly in terms of their cumulative weight.

     I suggest you browse and pay for the above-mentioned mattresses, and those adjacent to them. I am sure you will find them interesting, sharp and useful.
     If you are interested in this, I am ready to send you varied and detailed material (English, Hebrew and French). I allow the website system to give you my email address.

156. Yair,

     Following your words:
     The article is a strange article, very not "Skeptic". The author of the article seems like a very 'believing' person - believes in all kinds of speculations and the words of the Bai. He is depicted as a foolish follower of hypotheses regarding principles and processes of development that still require clarification, clarification and confirmation in very fundamental details. It's really ridiculous to see how without batting an eyelid he sails to the regions of the Middle East in a scientific 'litigation' and not at all skeptical...
     It is also puzzling to see that some of the commenters are really serious - who need the direction of the article at all (and my bewilderment in relation to them does not refer to their very belief in evolution, but to the speculative nonsense of the Debbie).

157. Michael.
     Ok, two things I will list here regarding the Torah and science.
     astronomy:
     In the New Year's tract it is about renewing the whitewash
     According to Rabbi Gamliel the renewal lasted 29 days 12 hours and 793/1080 from the 13th hour.
     The number that comes up is 29.53859 which also indicates the fractions of seconds.

     There is also the exact number of the stars according to the Gemara, which as you know was written thousands of years ago. The number is 1,064,340,000,000,000,000
     Tell me, Michael, if you know of a completely different number.

     Biology:
     Vitamin K and prothrombin are the two factors responsible for blood clotting that reach their peak concentration in the fetal blood, on the eighth day after birth. And see wonder that the Torah tells us on the eighth day to perform the word covenant.
     That's it for now. have a fun read.

158. Yair, you make very firm determinations. May I know what they are based on? All we have is one unrepeated observation. Just one example of an intelligent race that created technological ability. How can you conclude with such certainty that it is only possible on land? The fact that it seems logical and it's your gut feeling doesn't raise or lower it like that.

     Israel, you are also confusing me with a ghost who claimed to believe in God. By the way, I have given up on you and your proofs for the existence of God through the Torah. After 66 messages we still haven't heard a shred of proof.

     On the other hand, get confirmation from 1000 that the Torah was written at different times by different people: read the story of creation or the story of Noah critically and you will see that they consist of two different stories that even contradict each other. Adam or was created with Adam and more and more. Simple and clear evidence for the various sources.

159. Israel (27):
     What's this nonsense?
     Why would we even assume that you were speaking Hebrew and saying that I am asking questions without wanting to receive the answers (not the questions) - did you give any answer?
     You have never given me any logical answer on any subject!
     In fact - this is also true for the other tanks.
     Your only answers is that I can't read.
     Well, you don't even need to answer that.
     Some of you (and you in this section) also claim that I have no idea about the Torah, even though as far as the discussions here show - I know no less about it than you do.
     Are you basing this outlandish claim on some wrong thing I said? what?

     Chen T:
     The truth is, I estimated a longer period.
     We evolved 4.5 billion years after the formation of the Earth and in the same response I said that the Earth and, in fact, our solar system could not have formed in the first generation of stars because there were no heavy elements that were not yet present immediately after the Big Bang. These elements are formed in the cores of extremely massive stars and in supernova explosions. The chemistry in the first generation stars was not interesting and apparently did not allow the formation of life of any kind. Only after the cores of these stars were distributed everywhere could other systems gradually collect them.
     On the question of whether there can be a "shortcut" in creating an intelligent species, I tried to "fantasize" a little in my previous response.
     In answer to your more specific questions, I do think that the level of complexity necessary for intelligent life cannot be achieved (naturally - without intelligent creation) only after a long process of evolution.
     The first living creature cannot be a complex creature. It must be extremely simple. Complexity develops as part of evolution and never at the very beginning.
     Evolution will take place wherever there are elements that reproduce themselves.
     There is no need to create special conditions for this.
     The impetus for the development of the various creatures is provided by their partners on the planet. Because of the law of conservation of mass and energy, it is impossible for a living being to reproduce without needing resources and since the others also need resources - the war on them is a necessity.
     Therefore there is no need to worry that there will be no competition somewhere.
     On the other hand - competition (built into natural selection) is only a necessary condition and in no way a sufficient condition for the formation of intelligence.
     It is a fact that on earth there is only one species that is truly intelligent and the vast majority of species are completely unintelligent. Survival is answered in many ways and intelligence is only one of them (and not necessarily the most successful - for now - among the more complex creatures - the cockroach is one of the champions of survival).

     What is necessary and what is hypothesis?
     It seems to me that what I said about the development of intelligence after many stages of evolution is necessary.
     The thing about the dinosaur-like creatures is only a hypothesis (and even a wild one).

     Israel (33):
     It is clear that the truth of the Torah cannot be explained logically.
     This is because it is not real!
     I don't know what the reason should be for explaining something wrong (and explaining the truth of the Torah is explaining something wrong).

     I see that the debate here goes on and on and I will not address Israel's repeated statements that there is evidence but he will not detail it.
     After all, it's clear (even to him) that if he doesn't list them, he won't convince anyone, so it's clear that they don't exist.

     Israel says that simple logic tells him that there is a God.
     Apparently it means simplistic logic.

160. It seems to me that the efforts to dismantle Israel are over.
     It has already been reduced to the end and can no longer be reduced.

161. Eran
     There is no connection between the scores I have and the fact that I am not detailing here. The second thing is that the burden of waiting is on you and not on me.

     Noam
     I said what the reason is I won't go into detail here. You want to think that I don't have the knowledge or think that I can't have the knowledge to answer your question at all, that's your right. But exactly what you said is what I meant. This is a scientific site, so I won't write whole articles here so that it satisfies your question. I offered you something, if you don't want to accept, there is no problem.

162. It is strange that a religious catalyst so quickly devolves the discussion into arguments about God, empty and bland.
     The article quotes several experts who are very wrong: the famous evolutionist Ernst Meyer is quoted as saying that "species capable of communicating by technological means "may live on the surface of the earth, or in the sea or in the air". This is a big mistake. Only on solid ground (it does not matter what materials) can species with Technological abilities. Neither in the sea nor in the air can methods of using powerful energies be developed outside the organism's body. Also, a species with technological abilities must have working organs - hands, or similar (the trunk of an elephant functions similarly to a hand). Neither in the sea nor in the air is there a trace For such a development, and even species that had limbs capable of working lost them. Also, solid ground is needed that allows the position of the working creature to be maintained, and its produce. Neither the sea nor the air allow this.
     The question of how many legs and limbs a technologically intelligent species will have is not important, but it is important that it has the ability to move freely.

163. Israel,

     ** You ** entered the scientific website, and started spreading things that have no basis, and until now you avoided substantiating them with all kinds of strange excuses.

     Now, when they ask you not to dodge, you brazenly ask what is my problem???

     If you are just rambling without being able to prove or substantiate your words - please, choose another place for you.
     You see, in science, it is not enough to say "this is what I believe". For some reason, this is not considered sufficient proof.

     Don't send me to other places - I didn't come to visit you, you chose to visit a scientific site, so please behave accordingly.

164. The point Israel is that people like you come here for news in the mornings. People, no offense, are not particularly knowledgeable in the Torah. But they are experts in their own opinion in proving it. That's why - the duty of hochiya rests on you. This is not about whole pages, but about one strong example and a link. Apparently you are not able to withstand it, because until now I have not met people of your kind who have given anything that stands the test of science. For the simple reason that science has advanced enough to disprove bullshit.

165. Dan
     I'm not religious but I believe. A few years ago I didn't believe now I believe. For the simple reason I checked and the simplest logic told me.

     Noam
     What exactly is your problem? Why do you insist it be done here? are you afraid of something Do you feel at home here? I don't understand what this empty stubbornness is. I told you for the hundredth time if you are interested I will give you links to the things you are looking for. It doesn't make sense for me to write pages upon pages here now.

166. Israel,

     Your thoughtfulness is touching.

     Anyway, here's your chance:

     Please list the scientific discoveries written in the Torah

     Please explain why there is a very high chance (and how you calculated it) that an intelligent creator created the entire universe

     And if the above questions confuse you, please say a nice hello and stop confusing your brain

167. To Israel
     I have no idea where you get your inventions from, but believe me, I have already checked and been interested for years and read endless commentaries and books about Judaism and I came to the conclusion that there is no basis for what you say unless you are already a believer and therefore your logical judgment abilities regarding everything related They are deficient in religion.

168. Rach.
     Second thing. You happen to believe in God. According to what do you believe?

169. Rach.
     I have already received comments not to talk too much about religion here. Second thing is a lot to write and I mean a lot is something like a notebook just for the beginning.
     Do you really expect me to do that? And here?
     Sorry. I said if you are interested I can direct you. But it won't do here

170. Even for me (and I already believe in God) what Israel says sounds like the words of a repentant person who has no basis in his words. I mean he doesn't even succeed in it. I think it's nonsense to argue with him.

171. Israel, you persistently continue to evade. You say "God can be proven for logical reasons. The Torah can be proven as a book that was not written for several generations. And that God also gave the Torah in a completely logical way." So prove it already.
     Forgive me, but this sounds like gibberish, possible and possible, if it's so possible then T-W-XNUMX-Y-H!
     And don't say the readers here are not interested. Here Noam also joined in with a similar demand.

172. Noam
     I won't go into detail here now. For the simple reason that not everyone is interested and it has nothing to do with religion, so I will respect the people who don't want to. Also, writing everything you asked for is a lot. What's more is that if you want I will refer you to sources regarding any question you may have. agree?

173. Israel,

     I would appreciate it if you could list "scientific things written in the Torah thousands of years ago with an emphasis on thousands and discovered several decades ago"

     Also, please explain how "is it possible to know that the chance that it exists is a much greater chance than that it does not exist"

174. Rach
     It is impossible to determine 100% unequivocally the existence of God for the simple reason of free choice. What is possible is to know that the chance that it exists is a much greater chance than that it does not exist. And would you be surprised how many scientific things are written in the Torah thousands of years ago with an emphasis on thousands and were discovered a few decades ago

175. Note - When I meant the Bible, I of course meant only the five Pentateuch of the Torah. The rest of the Bible was written by humans.

176. Rach
     You have a mistake.
     The idea I presented is that God can be proven for logical reasons. The Torah can be proven as a book that was not written in several generations. And that God also gave the Torah in a completely logical way.
     Let's think for a moment about the Tanakh, if it is just a book then it is clear that anyone who wants to interpret something will interpret it however they want. But if it really is a divine book there is a problem here. And not everyone who comes will interpret as he pleases.

177. We laughed.
     As I imagine you defined yourself as religious. How does this correspond to your opinion about the writing of the Bible. How and when was the book of Genesis written, for example. And the other four pentacles?
     If you dropped the "e" at the end of the word I assume you meant "e" for some reason.
     From reading your words, it can be assumed that intention guides your approach?!.

178. You made me laugh - it is customary in Hebrew not to add an after a final t.
     Even in the word she meant. First grade was difficult for everyone, but you have to remember basic things.

179. You are a very talented spirit who also knows how to distinguish what I lack in my life
     And also knows how to articulate precisely and clearly (she meant publishers, a profession different from "author", she meant edition, which is different from "version")
     Anyway, I'm glad you had a little laugh this morning.
     have a nice day.

180. You made me laugh again.
     You simply did not understand what I wrote and just wanted to show that you are "smart".
     I'm talking about the author(s) who published the first printed version (in a printing house!).
     Until 1488 they were mostly copyists. And after the print was invented - print the book.
     You claim what I wrote, but you just didn't understand at first.

181. Dammit.
     I meant it
     "As far as I understand the book of the Tanakh (in its first format) was written and published with the invention of the printing press. (More precisely in 1488 the first printed Tanakh was published).
     The collection of stories that make up the Tanakh were written before, and some of them long before (even on papyrus 2000 years ago), the Tanakh was published as a printed version.
     There is a possibility that at those times ##the author/s ##did understand a thing or two in the field of science that existed until that time."
     What authors are you talking about? On which format first?
     As you pointed out, for 2500 years this collection of books has not been compiled, changed, or updated. Only collecting and printing (or copying), before 1488 mainly as rolled scrolls, after 1488 mainly in the style we know today - in Hebrew - "metzchafim".
     Specific enough?

182. You made me laugh
     You made me laugh.
     If in response 42 you turned to me, then I don't understand what you are trying to claim.
     And yes, I know "when the Jewish canon called the Bible was formulated" (in the 5th-4th centuries BC).
     And next time be more specific.

183. Israel, you are evasive again. Got proof but can't show it here? So when you can we will continue the discussion.
     By the way to the last commenter, don't confuse me with ghost moon.

184. Dear Rah. (By the way, is it a sky or a wind? And one more by the way - do you know who the ghosts were?)
     I have no interest in correcting all your learned assertions,
     But I would strongly advise you to check when the Jewish canon called the Bible was formulated.
     I assume you also know the difference between the Torah and the Prophets and the Scriptures.
     I am sure that after a little more thorough examination - you will be surprised.
     (This is on the assumption that the test will be in reliable places and not in those who put truth in their name and lie in their language)

185. Israel
     As far as I understand Sefer Hatanakh (in its first format) was written and published with the invention of printing. (To be more precise, in 1488 the first printed Tanakh was published).
     The collection of stories that make up the Tanakh were written before, and some of them long before (even on papyrus 2000 years ago), the Tanakh was published as a printed version.
     There is a possibility that at those times the author(s) did understand a thing or two in the field of science that existed up to that time.
     The point is that the author(s) did not incorporate (or correct what existed) the scientific knowledge of that time in the Tanakh book because (in my opinion) it was not the place to write about scientific discoveries, because the book talks about topics most of which are not necessarily related to science. (They are more closely related in the Jewish tradition).
     But, the Bible does contain topics that can be translated as "scientific" as long as they are true to the opinion that was prevalent at the time. The book is more philosophical than scientific. It is impossible to argue with scientific issues (especially modern ones) with the help of the Tanach.
     The Tanach did not come to prove the existence of God, but to explain (among other things) nature (God) with tools (words, opinions...) that existed up to that time. Why did I write "nature (God)"? Because the Bible does not say whether there is a God or not, but states unequivocally that there is so that it can be explained. That is, there is no person who can say that nature does not exist, but can only try and understand its existence. This means that the Tanach is a (Jewish) study tool and not a proof of God's existence.
     And what is the difference between proving its existence and determining its existence? Because in his proof - there should be data that cannot be debated. And in his determination - there is enough data to argue with, the main thing is that it will be possible to build something from that data, even if it is a subject of debate.
     That is why God is a paradox whose existence cannot be proven and whose existence cannot be disproved.
     At least in the last thousand there were quite a few genius commentators who tried to interpret the Tanakh (and each succeeded in his own way)
     But none of them managed to explain everything in such a way that everyone would agree only to his explanation.
     The Tanach is so difficult to read (even with interpretations) that probably no one to this day has been able to understand everything the Tanach explains. Some people who want to understand nature or God turn to rabbis (because it is difficult for them to understand the Tanakh and they need someone to explain it to them) and another turn to scientists (because it is difficult for them to understand science).
     And the problem starts with that.
     Neither the rabbis nor the scientists can explain everything because they do not have the knowledge of everything, anyone can explain
     in his way and it will only be part of the truth.
     I will end with a quote from Wikipedia:
     "According to the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, the phenomenon in which things that were previously accepted as positive and now society looks at them negatively, stems from the atheism of an unknown ancient ideal."

186. Rach.
     It can be proved. But again I won't do it here. There are the right places for that.
     Those who are looking for a way out.
     And the idea that the Torah was written at different times by different people, as it were, is not the simple one. But there are things that are not possible for a person to write. But again, this is a topic that needs to be checked and this is not the place.

187. Israel, you are a bit evasive, you keep saying that you can prove God's existence from the Torah and I ask you how?
     The truth is that it is much easier to prove that it was written in different periods and by different people.

188. And point, please let me decide what is best for me. And I enjoy reading articles on this site.

189. point.
     Yes I noticed how much you think.

190. Chen T
     You're wrong. God certainly does not "need" the Torah. The Torah is necessary for us for several reasons. The main one is to know what God wants from us.
     Secondly, the Torah can be proven completely logically. Forget what you learned in high school. The level there is simply a joke. And the mistakes are many.
     Third thing about your poor and the fleas. To them you are God but you are limited only to them. God is omnipotent not only of fleas or man but of the whole universe.

191. Israel, good luck to you. The science site is not for you. The scientist is a site for thinking people, not for those who recite what others think for them.

192. Israel,
     Assuming God exists, he does not need the Torah. Assuming you know it exists, neither do you. The basic principles exist in all religions and their purpose is to help you make wise decisions to be on the 'right' path. For some reason, among the secularists around the world there is much agreement on the moral principles. The debate between the religions is because of those different books that were written in different periods by different people, mainly because each religious person thinks that he represents logic and the right way, but above all he represents God. By the same token, my dog's fleas can think I'm a god because I decide once every two weeks to wreak havoc on them and wash it. Do they represent me if they can expect that once every two weeks a new life cycle will begin?

193. Rach
     The Torah is proof that its truth can be explained logically. Which of course I won't do here because this is not the place.
     Second thing. The answer is of course. If I had been born in a different country to a different people to a different religion I would surely believe in that religion. But you will be surprised, you can check things. I tested Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And the Torah is the most convincing for several reasons. And again I'm not a religious person, I'm still in the testing stages.

194. Hi Michael 🙂 Well done for the courage.
     At the time, your proposal was that since we were created in the minimal period after 4.5 billion years after the big bang, there is a high probability that we are the only intelligent race. The question is, is it necessary for such a long time to pass for an intelligent species to develop? Or in another way: what are the stages that a planet must go through in terms of its maturity, until a technological species can develop in it? Is it something that depends on the gases in the atmosphere? in bacteria? Does the period required until an intelligent species develops must include a situation in which there is no too great a threat, so that the evolutionary chain is not interrupted at too early a stage? On the other hand, if there is no daily fighting for food, living space, status and hope to achieve more, how can the survival instinct develop at all that will lead to the need for learning, fighting, developing instincts, developing tools?
     What is necessary for the development of a technological race and what is only a hypothesis based on what we know?

195. Israel, why is the Torah proof of God's existence?
     And if it is such overwhelming proof, how is it that Jews make up a tiny percentage of the world's inhabitants? What are they all stupid?
     And please think and answer honestly: If you were born into a different religion, would you also believe in the Torah with such determination? Or it's simply the way you were brought up and raised and it's not that you objectively examined all the alternatives and chose the one that seemed the most correct (like a scientist would do for example).

196. Israel, I assure you that Michael knows better than you about the Tanach

197. Golan
     The word faith in Judaism is not a derivative of blind faith.
     These are from the word trust. Judaism is the only religion that tells you to know and then believe. That means you will be faithful to God

198. Israel:
     If there is indeed proof of God's existence, as you say, then the word "faith" has no meaning. All religion is based on the fact that one must believe in God, and if it can be proven - there is no faith.

199. Michael
     Your problem is that you ask questions without wanting to receive them. I, on the other hand, asked them questions and received answers to them. And you might be surprised, but this "book" that you treat so disdainfully even though you have no idea about it is quite interesting and has something beyond what you know.

200. Golan
     I wrote that I do not agree with the idea of ​​creationism.
     The creationists state that the universe was created by an intelligent agent, and the scientists state according to evolution that there is a possibility, that is, there is a chance that there are intelligent beings other than humans and that they can be found outside the earth.
     What does this say about the idea of ​​creationism?
     As for the fairies and the flying spaghetti monster, as much as it is possible to prove their existence, there will be those who will manage to disprove their existence.
     Whereas evolution cannot be refuted, because it is proven all the time.
     And the "paradox" of God cannot be proven and cannot be disproved.
     And once again I don't agree with the idea of ​​creationism, but I'm not trying to deny the facts either.

201. Israel:
     Why should a book full of errors be used as evidence for the existence of God?
     And if another group of sleepwalkers arises that claims that the one who wrote the Torah is an alien - won't the Torah be equally proof of the existence of that alien?

202. Golan.
     to your questions Because there is no evidence. On the other hand God has. Bible

203. Ghost
     I really don't understand how many times the creative ideas can be collapsed for people to physically try and rebuild them...
     Feel free to believe in creationism if you want, but keep this in mind too-
     Who said there are no fairies?
     Who said there is no flying spaghetti monster?
     and so'

204. Based on the theory of evolution, it can be said that there is a possibility that there is life outside the earth and maybe even a possibility that that life will be more developed and intelligent than us.
     Who said creationism is wrong?
     Who said there is no God?
     I do not agree with the idea of ​​creationism, and I believe in God (more in the direction of 'Spinoza's God')
     But it seems like the scientists are proving what already exists, they're just explaining it in their own words.

205. I think that there is a more intelligent life than us here on earth !!The dolphins!!
     Think about it, they don't have hatred towards the other or wars or even poisonous technology like atomic bombs
     Just playing all day in the sea to have fun.. most of the human race has not reached such a high insight into our short life.
     And in general large marine mammals have bigger brains than ours. We don't even understand their language. Go figure out what's going through their minds

206. Sounds clearly unfounded to me.
     Meanwhile, the only life form with supreme intelligence that we know of is humans. And so it is not clear to me how he not only says that other intelligent beings in the universe do not have to be human-like, he even goes so far as to say that we are rare.
     There is probably a reason why humans evolved to their technological level and not the other organisms. On other planets, biology will follow this path, and when I say others I mean the vast majority, I do not rule out the possibility that an advanced life form might develop from reptilian creatures on some planet - only that it is much rarer.

207. point:
     People who do not engage in philosophy or science do not necessarily pretend to be what they are not.
     Certainly not talking monkeys.

     Chen T:
     I don't like the speculation in this area because that's all it is - speculation.
     I don't know how to answer your question.
     If I had a sword around my neck I would say that the time it took for the human race to form is necessary in any scenario that would create human-level intelligence.
     The argumentation does not necessarily depend on the fall of the dinosaurs since there is no obstacle to the continued development of the dinosaurs in more and more intelligent directions, but this also took time.
     If we assume (not an unreasonable assumption) that a developed brain needs what is called "warm blood" - it is even possible that any script that creates intelligence needs a story similar to the one we had with the dinosaurs.
     The argument can be like this:
     As a rule - in complex creatures, size is an advantage because it involves strength that allows the animal to deal with other complex enemies.
     Therefore the largest animals will grow larger and larger.
     The "warm blood" system is more complex, so it is likely that the first creatures will have "cold blood" (note that "blood" in this story is only symbolic and in general - the terms "warm blood" and "cold blood" are also not exact expressions).
     "Warm-blooded" productions will only develop because one way to deal with the cold-blooded giants is to hide during the day and operate at night.
     This situation of cold-blooded giants and weaker warm-blooded creatures will continue until some catastrophe arrives that will turn the size of the cold-blooded into a disadvantage (the ratio between the surface area and the volume changes in favor of the volume as the animal is larger and when an asteroid hits that reduces the dust it picks up the amount of radiation that hits the Earth, a situation may arise in which the large ones cannot absorb enough energy on their surface to economize their large volume).
     This kind of catastrophe will allow the warm-blooded (and the little cold-blooded) to flourish.
     Again - it's all speculation and I'm not ready to sign anything of what I said, but I decided to say it anyway because I think it's interesting.

208. Nice said ghost,
     No one has yet proven that there is life outside the universe.

209. Without disrespecting anyone, based on this 'scientific' article, one can think that extraterrestrials really exist.
     One might think that tomorrow they will write on this website that they discovered God.

210. Michael, I don't look down on monkeys, cats or dogs. I treat them as they are.
     I do despise someone who pretends to be something they are not. It seems to me that everyone underestimates someone like that.

211. Hello Michael 🙂
     A wise and respected scientist once pointed out here that the probability of the existence of other intelligent life in the universe that is several million years ahead of us is very low (at least according to the length of life attributed to it today since the big bang). Do you believe that human evolution had to come after several dinosaur incarnations for it to exist?
     After all, a planet could be formed, where evolution skipped over the incarnations of the giants, right?

212. Despite what I said in my previous response, I think the true content of Punta's words is true. The thing is, because of the considerations presented by Yossi, it is clear to me that a person should not be underestimated just because he is not a scientist or a philosopher.
     As you know - I think it is permissible to look down on him if he is a liar or otherwise expresses unjustified contempt for others.

213. Joseph,
     The things I said were said objectively. And if one of my relatives meets the definition, then the answer is yes. But I wouldn't tell them that to their face.

214. another point:
     No exaggeration?
     There are several "yossis" here who respond and the response of the current "yossi" did not indicate a lack of control over science. On the contrary - she demonstrated fairness and mastery of logic.

215. Yossi, I suggest you open a book or the internet and start learning some science, it's not good to stay on the dark side.

216. to the point….
     Are you a scientist or a philosopher? your father or mother Your grandfather or your grandmother?
     And if only one of them was.
     So what would he think of what you wrote? that he is married to a talking box!
     I suggest that you consider your words because for your happiness those who worked in the field and in the pasture
     Take care to feed people like you claim scientists or philosophers

217. And of the billions of human beings that have existed, few are the scientists and philosophers who have reached reason. The majority are talking monkeys.

218. Nenalak Walak Ya Shumalek

219. Yonatan, if there had been such an intelligent life form on Earth in the past, we would have produced evidence of it, we would have found buildings and objects they created, certainly those built from very durable materials that are not supposed to decay or disappear so quickly, we would also find spaceships and satellites that they sent to orbit the Earth and the moon, something had to remain from such an advanced culture, but the fact is that no evidence of such an advanced culture has been found to date.

220. How can it be proven that an intelligent life form did not develop in the distant past on Earth, and that in the meantime it has become extinct?
     Let's say a billion years ago...

221. It is true that evolution helps us imagine what aliens might look like

     And such experiments were made that are really beautiful and amazing, made by scientists from the field of regenerative biology, and you can see them in the series called: Aurelia and Blue Moon in Imeol, etc.

     Alien Worlds-Aurelia_ConCen_OGnir_WS_Xvid.avi

     and-

     National.Geographic.Extraterrestrials.Blue.Moon.WS.PDTV.XviD-G4L.avi

     and-
     Alien Planet 2005.avi

222. Another thing, it could be that the alien will have legs and arms but instead of a structure of oxygen-carbon-hydrogen, it will have a structure of sulfur, phosphorus and silicon... although the compounds with these elements are necessarily weaker.

223. For technology, physical control of the world outside the body is necessary. In principle, octopuses, for example, can rule... maybe they just need a few more millions and changes in the environment that will force them to change.

     Maybe there are aliens who control the environment in purely mental ways... that could be cool.

224. One of the things that bothered me the most about the movie Avatar is the amazing resemblance of the aliens there to humans, so ok they are blue, much taller, and have a tail, but other than that they look completely human, the body structure, the facial features and the ability to speak, it seems To me it is very improbable and in my opinion somewhat ruined the film, this very obvious illogicality.

225. The "attached picture" regarding the possible evolution of dinosaurs is missing.

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.