Dear All,
I searched wikipedia recently, and I found some interesting facts.
Thus, I believe that religion and science are closely linked.
I am kiddingly calling these facts "Law of Life and Death!"
Most famous scientists and politians have the same birthday/year or death day/year.
For examples:
Jesus and Sir Newton have the same birthday (12/25) based on old style calender
Galilei's death year is the same as Newton's birth year(1642).
James Clerk Maxwell's death year is the same as Einstein's birth year(1879).
:Einstein is thought the follower of Maxwell;Newton is the follower of Galilei.
Einstein's birthday is the same as Karl Marx's death day(3/14):the pi day.
:Both of them are important Jewish thinkers.
Louis Pateur's birthday and Kepler's birthday is the same(12/27)
Leeuwenhoek's(Father of biology) death day is the same as Lavoisier's(Father of chemistry) birthday(8/26)
Gregior Mendel's(Father of Genetic) death day is the same as Benjamin Franklin's(Father of electricity) birthday(1/6)
Adam Smith's birthday is the same as Ronald Reagan's death day.
:Reagan leads captalism to defeat communism.
FD Roosevelt's birthday is the same as Mohandas Gandhi's death day(1/30).
:They promote world peace and fight against impiralism
Marie Curie's death day is the same as Thomas Jefferson's death day(7/4)
By using FRS calendar, Erwin Schrodinger and Sir Newton have the same birthday(1/4)
Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln have exactly the same birthday(Feb12,1809)
Charles Darwin's death day is 4/19.
The two most famous recent physcists:
Richard Feynman's death day is the same as Galilei's birthday
Stephen Hawking's birthday is the same as Galilei's death day
Muhammad's birthay is 4/19 or 4/20.
We assume 4/19 and 12/25 are holy-days. And, some most evil politians' date is one day next to the holy-days.
Mao Zedong's birthday is 12/26.
Adolf Hitler's birthday is 4/20.
:Hitler's birthday is one day next to Darwin's death day. Hitler belived Social Darwinism for expending his empire.
:Lincoln is against racism in his whole life(against Social Darwinism)
It is highly probable that these dates are selected by God, Buddha, Adonai,or Allah.
Thus, religion should be linked to science and politics!
These famous scientist's or politians' birthday or deathday were selected.
It is not happened by chance!
Please pick a religion to believe in even you are a scientist!
Please believe paradise and hell because every religion says so!
You may go to wikipedia to check by yourself!
Dear All,
I am writing a book currently to discribe above interesting facts.
Those famous people are famous among famous.
Thus, I believe it is not happened by chance.
However, recently some hackers invaded my computer and stole my files.
They threatened to kill me and publish these facts.
I cannot tolerate this very "evil" behavior.
Thus, I decide to post it on the website first.
I sincerely hope dear web-friends can give me some feedbacks!
Let's stop those criminals!
I am writing a book currently to discribe above interesting facts.
Those famous people are famous among famous.
Thus, I believe it is not happened by chance.
However, recently some hackers invaded my computer and stole my files.
They threatened to kill me and publish these facts.
I cannot tolerate this very "evil" behavior.
Thus, I decide to post it on the website first.
I sincerely hope dear web-friends can give me some feedbacks!
Let's stop those criminals!
You do realise that given 26 people there's a 50% change that two of them have the same birthday? How many famous physicists, mathematicians and politicians are there? Thousands. So the probability of some of them having the same birthday is practically certain! When you include death days you make even more coincidental connections.
Thus it's extremely probable you have nothing more than a coincidence. Pick any group of people numbering more than 100 and I'm pretty sure you'll find the same coincidences. My 1st year probability lecturer demonstrated it in the lecture he told us the 26 people thing. He picked a section of the lecture theatre numbering about 40 people and asked them one by one to say their birthday out loud. If someone else in the group had the same birthday they should put their hand up. It took 10 people saying their birthdays before we got a match.
Thus it's extremely probable you have nothing more than a coincidence. Pick any group of people numbering more than 100 and I'm pretty sure you'll find the same coincidences. My 1st year probability lecturer demonstrated it in the lecture he told us the 26 people thing. He picked a section of the lecture theatre numbering about 40 people and asked them one by one to say their birthday out loud. If someone else in the group had the same birthday they should put their hand up. It took 10 people saying their birthdays before we got a match.
QUOTE
However, recently some hackers invaded my computer and stole my files.
They threatened to kill me and publish these facts.
I cannot tolerate this very "evil" behavior.
So not only are you poorly informed about simple statistics you're a paranoid delusional too.
They threatened to kill me and publish these facts.
I cannot tolerate this very "evil" behavior.
lol, this is becouse the scienciest are so much and then everything much 
QUOTE (wanchung+Apr 2 2008, 10:50 AM)
Jesus and Sir Newton have the same birthday (12/25) based on old style calender
Jesus most likely wasn't born on 12/25. Nobody knows when he was born. The traditional Christmas date occurs in mid-winter because a large number of different pagan holidays occurred then.
Even if we ignore that fact, your theory ignores probability.
Jesus most likely wasn't born on 12/25. Nobody knows when he was born. The traditional Christmas date occurs in mid-winter because a large number of different pagan holidays occurred then.
Even if we ignore that fact, your theory ignores probability.
Jesus was born on the 4th of July!
USA! USA! USA!
USA! USA! USA!
QUOTE (wanchung+Apr 2 2008, 10:58 AM)
However, recently some hackers invaded my computer and stole my files.
They threatened to kill me and publish these facts.
I cannot tolerate this very "evil" behavior.
Thus, I decide to post it on the website first.
I sincerely hope dear web-friends can give me some feedbacks!
Let's stop those criminals!
Wanchung -
Ever heard of paranoid schizophrenia? I'm being honest here - see a therapist, talk to your family about it. It's obvious you need help.
Unless, of course, you're kidding about the hackers.
- Gehn
You got told... 
Anyway, scary thinking surely people like this get locked up?
Anyway, scary thinking surely people like this get locked up?
Dear all,
Don't you think these facts are interesting?
I am not an astrologist, but I am a pure buddhist.
I think there are some meaninings in these facts.
As for the hackers, I am really tired about their harassment.
No matter it is a bad joke or a real threat.
Don't you think these facts are interesting?
I am not an astrologist, but I am a pure buddhist.
I think there are some meaninings in these facts.
As for the hackers, I am really tired about their harassment.
No matter it is a bad joke or a real threat.
QUOTE (wanchung+)
Don't you think these facts are interesting?
No. I don't think they're facts and I don't think you'd recognize a fact if it punched you in the nose.
I think you need your head examined.
No. I don't think they're facts and I don't think you'd recognize a fact if it punched you in the nose.
QUOTE
I think there are some meaninings in these facts.
I think you need your head examined.
There are also some interesting facts about important scientific events.
1. Copenicus published his book "De revolutionibus" introducing Heliocentrism in 1543 which is 100 year earlier than Newton's birth year(1642)
2. Newton's gravity law is announced in 1687; 100 years later, Coulomb announced his electrostatic and magnetic laws in 1785-1789. Both are inverse square laws.
3. Darwin's "evolution" was published on 7/1, and Einstein's "special relativity" was published on 6/30. Almost the same date!
1. Copenicus published his book "De revolutionibus" introducing Heliocentrism in 1543 which is 100 year earlier than Newton's birth year(1642)
2. Newton's gravity law is announced in 1687; 100 years later, Coulomb announced his electrostatic and magnetic laws in 1785-1789. Both are inverse square laws.
3. Darwin's "evolution" was published on 7/1, and Einstein's "special relativity" was published on 6/30. Almost the same date!
Dear all,
I know the birthday paradox(picking 26 people, and the chance of two of them of having same birthday is 50%).
The problem is: I picked the MOST famous scientists among famous scientists.
Suprisingly, they all are matched! The observed chance is much greater than 50%.
For example, Copenicus' death year is 1543, one hundred earlier than Newton's birth year(1642)
My reference is Michael Hart's "The 100"
I still think it is not happened by chance!
I know the birthday paradox(picking 26 people, and the chance of two of them of having same birthday is 50%).
The problem is: I picked the MOST famous scientists among famous scientists.
Suprisingly, they all are matched! The observed chance is much greater than 50%.
For example, Copenicus' death year is 1543, one hundred earlier than Newton's birth year(1642)
My reference is Michael Hart's "The 100"
I still think it is not happened by chance!
Do you wear a tinfoil hat or is your delusional mania something which just comes and goes?
In my pocket I have two pennies. What are the odds of these particular pennies being in my pocket at the same time? Are the odds so high that they can't be there by chance?
QUOTE (wanchung+Apr 8 2008, 04:37 AM)
I think there are some meaninings in these facts.
As for the hackers, I am really tired about their harassment.
No matter it is a bad joke or a real threat.
QUOTE
I am a pure buddhist...
No, you are not. You could not post as you do if this were true.
g.
Dear All,
Recently, I found a similarity between US president Lincoln and JF Kennedy.
They are perfectly 100 years apart: 18xx versus 19xx
Please see the below text:
Both presidents were elected to the presidency in '60.
Both presidents were elected to the United States House of Representatives in '46.
Both were runners-up for the party's nomination for vice-president in '56.
Both assassins were born in '39.
Both successors were Southern Democrats named Johnson born in '08.
Both presidents were concerned with the problems of American blacks and made their view strongly known in '63. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, which became law in 1863. In 1963, Kennedy presented his reports to Congress on Civil Rights, and the same year was the famous March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
Both presidents were shot in the head.
Both presidents were shot in presence of their wives.
Both presidents were shot on a Friday.
Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theater. Kennedy was shot in a Ford car; a Lincoln limousine.
Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy who told him not to go to the theater. Kennedy had a secretary named Evelyn Lincoln (whose husband Harold's nickname was Abe), and she warned him not to go to Dallas.
Both Oswald and Booth were assassinated before they could be put on trial.
Lincoln and Kennedy each have 7 letters.
John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald each have 15 letters.
There are 6 letters in each Johnson's first name.
Booth shot Lincoln in a theater and hid in a warehouse, while Oswald shot Kennedy from a warehouse and hid in a theater.
So, I believe there is God, Ara, or Buddha.
God played a trick.
Can you say that it is happened by chance only ???
Can you explain it by Schrodinger's probability wave function?
Please choose a religion to believe in.
Please believe there is paradise and there is hell.
If you kill an innocent person or conduct a severe crime, you will go the hell
which is forever torture!!!
Recently, I found a similarity between US president Lincoln and JF Kennedy.
They are perfectly 100 years apart: 18xx versus 19xx
Please see the below text:
Both presidents were elected to the presidency in '60.
Both presidents were elected to the United States House of Representatives in '46.
Both were runners-up for the party's nomination for vice-president in '56.
Both assassins were born in '39.
Both successors were Southern Democrats named Johnson born in '08.
Both presidents were concerned with the problems of American blacks and made their view strongly known in '63. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, which became law in 1863. In 1963, Kennedy presented his reports to Congress on Civil Rights, and the same year was the famous March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
Both presidents were shot in the head.
Both presidents were shot in presence of their wives.
Both presidents were shot on a Friday.
Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theater. Kennedy was shot in a Ford car; a Lincoln limousine.
Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy who told him not to go to the theater. Kennedy had a secretary named Evelyn Lincoln (whose husband Harold's nickname was Abe), and she warned him not to go to Dallas.
Both Oswald and Booth were assassinated before they could be put on trial.
Lincoln and Kennedy each have 7 letters.
John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald each have 15 letters.
There are 6 letters in each Johnson's first name.
Booth shot Lincoln in a theater and hid in a warehouse, while Oswald shot Kennedy from a warehouse and hid in a theater.
So, I believe there is God, Ara, or Buddha.
God played a trick.
Can you say that it is happened by chance only ???
Can you explain it by Schrodinger's probability wave function?
Please choose a religion to believe in.
Please believe there is paradise and there is hell.
If you kill an innocent person or conduct a severe crime, you will go the hell
which is forever torture!!!
God said that God will punish those sinners or criminals.
However, you are not God.
You cannot, replacing God, punish people you don't like.
Hitler said Jewish betrayed God, so he punished Jewish.
Hitler thought he is God.
Now, Hitler is in Hell receiving forever torture.
Free Will is the most important thing of human beings.
Free will can drive you to do good things or bad things.
You will get reward(paradise) or punishment(hell) due to free will.
Adam and Eve ate the apple due to their free will, so they were expelled.
What is your Free Will?
However, you are not God.
You cannot, replacing God, punish people you don't like.
Hitler said Jewish betrayed God, so he punished Jewish.
Hitler thought he is God.
Now, Hitler is in Hell receiving forever torture.
Free Will is the most important thing of human beings.
Free will can drive you to do good things or bad things.
You will get reward(paradise) or punishment(hell) due to free will.
Adam and Eve ate the apple due to their free will, so they were expelled.
What is your Free Will?
QUOTE (wanchung+Aug 27 2008, 01:34 AM)
If you kill an innocent person or conduct a severe crime, you will go the hell
which is forever torture!!!
Did you just get this as spam in your email and you thought you'd pass it on? I see such crap posted on people's Facebook walls all the time. You aren't even being original in your ranting now!
which is forever torture!!!
Did you just get this as spam in your email and you thought you'd pass it on? I see such crap posted on people's Facebook walls all the time. You aren't even being original in your ranting now!
QUOTE (wanchung+Aug 27 2008, 05:29 AM)
God said that God will punish those sinners or criminals.
However, you are not God.
You cannot, replacing God, punish people you don't like.
Hitler said Jewish betrayed God, so he punished Jewish.
Hitler thought he is God.
Now, Hitler is in Hell receiving forever torture.
Free Will is the most important thing of human beings.
Free will can drive you to do good things or bad things.
You will get reward(paradise) or punishment(hell) due to free will.
Adam and Eve ate the apple due to their free will, so they were expelled.
What is your Free Will?
When you understand that there is no heaven or hell, you will understand the mind of god.
Free will as defined by christians.... you can do anything you want. ANYTHING. As long as it is MY way...
God.
He must have listened to Ford when he told everyone that they could have their car in any color they chose, as long as it was black....
And yes, I am god.
MM
However, you are not God.
You cannot, replacing God, punish people you don't like.
Hitler said Jewish betrayed God, so he punished Jewish.
Hitler thought he is God.
Now, Hitler is in Hell receiving forever torture.
Free Will is the most important thing of human beings.
Free will can drive you to do good things or bad things.
You will get reward(paradise) or punishment(hell) due to free will.
Adam and Eve ate the apple due to their free will, so they were expelled.
What is your Free Will?
When you understand that there is no heaven or hell, you will understand the mind of god.
Free will as defined by christians.... you can do anything you want. ANYTHING. As long as it is MY way...
God.
He must have listened to Ford when he told everyone that they could have their car in any color they chose, as long as it was black....
And yes, I am god.
MM
Eating the apple was symbolism for knowledge and knowing the difference between right and wrong. Humans have empathy and will help another human or other animal without expectation of reward. Our closest relative will only help if they are rewarded in some way. Of course feeling good about yourself is a style of reward we as humans are capable of feeling. Science is a field of observation and theory of the observation being reproducible. If you could predict the future than that might earn you a theory. God is a nebulous term used for things not understood and taken on faith. There is a wide range of understanding between humans. Do humans have the capacity to understand everything? Not yet if ever.
The other animals remain in the garden of eden. If given the choice would they remain? I am glad to be out. I am happy with learning.
Science and God are at opposite sides of the spectrum. Observation and Faith. Can we demand an observation of God? No. Only one of us has the ability to be surprised upon our death. I would hope that it will be me.
Apple doesn't mean knowledge.
If God don't want human to get knowledge, Newton and Einstein should be in the Hell now.
God just wanted to test if Adam and Eve listein to his order.
Adam and Eve ate the apple according to their free will.
Their free will caused the punishment.
Science is not opposite to Religion.
Science cannot decide what is good and what is evil.
Science cannot explain what is the world after death.
Science cannot explain what is the world outside universe.
Only Religion can do so.
Science and Religion are complementary!
If God don't want human to get knowledge, Newton and Einstein should be in the Hell now.
God just wanted to test if Adam and Eve listein to his order.
Adam and Eve ate the apple according to their free will.
Their free will caused the punishment.
Science is not opposite to Religion.
Science cannot decide what is good and what is evil.
Science cannot explain what is the world after death.
Science cannot explain what is the world outside universe.
Only Religion can do so.
Science and Religion are complementary!
I can play with those great scientists' names.
New-ton means New Force: gravity
GALILEO means Gravity Acceleration Law Implies Landing Equally Objects
MaXWElL means Light, Electric Wave Crossing Magnetism (from end to begin)
EINSTEIN means Energy IN Space-Time or Evolution IN Space-Time (from Begin to end and from end to begin -reflects relativity )
Isn't it interesting?
New-ton means New Force: gravity
GALILEO means Gravity Acceleration Law Implies Landing Equally Objects
MaXWElL means Light, Electric Wave Crossing Magnetism (from end to begin)
EINSTEIN means Energy IN Space-Time or Evolution IN Space-Time (from Begin to end and from end to begin -reflects relativity )
Isn't it interesting?
QUOTE (wanchung+Sep 15 2008, 04:28 AM)
Isn't it interesting?
No.
No.
Then wanchung must surely mean; Wackoid of Astoundingly Nutfucked Claptrap and Horrendously Underachieving Nonsensical Git.
QUOTE (ASTERIX*+Sep 16 2008, 05:23 AM)
Then wanchung must surely mean; Wackoid of Astoundingly Nutfucked Claptrap and Horrendously Underachieving Nonsensical Git.
Here's a similar one:
Woefully Arrogant Nutter of Claptrap, Horrifying Ulcer-inducing Nonsense and Glaring idiocy.
Here's a similar one:
Woefully Arrogant Nutter of Claptrap, Horrifying Ulcer-inducing Nonsense and Glaring idiocy.
The God as an Atheist.
========================..
Joshua Brown asked .
Hello
I have a question I can't get my head around.
If the galaxy and all that exists was created by the big bang, then
what created the big bang? Surely there was nothing in existence
before the big bang took place, and nothing in existence for the
big bang to take place in the first place, simply because nothing existed.
So how then did it take place if there was nothing before it?
What was existence before the big bang?
What I'm getting at, basically, is how did something come from nothing?
(maybe I don't understand the concept correctly?)
What do you think?
My answer.
======================.
Before “ big bang “ was God.
And the God created the Universe and everything.
I now only two ways to explain this fact.
1)
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".
The Catholic Church agrees with this idea.
Look:
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover/
2)
At first God according to Quantum theory used the
Vacuum ( T= 0K ) to create “ virtual particles “ and
they according SRT + QED and GRT created the
Universe and Everything in this Materialistic Universe.
Nobody agrees with this idea.
3)
Do you have another idea ?
==========..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sadovnik.pdf
===============.
========================..
Joshua Brown asked .
Hello
I have a question I can't get my head around.
If the galaxy and all that exists was created by the big bang, then
what created the big bang? Surely there was nothing in existence
before the big bang took place, and nothing in existence for the
big bang to take place in the first place, simply because nothing existed.
So how then did it take place if there was nothing before it?
What was existence before the big bang?
What I'm getting at, basically, is how did something come from nothing?
(maybe I don't understand the concept correctly?)
What do you think?
My answer.
======================.
Before “ big bang “ was God.
And the God created the Universe and everything.
I now only two ways to explain this fact.
1)
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".
The Catholic Church agrees with this idea.
Look:
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover/
2)
At first God according to Quantum theory used the
Vacuum ( T= 0K ) to create “ virtual particles “ and
they according SRT + QED and GRT created the
Universe and Everything in this Materialistic Universe.
Nobody agrees with this idea.
3)
Do you have another idea ?
==========..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sadovnik.pdf
===============.
Science is ideas and testing those ideas through the scientific method of observation. The universe being in the palm of Gods hand is faith. The big Bang was coined by a member of the catholic church. But then again the big bang is based on faith because its not scientifically observable.
maybe I need to be more specific about the apple. The bite of the apple was symbolic of man knowledge of right and wrong. That is why they needed to cover themselves out of shame. This is mans interpretation of inspiration writing. I suspect those attending nudest camps did not get the same knowledge the rest of us did. We all carry the baggage of what we were taught.
QUOTE (3388+Sep 21 2008, 03:26 AM)
they are just coincidents
“Once upon a time there was a man who was a very good expert on dragon.
He studied versions of dragons, their attributes and habits most carefully .
He could skilfully distinguish one kind of dragon from another.
But, unfortunately, for all his ife he never met any dragon. .
And he did not hear, that someone another should see dragon. .
When this scientist came nearer to old age and got tired from studing dragons,
he began to train the young people, that they also understood this major
area of knowledge – dragonology as well.”
/ From the book V.P. Shelist "Splinters" /
* * *
The dragon theory was created a long time ago.
The quark, dark matter theories....etc was recently created.
The dragon is a strange beast.
And the quark, dark matter....etc is also a strange beast.
Both of them are from one myth.
Only different times gave this myth the different names.
“Once upon a time there was a man who was a very good expert on dragon.
He studied versions of dragons, their attributes and habits most carefully .
He could skilfully distinguish one kind of dragon from another.
But, unfortunately, for all his ife he never met any dragon. .
And he did not hear, that someone another should see dragon. .
When this scientist came nearer to old age and got tired from studing dragons,
he began to train the young people, that they also understood this major
area of knowledge – dragonology as well.”
/ From the book V.P. Shelist "Splinters" /
* * *
The dragon theory was created a long time ago.
The quark, dark matter theories....etc was recently created.
The dragon is a strange beast.
And the quark, dark matter....etc is also a strange beast.
Both of them are from one myth.
Only different times gave this myth the different names.
I think Einstein should be:
Energy, Inertia, and Space Time.
Energy, Inertia, and Space Time.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Sep 20 2008, 02:25 AM)
Science is ideas and testing those ideas through the scientific method of observation. The universe being in the palm of Gods hand is faith. The big Bang was coined by a member of the catholic church. But then again the big bang is based on faith because its not scientifically observable.
maybe I need to be more specific about the apple. The bite of the apple was symbolic of man knowledge of right and wrong. That is why they needed to cover themselves out of shame. This is mans interpretation of inspiration writing. I suspect those attending nudest camps did not get the same knowledge the rest of us did. We all carry the baggage of what we were taught.
Are you sure that the Big Bang Theory came from a Catholic chap?
I think my bags are packed if you are ready to go...to that nudist beach...lol
maybe I need to be more specific about the apple. The bite of the apple was symbolic of man knowledge of right and wrong. That is why they needed to cover themselves out of shame. This is mans interpretation of inspiration writing. I suspect those attending nudest camps did not get the same knowledge the rest of us did. We all carry the baggage of what we were taught.
Are you sure that the Big Bang Theory came from a Catholic chap?
I think my bags are packed if you are ready to go...to that nudist beach...lol
QUOTE (tikay+Sep 23 2008, 12:19 AM)
Are you sure that the Big Bang Theory came from a Catholic chap?
I think my bags are packed if you are ready to go...to that nudist beach...lol
He got this one right. See here
I think my bags are packed if you are ready to go...to that nudist beach...lol
He got this one right. See here
Cool beans trout...hows the water?
Thanks for clearing that up RC, well if it is left there anyway...I thought it was a secularist scientist, but I think a lot of things...
Getting over a flu, and a comp crash....back here....the flu is more like a cold now?
Congested but well enough to sit here tapping away.
I should get to bed but I am not too tired...even tho it is 1:36....I have to get up by seven...a little longer and I am off.
Getting over a flu, and a comp crash....back here....the flu is more like a cold now?
Congested but well enough to sit here tapping away.
I should get to bed but I am not too tired...even tho it is 1:36....I have to get up by seven...a little longer and I am off.
QUOTE (wanchung+Apr 10 2008, 03:02 AM)
Dear all,
I know the birthday paradox(picking 26 people, and the chance of two of them of having same birthday is 50%).
The problem is: I picked the MOST famous scientists among famous scientists.
Suprisingly, they all are matched! The observed chance is much greater than 50%.
For example, Copenicus' death year is 1543, one hundred earlier than Newton's birth year(1642)
My reference is Michael Hart's "The 100"
I still think it is not happened by chance!
Hi wanchung....I like your ideas, I hope you won't be too dis~encouaged by these people who have other interests more than considering the implications in what you are proposing. To me it is wholly interesting!
This is a good thing to be interested in if you ask me so...let no one stop you from your discovery.
I just found this thread today and your posts. i especially like the similarities you found in one that follows this, about JFK.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=369095
You have at it! No one has anything all that much more interesting to say in this thread...just different.
I know the birthday paradox(picking 26 people, and the chance of two of them of having same birthday is 50%).
The problem is: I picked the MOST famous scientists among famous scientists.
Suprisingly, they all are matched! The observed chance is much greater than 50%.
For example, Copenicus' death year is 1543, one hundred earlier than Newton's birth year(1642)
My reference is Michael Hart's "The 100"
I still think it is not happened by chance!
Hi wanchung....I like your ideas, I hope you won't be too dis~encouaged by these people who have other interests more than considering the implications in what you are proposing. To me it is wholly interesting!
This is a good thing to be interested in if you ask me so...let no one stop you from your discovery.
I just found this thread today and your posts. i especially like the similarities you found in one that follows this, about JFK.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=369095
You have at it! No one has anything all that much more interesting to say in this thread...just different.
QUOTE (tikay+Sep 22 2008, 04:46 PM)
Cool beans trout...hows the water?
Enh...boiling Hot! Hunh? Had to jump out and give me a neg for being genuine?
Whateva dude!
I have a right to my expressions/opinions and ideas, when you people stop trying to RUN PHYSORG for unsuspecting readership and innocents who may be maligned in thier scientific ideals....well...go ahead who cares how you waste your good time.
~peace~
Enh...boiling Hot! Hunh? Had to jump out and give me a neg for being genuine?
Whateva dude!
I have a right to my expressions/opinions and ideas, when you people stop trying to RUN PHYSORG for unsuspecting readership and innocents who may be maligned in thier scientific ideals....well...go ahead who cares how you waste your good time.
~peace~
QUOTE (tikay+Sep 23 2008, 08:28 AM)
I hope you won't be too dis~encouaged by these people who have other interests more than considering the implications in what you are proposing.
That is a load of absolute #$&@.
That is a load of absolute #$&@.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Sep 23 2008, 07:13 PM)
That is a load of absolute #$&@.
So then you are having no other interests? Well...there you go wan...another interested party.
So then you are having no other interests? Well...there you go wan...another interested party.
QUOTE (tikay+Sep 23 2008, 12:19 AM)
Are you sure that the Big Bang Theory came from a Catholic chap?
==============================…
At a Vatican conference in 1951, Pope Pius XII said
the big bang was consistent with church doctrine.
"Creation took place in time, therefore there is a creator,
therefore God exists!"- the pope declared.
Why did he say so?
Maybe because: “ The theological explanation of the world's existence
cannot lie at a different level from scientific understanding. “
Maybe because theologians say:
“ The world gets its finite being from an infinite being."
===========..
==============================…
At a Vatican conference in 1951, Pope Pius XII said
the big bang was consistent with church doctrine.
"Creation took place in time, therefore there is a creator,
therefore God exists!"- the pope declared.
Why did he say so?
Maybe because: “ The theological explanation of the world's existence
cannot lie at a different level from scientific understanding. “
Maybe because theologians say:
“ The world gets its finite being from an infinite being."
===========..
QUOTE (tikay+Sep 24 2008, 05:56 AM)
So then you are having no other interests? Well...there you go wan...another interested party.
Tracey, what you said above was complete #$&@, and you know it.
Tracey, what you said above was complete #$&@, and you know it.
What I know is that conspiracy theory is very interesting, usually....and this guy is even deeper, and is suggessting something happening on a whole other level...a level of spirit...which is wholy ever more interesting to me. I am being genuine in my interest...as i suppose you are in your slightly ironic disgust.
You are not running the show here doc...everyone is different, get over yourself sometimes eh?
I don't care what you think right now, you are wrong about me and I was not bullshitting anyone, aboout having an interest in wan's subject matter. i even took a post to Sapo's.
Why are you so happy to be rude, so often?
You are not running the show here doc...everyone is different, get over yourself sometimes eh?
I don't care what you think right now, you are wrong about me and I was not bullshitting anyone, aboout having an interest in wan's subject matter. i even took a post to Sapo's.
Why are you so happy to be rude, so often?
QUOTE (TheDoc+Sep 25 2008, 04:11 AM)
Tracey, what you said above was complete #$&@, and you know it.
I agree with TheDoc. Theres too many people trying to insert godly talk into a physics forum. Why dont you just go to church?
I agree with TheDoc. Theres too many people trying to insert godly talk into a physics forum. Why dont you just go to church?
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 25 2008, 02:37 AM)
I agree with TheDoc. Theres too many people trying to insert godly talk into a physics forum. Why dont you just go to church?
heh.. neuronumb's "followup".
heh.. neuronumb's "followup".
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 25 2008, 12:37 AM)
I agree with TheDoc. Theres too many people trying to insert godly talk into a physics forum. Why dont you just go to church?
Why don't you stay out of religiously oriented fori thread? You fungus! If you think church is a better alternative than talking about what we think on, in forum... You go to church!
Why don't you stay out of religiously oriented fori thread? You fungus! If you think church is a better alternative than talking about what we think on, in forum... You go to church!
QUOTE (tikay+Sep 25 2008, 02:32 PM)
Why don't you stay out of religiously oriented fori thread?
Thats why I come to a PHYSICS FORUM yo pus-riddled bint.
Thats why I come to a PHYSICS FORUM yo pus-riddled bint.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 25 2008, 08:42 AM)
Thats why I come to a PHYSICS FORUM yo pus-riddled bint.
uh huh! yah sure neuronumb.....so you spend all your time posting nonsensical slurs...Do you actually focus on something other than how "special" you are?
uh huh! yah sure neuronumb.....so you spend all your time posting nonsensical slurs...Do you actually focus on something other than how "special" you are?
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 25 2008, 03:06 PM)
uh huh! yah sure neuronumb.....so you spend all your time posting nonsensical slurs...Do you actually focus on something other than how "special" you are?
Oh you wanna be a pus-riddled bint as well do ya?
And what about all YOURS nonsensical slurs against science? Hypocritical douchebag.
Oh you wanna be a pus-riddled bint as well do ya?
And what about all YOURS nonsensical slurs against science? Hypocritical douchebag.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 25 2008, 09:23 AM)
Oh you wanna be a pus-riddled bint as well do ya?
And what about all YOURS nonsensical slurs against science? Hypocritical douchebag.
Oh, my past may be riddled with nonsense, but I've since been SAVED!
And what about all YOURS nonsensical slurs against science? Hypocritical douchebag.
Oh, my past may be riddled with nonsense, but I've since been SAVED!
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 25 2008, 03:25 PM)
Oh, my past may be riddled with nonsense, but I've since been SAVED!
Yeah yeah, here comes the punch line...
Yeah yeah, here comes the punch line...
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 25 2008, 10:25 AM)
Oh, my past may be riddled with nonsense, but I've since been SAVED!
From thinking?
From thinking?
QUOTE (wanchung+Apr 2 2008, 04:50 AM)
Dear All,
I searched wikipedia recently, and I found some interesting facts.
Thus, I believe that religion and science are closely linked.
I am kiddingly calling these facts "Law of Life and Death!"
Most famous scientists and politians have the same birthday/year or death day/year.
For examples:
Jesus and Sir Newton have the same birthday (12/25) based on old style calender
Galilei's death year is the same as Newton's birth year(1642).
James Clerk Maxwell's death year is the same as Einstein's birth year(1879).
:Einstein is thought the follower of Maxwell;Newton is the follower of Galilei.
Einstein's birthday is the same as Karl Marx's death day(3/14):the pi day.
:Both of them are important Jewish thinkers.
Louis Pateur's birthday and Kepler's birthday is the same(12/27)
Leeuwenhoek's(Father of biology) death day is the same as Lavoisier's(Father of chemistry) birthday(8/26)
Gregior Mendel's(Father of Genetic) death day is the same as Benjamin Franklin's(Father of electricity) birthday(1/6)
Adam Smith's birthday is the same as Ronald Reagan's death day.
:Reagan leads captalism to defeat communism.
FD Roosevelt's birthday is the same as Mohandas Gandhi's death day(1/30).
:They promote world peace and fight against impiralism
Marie Curie's death day is the same as Thomas Jefferson's death day(7/4)
By using FRS calendar, Erwin Schrodinger and Sir Newton have the same birthday(1/4)
Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln have exactly the same birthday(Feb12,1809)
Charles Darwin's death day is 4/19.
The two most famous recent physcists:
Richard Feynman's death day is the same as Galilei's birthday
Stephen Hawking's birthday is the same as Galilei's death day
Muhammad's birthay is 4/19 or 4/20.
We assume 4/19 and 12/25 are holy-days. And, some most evil politians' date is one day next to the holy-days.
Mao Zedong's birthday is 12/26.
Adolf Hitler's birthday is 4/20.
:Hitler's birthday is one day next to Darwin's death day. Hitler belived Social Darwinism for expending his empire.
:Lincoln is against racism in his whole life(against Social Darwinism)
It is highly probable that these dates are selected by God, Buddha, Adonai,or Allah.
Thus, religion should be linked to science and politics!
These famous scientist's or politians' birthday or deathday were selected.
It is not happened by chance!
Please pick a religion to believe in even you are a scientist!
Please believe paradise and hell because every religion says so!
You may go to wikipedia to check by yourself!
You are arguing dates and what in math is random number theory. 100 people from arond the world will assure by elimination several will have the same birth day, most for biological reasons will be right handed, and also for biological reasons will be straight.(Not being celebate, thats a choice, but by genetics. we "want" to swing one way or the other.) Also we are a certain color skin/eyes... And by what is a componant of evolution we need not look at plodding Darwinism. Truly radical change can happen in one generation by mutation, it's called punctuated equilibium. The so-called "missing link" is another nice idea its just not likely to show up on a shelf. ONE generation can have a very big change. The U.S. is a fundementally conservative society, hence despite what ever your politics you most likey are left or right of center. I did not check your dates for specific accuracy, I question your comment Christ was born on 12/25. Why? It's historicly convienant. 12/25 is the winter soltice in the northern hemisphere, a time for fertility rights, dancing naked if it ain't to cold, and begging the gods for a good harvest, and hopefully not dropping dead from a sore throat...
As for so called social Darwinisim, as you put it, there is no such thing. There is a radical difference by people who violate the word "darwinisim" People confuse natural selection with eugenics, to "improve the race". For those, and I do not at all from I have read think you believe that, you seem like a decent and considerate human being. "Racial purity" is anything but a bigots happy talk, consider: Racial limitations by not "mixing the races" limits genetic diversity. And means were more vulnerable to any odd illness that may come along with a target to a specific geonomic limitation.
Darwin was the first to believe life was rational, and try to prove it. He was called a demon, and worse for thinking. Not requiring every one to give each other a big hug and cross our fingers, or fear God will nail you for using your brain. (By the way I have no trouble with a big hug). Unless you have read Darwin, you may not know he studied for the ministry, as was sop for being a nauturalist, or what we would call a scientist today. He went to his death a very religous man. Like Darwin, I have no problem with being a man of faith and a man of science. They are just not the same thing. As for believing in heaven and hell, I do believe we answer for our crimes. Including the crime of omission. Hate to ad, wikipedia can be "edited" by Bozo the clown. All you need is a key board.
As for chance? I like to quote Einstein when he said the universe is not only more fantastic then we imagine, but more fantastic then we can imagine.
I searched wikipedia recently, and I found some interesting facts.
Thus, I believe that religion and science are closely linked.
I am kiddingly calling these facts "Law of Life and Death!"
Most famous scientists and politians have the same birthday/year or death day/year.
For examples:
Jesus and Sir Newton have the same birthday (12/25) based on old style calender
Galilei's death year is the same as Newton's birth year(1642).
James Clerk Maxwell's death year is the same as Einstein's birth year(1879).
:Einstein is thought the follower of Maxwell;Newton is the follower of Galilei.
Einstein's birthday is the same as Karl Marx's death day(3/14):the pi day.
:Both of them are important Jewish thinkers.
Louis Pateur's birthday and Kepler's birthday is the same(12/27)
Leeuwenhoek's(Father of biology) death day is the same as Lavoisier's(Father of chemistry) birthday(8/26)
Gregior Mendel's(Father of Genetic) death day is the same as Benjamin Franklin's(Father of electricity) birthday(1/6)
Adam Smith's birthday is the same as Ronald Reagan's death day.
:Reagan leads captalism to defeat communism.
FD Roosevelt's birthday is the same as Mohandas Gandhi's death day(1/30).
:They promote world peace and fight against impiralism
Marie Curie's death day is the same as Thomas Jefferson's death day(7/4)
By using FRS calendar, Erwin Schrodinger and Sir Newton have the same birthday(1/4)
Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln have exactly the same birthday(Feb12,1809)
Charles Darwin's death day is 4/19.
The two most famous recent physcists:
Richard Feynman's death day is the same as Galilei's birthday
Stephen Hawking's birthday is the same as Galilei's death day
Muhammad's birthay is 4/19 or 4/20.
We assume 4/19 and 12/25 are holy-days. And, some most evil politians' date is one day next to the holy-days.
Mao Zedong's birthday is 12/26.
Adolf Hitler's birthday is 4/20.
:Hitler's birthday is one day next to Darwin's death day. Hitler belived Social Darwinism for expending his empire.
:Lincoln is against racism in his whole life(against Social Darwinism)
It is highly probable that these dates are selected by God, Buddha, Adonai,or Allah.
Thus, religion should be linked to science and politics!
These famous scientist's or politians' birthday or deathday were selected.
It is not happened by chance!
Please pick a religion to believe in even you are a scientist!
Please believe paradise and hell because every religion says so!
You may go to wikipedia to check by yourself!
You are arguing dates and what in math is random number theory. 100 people from arond the world will assure by elimination several will have the same birth day, most for biological reasons will be right handed, and also for biological reasons will be straight.(Not being celebate, thats a choice, but by genetics. we "want" to swing one way or the other.) Also we are a certain color skin/eyes... And by what is a componant of evolution we need not look at plodding Darwinism. Truly radical change can happen in one generation by mutation, it's called punctuated equilibium. The so-called "missing link" is another nice idea its just not likely to show up on a shelf. ONE generation can have a very big change. The U.S. is a fundementally conservative society, hence despite what ever your politics you most likey are left or right of center. I did not check your dates for specific accuracy, I question your comment Christ was born on 12/25. Why? It's historicly convienant. 12/25 is the winter soltice in the northern hemisphere, a time for fertility rights, dancing naked if it ain't to cold, and begging the gods for a good harvest, and hopefully not dropping dead from a sore throat...
As for so called social Darwinisim, as you put it, there is no such thing. There is a radical difference by people who violate the word "darwinisim" People confuse natural selection with eugenics, to "improve the race". For those, and I do not at all from I have read think you believe that, you seem like a decent and considerate human being. "Racial purity" is anything but a bigots happy talk, consider: Racial limitations by not "mixing the races" limits genetic diversity. And means were more vulnerable to any odd illness that may come along with a target to a specific geonomic limitation.
Darwin was the first to believe life was rational, and try to prove it. He was called a demon, and worse for thinking. Not requiring every one to give each other a big hug and cross our fingers, or fear God will nail you for using your brain. (By the way I have no trouble with a big hug). Unless you have read Darwin, you may not know he studied for the ministry, as was sop for being a nauturalist, or what we would call a scientist today. He went to his death a very religous man. Like Darwin, I have no problem with being a man of faith and a man of science. They are just not the same thing. As for believing in heaven and hell, I do believe we answer for our crimes. Including the crime of omission. Hate to ad, wikipedia can be "edited" by Bozo the clown. All you need is a key board.
As for chance? I like to quote Einstein when he said the universe is not only more fantastic then we imagine, but more fantastic then we can imagine.
QUOTE (tikay+)
You are not running the show here doc
And when did I say I was?
No, I'm not. You're making up #$&@ to have another go at the skeptics,, pretending that we have "interests" other than the validity of what non-mainstream comes up. Y
No, I'm not. You're making up #$&@ to have another go at the skeptics,, pretending that we have "interests" other than the validity of what non-mainstream comes up. Y
I was not bullshitting anyone, aboout having an interest in wan's subject matter.
Except that wasn't what I was arguing about, was it?
I don't give a #$&@ if someone thinks I'm rude or not. If they don't like it, too bad.
Except that wasn't what I was arguing about, was it?
I don't give a #$&@ if someone thinks I'm rude or not. If they don't like it, too bad.
See here is where things get somewhat confusing, when there is a misunderstanding...when you think you know what I am saying but you are off base, it is sometimes hard to discuss without some slight animosity...on my part.
I have a problem with it, when the forum mafia (self appointed at that) come round to "set everything right" and they have it all wrong.
I was stating (for the record) that I was interested in something, and that he (wan)should go on despite any regurgitated non-sense that he had no right to speak... and you come along telling me I am full of sh!t. That is just crazy. I have a right to my opinion, no matter what sort of forum you think it should be, that is just not the forum it is.
You cannot change that by being people who come into every other thread, with dis-respectful garbage like insults and denial of peoples ideas, saying those ideas, hypothesis and theories don't have anything to do with reality. Belief is reality, it is a facet of reality. What we believe makes us who we are. You guys come round to tell us that who we are is basically unacceptable because we are not just like you...and I disagree with that context.
Forum mafia seem to think that if everyone is not using the scientific method or Occam's Razor in everything we think about, we are skewed in our thinking processes. (and that therefore, you have the right to screw with us.) That just isn't always the case. We may be the bringers of tomorrows truth(s), just as assuredly as the next person. Why...Y do you get the be the judges and jury to every thought process we have?
I personally think, it is beyond rude, it is simple closed-mindedness and sometimes downright hateful. Not everyone redily KNOWS, even, how to analyze every thought, or put it to scientific measuring and weighing of facts, and we won't learn it from being put down and bandied about by insulting fuccers who wish we would leave to never return. There is room here for everyone. It is wide open. If some of you protectors of todays truth, were beamed up, the rest of us could heave a great sigh of relief, and get on with all sorts of strage and exciting ideas, that could lead to other ideas, which in certain cases might, eventually produce real progress, and lucidity, in time.
No one knows if I was here to thrash skeptics (again) or if i was merely saying to wan...go on with your idea, I am interested, because what you are wondering at is wholly interesting to me...well no one knows my mind but me, because only I have full access to my own mind, but not to yours...AND vice versa.
I was not here to trash the skeptic, I was here applauding a free thinker, something you might give a try, on occasion. There is nothing wrong in me encouraging someone. But there may be something wrong in the consistent dis-encouragement of folks in here.
argh!!!!
I am done with THIS very debate too, sometimes, and talking about it seems such a lecture and that is not something I enjoy doing. I would rather the place have an open engaging atmosphere as a rule...but that is impossible isn't it?
Y is it impossible to have an open arena for thought expressions...in a science forum? There are to many here who embody the assumption that their thoughts are better than the next persons.
Thought are all valid and should be examined with more open-ness than many of you bring to this forum. I am sick of the thought police position you guys place yourself in, as if you created this place or have ownership rights to it.
Who gave you permission to police the forum...only You!
How assumptive of you and I hope it is a great balm to the ego for all of you, because it is hopefully benefiting you, it only hinders potential thought progression(s) otherwise.
Forum mafia seem to think that if everyone is not using the scientific method or Occam's Razor in everything we think about, we are skewed in our thinking processes.
You people dont seem to understand why these things exist. Science is not about dreaming things up and praying to them. This is a physics forum. Theres others out there for dreamers.
And when did I say I was?
QUOTE
you are wrong about me
No, I'm not. You're making up #$&@ to have another go at the skeptics,, pretending that we have "interests" other than the validity of what non-mainstream comes up. Y
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| you are wrong about me |
No, I'm not. You're making up #$&@ to have another go at the skeptics,, pretending that we have "interests" other than the validity of what non-mainstream comes up. Y
I was not bullshitting anyone, aboout having an interest in wan's subject matter.
Except that wasn't what I was arguing about, was it?
QUOTE
Why are you so happy to be rude, so often?
I don't give a #$&@ if someone thinks I'm rude or not. If they don't like it, too bad.
QUOTE (excaza+Sep 25 2008, 06:16 PM)
From thinking?
Yes!
..from thinking that you might evntually say something that exudes more than self-serving iterations.
..from thinking you are anything but an ineffective specialist in constructing your own stature of importance.
..from thinking that your posts are of any interest to those who engage in real scientific endeavors.
Yes!
..from thinking that you might evntually say something that exudes more than self-serving iterations.
..from thinking you are anything but an ineffective specialist in constructing your own stature of importance.
..from thinking that your posts are of any interest to those who engage in real scientific endeavors.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Sep 25 2008, 06:38 PM)
Except that wasn't what I was arguing about, was it?
I don't give a #$&@ if someone thinks I'm rude or not. If they don't like it, too bad.
See here is where things get somewhat confusing, when there is a misunderstanding...when you think you know what I am saying but you are off base, it is sometimes hard to discuss without some slight animosity...on my part.
I have a problem with it, when the forum mafia (self appointed at that) come round to "set everything right" and they have it all wrong.
I was stating (for the record) that I was interested in something, and that he (wan)should go on despite any regurgitated non-sense that he had no right to speak... and you come along telling me I am full of sh!t. That is just crazy. I have a right to my opinion, no matter what sort of forum you think it should be, that is just not the forum it is.
You cannot change that by being people who come into every other thread, with dis-respectful garbage like insults and denial of peoples ideas, saying those ideas, hypothesis and theories don't have anything to do with reality. Belief is reality, it is a facet of reality. What we believe makes us who we are. You guys come round to tell us that who we are is basically unacceptable because we are not just like you...and I disagree with that context.
Forum mafia seem to think that if everyone is not using the scientific method or Occam's Razor in everything we think about, we are skewed in our thinking processes. (and that therefore, you have the right to screw with us.) That just isn't always the case. We may be the bringers of tomorrows truth(s), just as assuredly as the next person. Why...Y do you get the be the judges and jury to every thought process we have?
I personally think, it is beyond rude, it is simple closed-mindedness and sometimes downright hateful. Not everyone redily KNOWS, even, how to analyze every thought, or put it to scientific measuring and weighing of facts, and we won't learn it from being put down and bandied about by insulting fuccers who wish we would leave to never return. There is room here for everyone. It is wide open. If some of you protectors of todays truth, were beamed up, the rest of us could heave a great sigh of relief, and get on with all sorts of strage and exciting ideas, that could lead to other ideas, which in certain cases might, eventually produce real progress, and lucidity, in time.
No one knows if I was here to thrash skeptics (again) or if i was merely saying to wan...go on with your idea, I am interested, because what you are wondering at is wholly interesting to me...well no one knows my mind but me, because only I have full access to my own mind, but not to yours...AND vice versa.
I was not here to trash the skeptic, I was here applauding a free thinker, something you might give a try, on occasion. There is nothing wrong in me encouraging someone. But there may be something wrong in the consistent dis-encouragement of folks in here.
argh!!!!
I am done with THIS very debate too, sometimes, and talking about it seems such a lecture and that is not something I enjoy doing. I would rather the place have an open engaging atmosphere as a rule...but that is impossible isn't it?
Y is it impossible to have an open arena for thought expressions...in a science forum? There are to many here who embody the assumption that their thoughts are better than the next persons.
Thought are all valid and should be examined with more open-ness than many of you bring to this forum. I am sick of the thought police position you guys place yourself in, as if you created this place or have ownership rights to it.
Who gave you permission to police the forum...only You!
How assumptive of you and I hope it is a great balm to the ego for all of you, because it is hopefully benefiting you, it only hinders potential thought progression(s) otherwise.
QUOTE (tikay+Sep 26 2008, 06:26 AM)
Forum mafia seem to think that if everyone is not using the scientific method or Occam's Razor in everything we think about, we are skewed in our thinking processes.
You people dont seem to understand why these things exist. Science is not about dreaming things up and praying to them. This is a physics forum. Theres others out there for dreamers.
QUOTE (hawksecho+Sep 26 2008, 02:06 AM)
I like to quote Einstein when he said the universe is not only more fantastic then we imagine, but more fantastic then we can imagine.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 26 2008, 04:27 AM)
I dont think
...just thought I'd stop in here to see if neonom has made any improvements within himself...
Oh well, I guess it isn't his time yet.
give him more time....he'll find himself sooner or later.
Probably later..... since theduck (thedoc) is so influential. Now there's one to look up to....
...just thought I'd stop in here to see if neonom has made any improvements within himself...
Oh well, I guess it isn't his time yet.
give him more time....he'll find himself sooner or later.
Probably later..... since theduck (thedoc) is so influential. Now there's one to look up to....
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 26 2008, 03:47 AM)
You people dont seem to understand why these things exist.
An implication that you do? Obviously you haven't yet realized how thin you are stretching your validity as an intelligent being.
An implication that you do? Obviously you haven't yet realized how thin you are stretching your validity as an intelligent being.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Sep 25 2008, 08:38 PM)
I don't give a #$&@ if someone thinks I'm rude or not. If they don't like it, too bad.
and therein lies the the root of theduck's (thedoc's) inability to contain himself when straying from his focus on the disciplines he professes to pursue. He really does nothing here in this forum that promotes an understanding of the infinite possibilities of what science may discover.
But, he DOES follow that habitual inner impetus which creates a momentary collapse of the suppressed hostility that others have contained through their maturing development of tolerance.
and therein lies the the root of theduck's (thedoc's) inability to contain himself when straying from his focus on the disciplines he professes to pursue. He really does nothing here in this forum that promotes an understanding of the infinite possibilities of what science may discover.
But, he DOES follow that habitual inner impetus which creates a momentary collapse of the suppressed hostility that others have contained through their maturing development of tolerance.
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 26 2008, 11:26 AM)
Obviously you haven't yet realized how thin you are stretching your validity as an intelligent being.
Nice.
Nice.
QUOTE (tikay+)
I was stating (for the record) that I was interested in something, and that he (wan)should go on despite any regurgitated non-sense that he had no right to speak... and you come along telling me I am full of sh!t.
No, I did not say that. I did not say he didn't have a right to speak and I didn't say you were full of #$&@ for saying so. What you seem to have problems comprehending is that you are full of #$&@ when you go aroun claiming skeptics have interests and agendas that run contrary to what non-mainstream proposes.
As I said before, you're making #$&@ just to have another go at the skeptics.
And more #$&@. "Us guys" go around telling people they're wrong with the methods they choose because we have good reasons to. When someone ignores the basic laws of physics so they can waffle about some random idea for five minutes, does that make them right? When someone makes a grandiose claim that defies the scientific method, and refuses to provide any evidence for it, does that make them right?
And more #$&@. "Us guys" go around telling people they're wrong with the methods they choose because we have good reasons to. When someone ignores the basic laws of physics so they can waffle about some random idea for five minutes, does that make them right? When someone makes a grandiose claim that defies the scientific method, and refuses to provide any evidence for it, does that make them right?
I personally think, it is beyond rude, it is simple closed-mindedness and sometimes downright hateful.
So now the skeptics are hateful and wrong when they call someone out on a gibberish idea? I'd say it's you being close-minded.
And as I said before, ignoring stuff like the basic laws of physics will not get you there. So many of your "free thinkers" try to pass off their ideas as credible science or even as fact, even when they've been refuted and shown to be wrong several times. That is worthy of ridicule.
And as I said before, ignoring stuff like the basic laws of physics will not get you there. So many of your "free thinkers" try to pass off their ideas as credible science or even as fact, even when they've been refuted and shown to be wrong several times. That is worthy of ridicule.
I was not here to trash the skeptic
Yes, you were.
I will applaud a free thinker when they stop claiming to be the next Galileo. I will applaud a free thinker when they stop claiming without evidence that their physics is the stuff of the future. I will applaud a free thinker when they stop blindly denying all explanations thrown towards them. I will not applaud a free thinker when they jot down some random idea that popped into their heads, find a few birthdates and proclaim it as a link between religion and science.
I will applaud a free thinker when they stop claiming to be the next Galileo. I will applaud a free thinker when they stop claiming without evidence that their physics is the stuff of the future. I will applaud a free thinker when they stop blindly denying all explanations thrown towards them. I will not applaud a free thinker when they jot down some random idea that popped into their heads, find a few birthdates and proclaim it as a link between religion and science.
There are to many here who embody the assumption that their thoughts are better than the next persons.
More absolute #$&@.
And yet more absolute #$&@. No one here said that they had a right to "police the forum". No one claimed that we owned the forum. No one claims to "better" than anyone else.
You are being dishonest, hypocritical, and above all, close-minded. You gladly take a dig at the skeptics, ignoring their reasons for doing what they do, but you're quick to defend some random "free thinker" who has either been unable to provide evidence or has been proven wrong on several occasions. You support DavidD even when his idiotic statements get proven wrong. You give positives to people like dad1 because "the neggers are not flawless", even when we the neggers never claimed to be.
You are the one being close-minded, not us.
And yet more absolute #$&@. No one here said that they had a right to "police the forum". No one claimed that we owned the forum. No one claims to "better" than anyone else.
You are being dishonest, hypocritical, and above all, close-minded. You gladly take a dig at the skeptics, ignoring their reasons for doing what they do, but you're quick to defend some random "free thinker" who has either been unable to provide evidence or has been proven wrong on several occasions. You support DavidD even when his idiotic statements get proven wrong. You give positives to people like dad1 because "the neggers are not flawless", even when we the neggers never claimed to be.
You are the one being close-minded, not us.
<childish tripe snipped>
So, are you going to start stalking me too, Bloy?
And more #$&@. "Us guys" go around telling people they're wrong with the methods they choose because we have good reasons to. When someone ignores the basic laws of physics so they can waffle about some random idea for five minutes, does that make them right? When someone makes a grandiose claim that defies the scientific method, and refuses to provide any evidence for it, does that make them right?
So now the skeptics are hateful and wrong when they call someone out on a gibberish idea? I'd say it's you being close-minded.
And as I said before, ignoring stuff like the basic laws of physics will not get you there. So many of your "free thinkers" try to pass off their ideas as credible science or even as fact, even when they've been refuted and shown to be wrong several times. That is worthy of ridicule.
Yes, you were.
I will applaud a free thinker when they stop claiming to be the next Galileo. I will applaud a free thinker when they stop claiming without evidence that their physics is the stuff of the future. I will applaud a free thinker when they stop blindly denying all explanations thrown towards them. I will not applaud a free thinker when they jot down some random idea that popped into their heads, find a few birthdates and proclaim it as a link between religion and science.
More absolute #$&@.
And yet more absolute #$&@. No one here said that they had a right to "police the forum". No one claimed that we owned the forum. No one claims to "better" than anyone else.
You are being dishonest, hypocritical, and above all, close-minded. You gladly take a dig at the skeptics, ignoring their reasons for doing what they do, but you're quick to defend some random "free thinker" who has either been unable to provide evidence or has been proven wrong on several occasions. You support DavidD even when his idiotic statements get proven wrong. You give positives to people like dad1 because "the neggers are not flawless", even when we the neggers never claimed to be.
You are the one being close-minded, not us.
No, I did not say that. I did not say he didn't have a right to speak and I didn't say you were full of #$&@ for saying so. What you seem to have problems comprehending is that you are full of #$&@ when you go aroun claiming skeptics have interests and agendas that run contrary to what non-mainstream proposes.
As I said before, you're making #$&@ just to have another go at the skeptics.
QUOTE
You guys come round to tell us that who we are is basically unacceptable because we are not just like you...and I disagree with that context.
Forum mafia seem to think that if everyone is not using the scientific method or Occam's Razor in everything we think about, we are skewed in our thinking processes. (and that therefore, you have the right to screw with us.) That just isn't always the case.
Forum mafia seem to think that if everyone is not using the scientific method or Occam's Razor in everything we think about, we are skewed in our thinking processes. (and that therefore, you have the right to screw with us.) That just isn't always the case.
And more #$&@. "Us guys" go around telling people they're wrong with the methods they choose because we have good reasons to. When someone ignores the basic laws of physics so they can waffle about some random idea for five minutes, does that make them right? When someone makes a grandiose claim that defies the scientific method, and refuses to provide any evidence for it, does that make them right?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You guys come round to tell us that who we are is basically unacceptable because we are not just like you...and I disagree with that context. Forum mafia seem to think that if everyone is not using the scientific method or Occam's Razor in everything we think about, we are skewed in our thinking processes. (and that therefore, you have the right to screw with us.) That just isn't always the case. |
And more #$&@. "Us guys" go around telling people they're wrong with the methods they choose because we have good reasons to. When someone ignores the basic laws of physics so they can waffle about some random idea for five minutes, does that make them right? When someone makes a grandiose claim that defies the scientific method, and refuses to provide any evidence for it, does that make them right?
I personally think, it is beyond rude, it is simple closed-mindedness and sometimes downright hateful.
So now the skeptics are hateful and wrong when they call someone out on a gibberish idea? I'd say it's you being close-minded.
QUOTE
If some of you protectors of todays truth, were beamed up, the rest of us could heave a great sigh of relief, and get on with all sorts of strage and exciting ideas, that could lead to other ideas, which in certain cases might, eventually produce real progress, and lucidity, in time.
And as I said before, ignoring stuff like the basic laws of physics will not get you there. So many of your "free thinkers" try to pass off their ideas as credible science or even as fact, even when they've been refuted and shown to be wrong several times. That is worthy of ridicule.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If some of you protectors of todays truth, were beamed up, the rest of us could heave a great sigh of relief, and get on with all sorts of strage and exciting ideas, that could lead to other ideas, which in certain cases might, eventually produce real progress, and lucidity, in time. |
And as I said before, ignoring stuff like the basic laws of physics will not get you there. So many of your "free thinkers" try to pass off their ideas as credible science or even as fact, even when they've been refuted and shown to be wrong several times. That is worthy of ridicule.
I was not here to trash the skeptic
Yes, you were.
QUOTE
I was here applauding a free thinker, something you might give a try, on occasion.
I will applaud a free thinker when they stop claiming to be the next Galileo. I will applaud a free thinker when they stop claiming without evidence that their physics is the stuff of the future. I will applaud a free thinker when they stop blindly denying all explanations thrown towards them. I will not applaud a free thinker when they jot down some random idea that popped into their heads, find a few birthdates and proclaim it as a link between religion and science.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I was here applauding a free thinker, something you might give a try, on occasion. |
I will applaud a free thinker when they stop claiming to be the next Galileo. I will applaud a free thinker when they stop claiming without evidence that their physics is the stuff of the future. I will applaud a free thinker when they stop blindly denying all explanations thrown towards them. I will not applaud a free thinker when they jot down some random idea that popped into their heads, find a few birthdates and proclaim it as a link between religion and science.
There are to many here who embody the assumption that their thoughts are better than the next persons.
More absolute #$&@.
QUOTE
I am sick of the thought police position you guys place yourself in, as if you created this place or have ownership rights to it.
Who gave you permission to police the forum...only You!
Who gave you permission to police the forum...only You!
And yet more absolute #$&@. No one here said that they had a right to "police the forum". No one claimed that we owned the forum. No one claims to "better" than anyone else.
You are being dishonest, hypocritical, and above all, close-minded. You gladly take a dig at the skeptics, ignoring their reasons for doing what they do, but you're quick to defend some random "free thinker" who has either been unable to provide evidence or has been proven wrong on several occasions. You support DavidD even when his idiotic statements get proven wrong. You give positives to people like dad1 because "the neggers are not flawless", even when we the neggers never claimed to be.
You are the one being close-minded, not us.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am sick of the thought police position you guys place yourself in, as if you created this place or have ownership rights to it. Who gave you permission to police the forum...only You! |
And yet more absolute #$&@. No one here said that they had a right to "police the forum". No one claimed that we owned the forum. No one claims to "better" than anyone else.
You are being dishonest, hypocritical, and above all, close-minded. You gladly take a dig at the skeptics, ignoring their reasons for doing what they do, but you're quick to defend some random "free thinker" who has either been unable to provide evidence or has been proven wrong on several occasions. You support DavidD even when his idiotic statements get proven wrong. You give positives to people like dad1 because "the neggers are not flawless", even when we the neggers never claimed to be.
You are the one being close-minded, not us.
<childish tripe snipped>
So, are you going to start stalking me too, Bloy?
QUOTE (TheDoc+Sep 26 2008, 05:07 PM)
And more #$&@. "Us guys" go around telling people they're wrong with the methods they choose because we have good reasons to. When someone ignores the basic laws of physics so they can waffle about some random idea for five minutes, does that make them right? When someone makes a grandiose claim that defies the scientific method, and refuses to provide any evidence for it, does that make them right?
So now the skeptics are hateful and wrong when they call someone out on a gibberish idea? I'd say it's you being close-minded.
And as I said before, ignoring stuff like the basic laws of physics will not get you there. So many of your "free thinkers" try to pass off their ideas as credible science or even as fact, even when they've been refuted and shown to be wrong several times. That is worthy of ridicule.
Yes, you were.
I will applaud a free thinker when they stop claiming to be the next Galileo. I will applaud a free thinker when they stop claiming without evidence that their physics is the stuff of the future. I will applaud a free thinker when they stop blindly denying all explanations thrown towards them. I will not applaud a free thinker when they jot down some random idea that popped into their heads, find a few birthdates and proclaim it as a link between religion and science.
More absolute #$&@.
And yet more absolute #$&@. No one here said that they had a right to "police the forum". No one claimed that we owned the forum. No one claims to "better" than anyone else.
You are being dishonest, hypocritical, and above all, close-minded. You gladly take a dig at the skeptics, ignoring their reasons for doing what they do, but you're quick to defend some random "free thinker" who has either been unable to provide evidence or has been proven wrong on several occasions. You support DavidD even when his idiotic statements get proven wrong. You give positives to people like dad1 because "the neggers are not flawless", even when we the neggers never claimed to be.
You are the one being close-minded, not us.
QUOTE (Bloy+)
<childish tripe snipped>
So, are you going to start stalking me too, Bloy?
You're the Anti-Doc man. You are full of complete BULLSHIT. When it came down to it you backed up complete BS when one of your pals gave wrong information, and the only reason he did so was to create the impression guys like him and you are always right, and we are always cranks.
Tikay is lifetimes ahead of you as a person. I don't say that because she's a woman etc etc. It's obvious in the person she is that she has qualities that outshine your so called accurate knowledge. Doesn't say much about this type of knowledge of yours if it produces people like you and NEONOM.
Physorg is an open forum, with no moderation nowadays. It shows just how dictator-like personalities always rise from that level playing field. You people prove you still need moderating. You can't dish out a fair society, and it's always the biggest egos that want to take over the most. It's what we have here, the Docs and NEONOMS, the Trouts and all the other degenerate egos that think their "truths" and "methods" are worth abusing others in order to uphold them.
Science fails when it produces people like you Doc. Life succeeds when a spirit like Tikay is manifest. Know your place mr Tardis.
So, are you going to start stalking me too, Bloy?
You're the Anti-Doc man. You are full of complete BULLSHIT. When it came down to it you backed up complete BS when one of your pals gave wrong information, and the only reason he did so was to create the impression guys like him and you are always right, and we are always cranks.
Tikay is lifetimes ahead of you as a person. I don't say that because she's a woman etc etc. It's obvious in the person she is that she has qualities that outshine your so called accurate knowledge. Doesn't say much about this type of knowledge of yours if it produces people like you and NEONOM.
Physorg is an open forum, with no moderation nowadays. It shows just how dictator-like personalities always rise from that level playing field. You people prove you still need moderating. You can't dish out a fair society, and it's always the biggest egos that want to take over the most. It's what we have here, the Docs and NEONOMS, the Trouts and all the other degenerate egos that think their "truths" and "methods" are worth abusing others in order to uphold them.
Science fails when it produces people like you Doc. Life succeeds when a spirit like Tikay is manifest. Know your place mr Tardis.
QUOTE (Lui+)
<childish "You're a liar, a dictator and a gangbanger!!" tripe snipped>
Ooh, I have a stalker! Super duper.
Ooh, I have a stalker! Super duper.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Sep 26 2008, 12:39 PM)
QUOTE (Lui+)
<childish "You're a liar, a dictator and a gangbanger!!" tripe snipped>
Ooh, I have a stalker! Super duper.
If theduc walks like a duck, and we all know he quacks like a duck, Then can we assume he is theduck?
And more #$&@. "Us guys" go around telling people they're wrong with the methods they choose because we have good reasons to. When someone ignores the basic laws of physics so they can waffle about some random idea for five minutes, does that make them right? When someone makes a grandiose claim that defies the scientific method, and refuses to provide any evidence for it, does that make them right?
So now the skeptics are hateful and wrong when they call someone out on a gibberish idea? I'd say it's you being close-minded.
And as I said before, ignoring stuff like the basic laws of physics will not get you there. So many of your "free thinkers" try to pass off their ideas as credible science or even as fact, even when they've been refuted and shown to be wrong several times. That is worthy of ridicule.
Yes, you were.
I will applaud a free thinker when they stop claiming to be the next Galileo. I will applaud a free thinker when they stop claiming without evidence that their physics is the stuff of the future. I will applaud a free thinker when they stop blindly denying all explanations thrown towards them. I will not applaud a free thinker when they jot down some random idea that popped into their heads, find a few birthdates and proclaim it as a link between religion and science.
More absolute #$&@.
And yet more absolute #$&@. No one here said that they had a right to "police the forum". No one claimed that we owned the forum. No one claims to "better" than anyone else.
You are being dishonest, hypocritical, and above all, close-minded. You gladly take a dig at the skeptics, ignoring their reasons for doing what they do, but you're quick to defend some random "free thinker" who has either been unable to provide evidence or has been proven wrong on several occasions. You support DavidD even when his idiotic statements get proven wrong. You give positives to people like dad1 because "the neggers are not flawless", even when we the neggers never claimed to be.
You are the one being close-minded, not us.
Ooh, I have a stalker! Super duper.
If theduc walks like a duck, and we all know he quacks like a duck, Then can we assume he is theduck?
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 26 2008, 06:50 PM)
If theduc walks like a duck, and we all know he quacks like a duck, Then can we assume he is theduck?
QUOTE (TheDoc+Sep 26 2008, 12:53 PM)
Not just any ordinary duck. It's the Aflac duck.
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://mentalfloss.cachefly.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/431_aflac.jpg'>User posted image</a>
Ah.. you wish.... dream on.....that duck is white. And, EVERYONE enjoys it.
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://mentalfloss.cachefly.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/431_aflac.jpg'>User posted image</a>
Ah.. you wish.... dream on.....that duck is white. And, EVERYONE enjoys it.
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 26 2008, 06:56 PM)
Ah.. you wish.... dream on.....that duck is white.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Sep 26 2008, 01:03 PM)
You're right. I'm a black duck.
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://www.poster.net/looney-tunes/looney-tunes-daffy-duck-5000804.jpg'>User posted image</a>
Yup.. that's quite a character you have there, theduck, but remember...
Daffy, hold your quacking . You seem to be a bit older than neonom, so I'll give you a little less understanding. Albeit, those such as yourself may be experiencing a "belated" change.in your physiological development and thus explains your lack of control over your mental faculties.
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://www.poster.net/looney-tunes/looney-tunes-daffy-duck-5000804.jpg'>User posted image</a>
Yup.. that's quite a character you have there, theduck, but remember...
Daffy, hold your quacking . You seem to be a bit older than neonom, so I'll give you a little less understanding. Albeit, those such as yourself may be experiencing a "belated" change.in your physiological development and thus explains your lack of control over your mental faculties.
Dr Fred A Wolf Posted: Yesterday at 5:47 PM
Negative Obviously an idiot - devastatingly apparent from over 27 trillion + parsecs distance; even with lead shielded bitumen coated welding goggles after a super conc' atropine eye bath.
Ohh gee gosh. Thanks for the shining post.
Negative Obviously an idiot - devastatingly apparent from over 27 trillion + parsecs distance; even with lead shielded bitumen coated welding goggles after a super conc' atropine eye bath.
Ohh gee gosh. Thanks for the shining post.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Sep 26 2008, 09:07 AM)
And more #$&@. "Us guys" go around telling people they're wrong with the methods they choose because we have good reasons to. When someone ignores the basic laws of physics so they can waffle about some random idea for five minutes, does that make them right? When someone makes a grandiose claim that defies the scientific method, and refuses to provide any evidence for it, does that make them right?
So now the skeptics are hateful and wrong when they call someone out on a gibberish idea? I'd say it's you being close-minded.
And as I said before, ignoring stuff like the basic laws of physics will not get you there. So many of your "free thinkers" try to pass off their ideas as credible science or even as fact, even when they've been refuted and shown to be wrong several times. That is worthy of ridicule.
Yes, you were.
I will applaud a free thinker when they stop claiming to be the next Galileo. I will applaud a free thinker when they stop claiming without evidence that their physics is the stuff of the future. I will applaud a free thinker when they stop blindly denying all explanations thrown towards them. I will not applaud a free thinker when they jot down some random idea that popped into their heads, find a few birthdates and proclaim it as a link between religion and science.
More absolute #$&@.
And yet more absolute #$&@. No one here said that they had a right to "police the forum". No one claimed that we owned the forum. No one claims to "better" than anyone else.
You are being dishonest, hypocritical, and above all, close-minded. You gladly take a dig at the skeptics, ignoring their reasons for doing what they do, but you're quick to defend some random "free thinker" who has either been unable to provide evidence or has been proven wrong on several occasions. You support DavidD even when his idiotic statements get proven wrong. You give positives to people like dad1 because "the neggers are not flawless", even when we the neggers never claimed to be.
You are the one being close-minded, not us.
QUOTE (Bloy+)
<childish tripe snipped>
So, are you going to start stalking me too, Bloy?
You are the stalker here Doc...and we think you know it.
So freaking off base about me, after all this time, it is sort of anti-social. You know, I asked my daughter to draw you doc, as a duck and she was spot on...all feeling around in the dark, with (apparently) no eyes to see, she always has been a little bit psychic. We call them Indigo kids...those who know about such things.
If only perniciousness were a deadly disease...doctor, you, and many like you would be in some real dire straits.
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p246/tikayhill/img005-1.jpg'>http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p246/tikayhill/img005-1.jpg</a>
Apparently she could debate your bullshit, about as well as could I, and she is but five years old, I don't have the stomach to REALLY lay you low...so I won't do it. But next time you are stumbling around looking for someone to try and figure out, don't pick me, you have tried and it was a massive fail!
Tikay is lifetimes ahead of you as a person. I don't say that because she's a woman etc etc. It's obvious in the person she is that she has qualities that outshine your so called accurate knowledge. Doesn't say much about this type of knowledge of yours if it produces people like you and NEONOM.
Physorg is an open forum, with no moderation nowadays. It shows just how dictator-like personalities always rise from that level playing field. You people prove you still need moderating. You can't dish out a fair society, and it's always the biggest egos that want to take over the most. It's what we have here, the Docs and NEONOMS, the Trouts and all the other degenerate egos that think their "truths" and "methods" are worth abusing others in order to uphold them.
Science fails when it produces people like you Doc. Life succeeds when a spirit like Tikay is manifest. Know your place mr Tardis.
Just...um...Thank YOU!
I once read a book where there was a connection, whether correct or incorrect, a connection was made to/with Saint Germain, and Christopher Columbus and Shakespeare or Francis Bacon...the book examined whether these people were in fact one and the same (reincarnated individual). It was a fantastic idea...in that it was possibly fantasy, and possibly an actual truth. I have taken this book from my shelf, as i have kept it, and the name of it is...Saint Germaine On Prophecy.
We cannot know many things in this life, we can intuit and direct out instincts, along with given and found knowledge, and surmise things and investigate them using the tools at our disposal, perusal...we should and must do this, in order to explore our thoughts creatively, to my thinking.
Same Soul, Many Bodies:
Discover the Healing Power of Future Lives
through Progression Therapy (Paperback)
by Brian L. Weiss (Author) "EACH OF US IS IMMORTAL..."
http://www.brianweiss.com/
==============================
Of course you are right, many synchronous events can appear to be connected, by jedi mind tricks...so to speak, and have no esoteric connection, in reality.
Jedi mind tricks are the realm of science fiction or for people with hollywood star personality fixation, NOT FOR A PHYSICS FORUM. How is it that you continually fail to understand this very simple thing and keep spamming the forum with complete rubbish?
I have a problem with it, when the forum mafia (self appointed at that) come round to "set everything right" and they have it all wrong.
I was stating (for the record) that I was interested in something, and that he (wan)should go on despite any regurgitated non-sense that he had no right to speak... and you come along telling me I am full of sh!t. That is just crazy. I have a right to my opinion, no matter what sort of forum you think it should be, that is just not the forum it is.
You cannot change that by being people who come into every other thread, with dis-respectful garbage like insults and denial of peoples ideas, saying those ideas, hypothesis and theories don't have anything to do with reality. Belief is reality, it is a facet of reality. What we believe makes us who we are. You guys come round to tell us that who we are is basically unacceptable because we are not just like you...and I disagree with that context.
Forum mafia seem to think that if everyone is not using the scientific method or Occam's Razor in everything we think about, we are skewed in our thinking processes. (and that therefore, you have the right to screw with us.) That just isn't always the case. We may be the bringers of tomorrows truth(s), just as assuredly as the next person. Why...Y do you get the be the judges and jury to every thought process we have?
I personally think, it is beyond rude, it is simple closed-mindedness and sometimes downright hateful. Not everyone redily KNOWS, even, how to analyze every thought, or put it to scientific measuring and weighing of facts, and we won't learn it from being put down and bandied about by insulting fuccers who wish we would leave to never return. There is room here for everyone. It is wide open. If some of you protectors of todays truth, were beamed up, the rest of us could heave a great sigh of relief, and get on with all sorts of strage and exciting ideas, that could lead to other ideas, which in certain cases might, eventually produce real progress, and lucidity, in time.
No one knows if I was here to thrash skeptics (again) or if i was merely saying to wan...go on with your idea, I am interested, because what you are wondering at is wholly interesting to me...well no one knows my mind but me, because only I have full access to my own mind, but not to yours...AND vice versa.
I was not here to trash the skeptic, I was here applauding a free thinker, something you might give a try, on occasion. There is nothing wrong in me encouraging someone. But there may be something wrong in the consistent dis-encouragement of folks in here.....
maybe you missed this????
No.. literal. You and the other boys + a Zippo.
U MUST BE REALLY CONFUSED THEN
U MUST BE REALLY CONFUSED NOW
So, are you going to start stalking me too, Bloy?
You are the stalker here Doc...and we think you know it.
So freaking off base about me, after all this time, it is sort of anti-social. You know, I asked my daughter to draw you doc, as a duck and she was spot on...all feeling around in the dark, with (apparently) no eyes to see, she always has been a little bit psychic. We call them Indigo kids...those who know about such things.
If only perniciousness were a deadly disease...doctor, you, and many like you would be in some real dire straits.
User posted image: <a target='_blank' href='http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p246/tikayhill/img005-1.jpg'>http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p246/tikayhill/img005-1.jpg</a>
Apparently she could debate your bullshit, about as well as could I, and she is but five years old, I don't have the stomach to REALLY lay you low...so I won't do it. But next time you are stumbling around looking for someone to try and figure out, don't pick me, you have tried and it was a massive fail!
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 26 2008, 09:52 AM)
Tikay is lifetimes ahead of you as a person. I don't say that because she's a woman etc etc. It's obvious in the person she is that she has qualities that outshine your so called accurate knowledge. Doesn't say much about this type of knowledge of yours if it produces people like you and NEONOM.
Physorg is an open forum, with no moderation nowadays. It shows just how dictator-like personalities always rise from that level playing field. You people prove you still need moderating. You can't dish out a fair society, and it's always the biggest egos that want to take over the most. It's what we have here, the Docs and NEONOMS, the Trouts and all the other degenerate egos that think their "truths" and "methods" are worth abusing others in order to uphold them.
Science fails when it produces people like you Doc. Life succeeds when a spirit like Tikay is manifest. Know your place mr Tardis.
Just...um...Thank YOU!
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 26 2008, 11:06 AM)
Yup.. that's quite a character you have there, theduck, but remember...
Daffy, hold your quacking . You seem to be a bit older than neonom, so I'll give you a little less understanding. Albeit, those such as yourself may be experiencing a "belated" change.in your physiological development and thus explains your lack of control over your mental faculties.
User posted image: User posted image
We are obviously going to have to keep putting up with the garbage...these people think they are correct in all things.
Daffy, hold your quacking . You seem to be a bit older than neonom, so I'll give you a little less understanding. Albeit, those such as yourself may be experiencing a "belated" change.in your physiological development and thus explains your lack of control over your mental faculties.
User posted image: User posted image
We are obviously going to have to keep putting up with the garbage...these people think they are correct in all things.
Um... I really have no idea what to say. Exactly how can you conclude that coincidences mean they should all be linked? It might be a coincidence I'll bump into a friend at 11, but that doesn't mean it should be linked.
So, exactly how can you conclude that these events are linked together, given that there are 6 billion people in this world, and out of those at least some must be born or must die on the same day.
Coincidences are not science. Sorry, but its true.
So, exactly how can you conclude that these events are linked together, given that there are 6 billion people in this world, and out of those at least some must be born or must die on the same day.
Coincidences are not science. Sorry, but its true.
QUOTE (Liongold+Sep 28 2008, 02:49 AM)
Um... I really have no idea what to say. Exactly how can you conclude that coincidences mean they should all be linked? It might be a coincidence I'll bump into a friend at 11, but that doesn't mean it should be linked.
So, exactly how can you conclude that these events are linked together, given that there are 6 billion people in this world, and out of those at least some must be born or must die on the same day.
Coincidences are not science. Sorry, but its true.
I will answer in part, but i am fairly sure that you are addressing anyone with a concept about this so please (anyone) feel free to add your reply for Liongold, as well.
I would like to say first that the thought experiment of man, can and often does result in revolution.
I think it is good to question deeper meaning, asking is there something more going on here, is rarely wrong. So what is ironic is how quickly people will try and shut down peoples thought experiments.
If wan is investigating what might be occurring in this dynamic/paradigm or potential paradigm, which he began to explore...why not try to go into that exploration with him...and not just inflect a shutting down mechanism such as bias and skepticism and prejudice against his thought formation(s)?
I once read a book where there was a connection, whether correct or incorrect, a connection was made to/with Saint Germain, and Christopher Columbus and Shakespeare or Francis Bacon...the book examined whether these people were in fact one and the same (reincarnated individual). It was a fantastic idea...in that it was possibly fantasy, and possibly an actual truth. I have taken this book from my shelf, as i have kept it, and the name of it is...Saint Germaine On Prophecy.
We cannot know many things in this life, we can intuit and direct out instincts, along with given and found knowledge, and surmise things and investigate them using the tools at our disposal, perusal...we should and must do this, in order to explore our thoughts creatively, to my thinking.
So, exactly how can you conclude that these events are linked together, given that there are 6 billion people in this world, and out of those at least some must be born or must die on the same day.
Coincidences are not science. Sorry, but its true.
I will answer in part, but i am fairly sure that you are addressing anyone with a concept about this so please (anyone) feel free to add your reply for Liongold, as well.
I would like to say first that the thought experiment of man, can and often does result in revolution.
I think it is good to question deeper meaning, asking is there something more going on here, is rarely wrong. So what is ironic is how quickly people will try and shut down peoples thought experiments.
If wan is investigating what might be occurring in this dynamic/paradigm or potential paradigm, which he began to explore...why not try to go into that exploration with him...and not just inflect a shutting down mechanism such as bias and skepticism and prejudice against his thought formation(s)?
I once read a book where there was a connection, whether correct or incorrect, a connection was made to/with Saint Germain, and Christopher Columbus and Shakespeare or Francis Bacon...the book examined whether these people were in fact one and the same (reincarnated individual). It was a fantastic idea...in that it was possibly fantasy, and possibly an actual truth. I have taken this book from my shelf, as i have kept it, and the name of it is...Saint Germaine On Prophecy.
We cannot know many things in this life, we can intuit and direct out instincts, along with given and found knowledge, and surmise things and investigate them using the tools at our disposal, perusal...we should and must do this, in order to explore our thoughts creatively, to my thinking.
Anybody here ever listen to Dark Side of the Moon while watching the Wizard of Oz?
QUOTE (tikay+Sep 29 2008, 12:30 AM)
I once read a book where there was a connection, whether correct or incorrect, a connection was made to/with Saint Germain, and Christopher Columbus and Shakespeare or Francis Bacon...the book examined whether these people were in fact one and the same (reincarnated individual). It was a fantastic idea...in that it was possibly fantasy, and possibly an actual truth. I have taken this book from my shelf, as i have kept it, and the name of it is...Saint Germaine On Prophecy.
We cannot know many things in this life, we can intuit and direct out instincts, along with given and found knowledge, and surmise things and investigate them using the tools at our disposal, perusal...we should and must do this, in order to explore our thoughts creatively, to my thinking.
Same Soul, Many Bodies:
Discover the Healing Power of Future Lives
through Progression Therapy (Paperback)
by Brian L. Weiss (Author) "EACH OF US IS IMMORTAL..."
http://www.brianweiss.com/
==============================
Tikay,
I apologise if what I said was perceived as an instant 'shutting down mechanism'. I was really trying to say that I did not think that there was any probable link between the events wanchung has described that can be investigated by science. I would willingly give up my views on this if there was a way for it to be investigated.
After all, you must admit that links and coincidences together do not have to correspond to anything deeper. I'm not trying to say I am biased against this, just that there is no way to either diprove or prove any connection between them, and hence I cannot actually take them on as truths.
Of course, if I may be allowed to ask, how can we say that dying and being born on the same day necessitate any connection?
I apologise if what I said was perceived as an instant 'shutting down mechanism'. I was really trying to say that I did not think that there was any probable link between the events wanchung has described that can be investigated by science. I would willingly give up my views on this if there was a way for it to be investigated.
After all, you must admit that links and coincidences together do not have to correspond to anything deeper. I'm not trying to say I am biased against this, just that there is no way to either diprove or prove any connection between them, and hence I cannot actually take them on as truths.
Of course, if I may be allowed to ask, how can we say that dying and being born on the same day necessitate any connection?
QUOTE (Liongold+Sep 29 2008, 01:35 AM)
Tikay,
I apologize if what I said was perceived as an instant 'shutting down mechanism'. I was really trying to say that I did not think that there was any probable link between the events wanchung has described that can be investigated by science. I would willingly give up my views on this if there was a way for it to be investigated.
After all, you must admit that links and coincidences together do not have to correspond to anything deeper. I'm not trying to say I am biased against this, just that there is no way to either diprove or prove any connection between them, and hence I cannot actually take them on as truths.
Of course, if I may be allowed to ask, how can we say that dying and being born on the same day necessitate any connection?
Oh you owe no one an apology I assure you, and I was not accusing you of being a thought blocker, I was still upset with others who were here trying to shut down the thread, like NeoNom and TheDoc...sorry if my leftover anger was spilled onto you.
Of course you are right, many synchronous events can appear to be connected, by jedi mind tricks...so to speak, and have no esoteric connection, in reality.
I used to have something occur quite often, that I found a strange coincidence. I would think of someone I had not seen in a while, and 'out of the blue' I would then see them fairly quickly...walking down the road, or in a store, or at the beach...it was really interesting and i had to wonder...if I thought about them because we were about to meet again, or because they were thinking of me, or if perhaps, because I was thinking about them, they were somehow drawn to me...and to the places that I went to.
Like I said before we cannot know much about these connection, or if Newtons third law is in effect, or if life is just a random set of events. That we ultimately get to decide that which is important to us, and the fact that we place importance on certain parts of our lives, and not on other parts of life is interesting...in a way. Because it could ALL be very important in time, or it could ALL be semi-unimportant in space time...and YET we will always place more importance on some events and less on others, as humans.
Things that are exhilarating can be given a false status of importance, and things that are soothing can be given less import in the mind, but for all we know, we could actually have it backwards....maybe the soothing bits are the more important parts of life, both sorts of things can restore us to health or keep us healthy, so maybe they are basically, equally important?
I think what is cool, in a way, is that we get to decide, what is important to us, and what isn't...that our thought are our own, whether we are correct about our summation or we aren't, we live the reality that we live, based on our thinking mind...and no one can block our thoughts really, but they will try to block our sharing them, in places like this.
I am sorry you misunderstood that I was not speaking to you alone, in my post...I was answering you, but with the additional knowledge that we have an audience of other participants and other readers as well.
~peace~
I apologize if what I said was perceived as an instant 'shutting down mechanism'. I was really trying to say that I did not think that there was any probable link between the events wanchung has described that can be investigated by science. I would willingly give up my views on this if there was a way for it to be investigated.
After all, you must admit that links and coincidences together do not have to correspond to anything deeper. I'm not trying to say I am biased against this, just that there is no way to either diprove or prove any connection between them, and hence I cannot actually take them on as truths.
Of course, if I may be allowed to ask, how can we say that dying and being born on the same day necessitate any connection?
Oh you owe no one an apology I assure you, and I was not accusing you of being a thought blocker, I was still upset with others who were here trying to shut down the thread, like NeoNom and TheDoc...sorry if my leftover anger was spilled onto you.
Of course you are right, many synchronous events can appear to be connected, by jedi mind tricks...so to speak, and have no esoteric connection, in reality.
I used to have something occur quite often, that I found a strange coincidence. I would think of someone I had not seen in a while, and 'out of the blue' I would then see them fairly quickly...walking down the road, or in a store, or at the beach...it was really interesting and i had to wonder...if I thought about them because we were about to meet again, or because they were thinking of me, or if perhaps, because I was thinking about them, they were somehow drawn to me...and to the places that I went to.
Like I said before we cannot know much about these connection, or if Newtons third law is in effect, or if life is just a random set of events. That we ultimately get to decide that which is important to us, and the fact that we place importance on certain parts of our lives, and not on other parts of life is interesting...in a way. Because it could ALL be very important in time, or it could ALL be semi-unimportant in space time...and YET we will always place more importance on some events and less on others, as humans.
Things that are exhilarating can be given a false status of importance, and things that are soothing can be given less import in the mind, but for all we know, we could actually have it backwards....maybe the soothing bits are the more important parts of life, both sorts of things can restore us to health or keep us healthy, so maybe they are basically, equally important?
I think what is cool, in a way, is that we get to decide, what is important to us, and what isn't...that our thought are our own, whether we are correct about our summation or we aren't, we live the reality that we live, based on our thinking mind...and no one can block our thoughts really, but they will try to block our sharing them, in places like this.
I am sorry you misunderstood that I was not speaking to you alone, in my post...I was answering you, but with the additional knowledge that we have an audience of other participants and other readers as well.
~peace~
QUOTE (BigFairy+Sep 29 2008, 02:52 AM)
My Mum always used to tell me that if I watched too much TV\Played too much computer I would get square eyes. I could see that this might have been a significant disadvantage so I tried to curb the amount of hours I did this activity and tried to concentrate on other non square eye inducing activities like building lego and sqaure dancing. But I reckon there is a whole new generation of kids who could be striving for those 'TV' eyes...I can see an advantage in seeing the world in 16:9 rather than having your life clipped to 4:3....thoughts?
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=377959
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=377950
You are a really great addition to the place, or NOT.
Thanks a lot for the neg, yeah I really deserve that compared to jerks like you.
Get real!
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=377959
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=377950
You are a really great addition to the place, or NOT.
Thanks a lot for the neg, yeah I really deserve that compared to jerks like you.
Get real!
QUOTE (tikay+Sep 29 2008, 01:34 PM)
Of course you are right, many synchronous events can appear to be connected, by jedi mind tricks...so to speak, and have no esoteric connection, in reality.
Jedi mind tricks are the realm of science fiction or for people with hollywood star personality fixation, NOT FOR A PHYSICS FORUM. How is it that you continually fail to understand this very simple thing and keep spamming the forum with complete rubbish?
Well well well....you little imp...why don't you crawl back into your little hole? No one wants to read what you have to say, or didn't you know?
QUOTE (tikay+Sep 25 2008, 10:26 PM)
I have a problem with it, when the forum mafia (self appointed at that) come round to "set everything right" and they have it all wrong.
I was stating (for the record) that I was interested in something, and that he (wan)should go on despite any regurgitated non-sense that he had no right to speak... and you come along telling me I am full of sh!t. That is just crazy. I have a right to my opinion, no matter what sort of forum you think it should be, that is just not the forum it is.
You cannot change that by being people who come into every other thread, with dis-respectful garbage like insults and denial of peoples ideas, saying those ideas, hypothesis and theories don't have anything to do with reality. Belief is reality, it is a facet of reality. What we believe makes us who we are. You guys come round to tell us that who we are is basically unacceptable because we are not just like you...and I disagree with that context.
Forum mafia seem to think that if everyone is not using the scientific method or Occam's Razor in everything we think about, we are skewed in our thinking processes. (and that therefore, you have the right to screw with us.) That just isn't always the case. We may be the bringers of tomorrows truth(s), just as assuredly as the next person. Why...Y do you get the be the judges and jury to every thought process we have?
I personally think, it is beyond rude, it is simple closed-mindedness and sometimes downright hateful. Not everyone redily KNOWS, even, how to analyze every thought, or put it to scientific measuring and weighing of facts, and we won't learn it from being put down and bandied about by insulting fuccers who wish we would leave to never return. There is room here for everyone. It is wide open. If some of you protectors of todays truth, were beamed up, the rest of us could heave a great sigh of relief, and get on with all sorts of strage and exciting ideas, that could lead to other ideas, which in certain cases might, eventually produce real progress, and lucidity, in time.
No one knows if I was here to thrash skeptics (again) or if i was merely saying to wan...go on with your idea, I am interested, because what you are wondering at is wholly interesting to me...well no one knows my mind but me, because only I have full access to my own mind, but not to yours...AND vice versa.
I was not here to trash the skeptic, I was here applauding a free thinker, something you might give a try, on occasion. There is nothing wrong in me encouraging someone. But there may be something wrong in the consistent dis-encouragement of folks in here.....
maybe you missed this????
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 26 2008, 09:47 AM)
You people dont seem to understand why these things exist. Science is not about dreaming things up and praying to them. This is a physics forum. Theres others out there for dreamers.
Did you miss this?
Did you miss this?
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 29 2008, 07:10 AM)
Did you miss this?
Scientists are absolutely the biggest dreamers on earth, you ridiculous nitwit.
Scientists are absolutely the biggest dreamers on earth, you ridiculous nitwit.
QUOTE (tikay+Sep 29 2008, 03:16 PM)
Scientists are absolutely the biggest dreamers on earth, you ridiculous nitwit.
Yeah we already know your only here to try and spam cyberspace with goddrivellings, but 2 1/2 years @physorg just to say that?
Limp Labia I calls it.
Yeah we already know your only here to try and spam cyberspace with goddrivellings, but 2 1/2 years @physorg just to say that?
Limp Labia I calls it.
Hi Tikay,
They want to take over the territory they've (mostly) been banned from. No physics involved - just (child) psychology.
-C2.
They want to take over the territory they've (mostly) been banned from. No physics involved - just (child) psychology.
-C2.
They want to take over the territory they've (mostly) been spamming with drivel for the last 3 years. No physics involved - just pretentious tripe about god and other fairywank.
Cartman has set up a site for the Physorg Forum Mafia Intelligensia (here :-http://realphysforum.forumotion.net/index.htm ) so far we see zilch, nullo intelligensia.
-C2.
-C2.
Are they just too busy setting fire to each others farts or is there another problem?
QUOTE (Confused2+Sep 29 2008, 10:00 PM)
Are they just too busy setting fire to each others farts
Is that a metaphor for agreeing with each other about the existence of god?
Is that a metaphor for agreeing with each other about the existence of god?
QUOTE
Is that a metaphor for agreeing with each other about the existence of god?
No.. literal. You and the other boys + a Zippo.
QUOTE (Confused2+Sep 29 2008, 10:00 PM)
Are they just too busy setting fire to each others farts or is there another problem?
The problem is simple I reckon. They need conflict and something to react to. I don't think they understand that they are like the little kids at home that don't want anyone else to play with their toys. It's just that in this case they don't want anyone else to think what they themselves don't want to.
Take what turns them on away, their need to react through conflict, and they got nothing to say.
The problem is simple I reckon. They need conflict and something to react to. I don't think they understand that they are like the little kids at home that don't want anyone else to play with their toys. It's just that in this case they don't want anyone else to think what they themselves don't want to.
Take what turns them on away, their need to react through conflict, and they got nothing to say.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 29 2008, 09:52 PM)
They want to take over the territory they've (mostly) been spamming with drivel for the last 3 years. No physics involved - just pretentious tripe about god and other fairywank.
You have all the space to post as much physics as you like. Feel free.
Stop complaining something isn't being done, when you have done none of it yourself. Unless it's all a big excuse from you, and you just like to intimidate strangers on the internet.
You have all the space to post as much physics as you like. Feel free.
Stop complaining something isn't being done, when you have done none of it yourself. Unless it's all a big excuse from you, and you just like to intimidate strangers on the internet.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 29 2008, 11:57 PM)
The problem is simple I reckon. They need conflict and something to react to. I don't think they understand that they are like the little kids at home that don't want anyone else to play with their toys. It's just that in this case they don't want anyone else to think what they themselves don't want to.
Take what turns them on away, their need to react through conflict, and they got nothing to say.
Hi Lui. Hope all is well with you.
Reading your post reminded me of something I was thinking about just the other day. How in the world have you made 1,480 posts in just 2 months? Just curious about your thoughts on the subject.
Take what turns them on away, their need to react through conflict, and they got nothing to say.
Hi Lui. Hope all is well with you.
Reading your post reminded me of something I was thinking about just the other day. How in the world have you made 1,480 posts in just 2 months? Just curious about your thoughts on the subject.
I recreated this found photo, for pysorg forum...some of you may enjoy it.
These people think we are baiting them everytime we have something to say that isn't PURE science...that is the problem. We have interests that will be valid in the scientific community, for certain, in time. Science advances and they revert to infantile moronic tactics, in order to try (rather feebly) dissuade our conversations...ironic isn't it?
User posted image: User posted image
The thing is, we are not the snakes...that they would deem us to be. Would have others believe us to be, we are just folks with ideas. Some of them very interesting ideas...
These people think we are baiting them everytime we have something to say that isn't PURE science...that is the problem. We have interests that will be valid in the scientific community, for certain, in time. Science advances and they revert to infantile moronic tactics, in order to try (rather feebly) dissuade our conversations...ironic isn't it?
User posted image: User posted image
The thing is, we are not the snakes...that they would deem us to be. Would have others believe us to be, we are just folks with ideas. Some of them very interesting ideas...
Use the bear Lui...use the bear!
User posted image: User posted image
What the boys don't seem to understand, is that we could all play this silly game as easily (and easily as well) as they do, but it gets old for some of us after a while...usually sometime in our high school years.
Still...it is sort of like riding a bike once you get into it.
User posted image: User posted image
What the boys don't seem to understand, is that we could all play this silly game as easily (and easily as well) as they do, but it gets old for some of us after a while...usually sometime in our high school years.
Still...it is sort of like riding a bike once you get into it.
QUOTE (occidental+Sep 30 2008, 12:07 AM)
Hi Lui. Hope all is well with you.
Reading your post reminded me of something I was thinking about just the other day. How in the world have you made 1,480 posts in just 2 months? Just curious about your thoughts on the subject.
Yo Occi, 'ow's it 'angin man?
Well it's like this....I've returned to look after my mum....quit the band....and 'angin around for a few. So I joins this place, as there was stuff I wanted to say. Having seven or eight people to have to respond to at one time sure does pile the posts up. As a contributer I do have my moments of contributing positive things here. I would like to see a NEONOM post, for example, that has contributed anything else but intimidation.
That, in a nutshell, is "how one earth" for me I guess. Just living the American dream of freedom and rights etc. Even though I'm an Italian living in England.
Reading your post reminded me of something I was thinking about just the other day. How in the world have you made 1,480 posts in just 2 months? Just curious about your thoughts on the subject.
Yo Occi, 'ow's it 'angin man?
Well it's like this....I've returned to look after my mum....quit the band....and 'angin around for a few. So I joins this place, as there was stuff I wanted to say. Having seven or eight people to have to respond to at one time sure does pile the posts up. As a contributer I do have my moments of contributing positive things here. I would like to see a NEONOM post, for example, that has contributed anything else but intimidation.
That, in a nutshell, is "how one earth" for me I guess. Just living the American dream of freedom and rights etc. Even though I'm an Italian living in England.
QUOTE (tikay+Sep 30 2008, 12:47 AM)
I recreated this found photo, for pysorg forum...some of you may enjoy it.
These people think we are baiting them everytime we have something to say that isn't PURE science...that is the problem. We have interests that will be valid in the scientific community, for certain, in time. Science advances and they revert to infantile moronic tactics, in order to try (rather feebly) dissuade our conversations...ironic isn't it?
User posted image: <a target="_blank" href="http://bypass.freehb.info/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2kxMzAucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy9wMjQ2L3Rpa2F5aGlsbC9UUk9MTElORy5naWY%3D">User posted image</a>
The thing is, we are not the snakes...that they would deem us to be. Would have others believe us to be, we are just folks with ideas. Some of them very interesting ideas...
Ha ha, that's a cool image (and the bear one too), well done! And yeah, anyone can simply play the ridicule card over and over. It's so "yesterday" eh?!
We're told that religion and spiritual stuff is fixed and unmoving, but that science is always being redifined. But one would think it's the other way around at Physorg.
600 years ago the kind of mentalities that exist at Physorg would have opposed a round earth theory, would have stood in the way of any progress away from religion. Because they have the same kind of spirit as the intimidaters back then. I would advice they take a good look at what they think they are trying to do. If it isn't just plain ol "well no one is going to know who I am so I'll just intimidate a few strangers", then I'd say they are not doing science any good at all.
Theres' plenty of room here for these intimidaters to just post what they'd like to post in terms of science. Let's see some forum mafia threads that are positive and delivering some science discussions they want to share.
Waitin............
These people think we are baiting them everytime we have something to say that isn't PURE science...that is the problem. We have interests that will be valid in the scientific community, for certain, in time. Science advances and they revert to infantile moronic tactics, in order to try (rather feebly) dissuade our conversations...ironic isn't it?
User posted image: <a target="_blank" href="http://bypass.freehb.info/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2kxMzAucGhvdG9idWNrZXQuY29tL2FsYnVtcy9wMjQ2L3Rpa2F5aGlsbC9UUk9MTElORy5naWY%3D">User posted image</a>
The thing is, we are not the snakes...that they would deem us to be. Would have others believe us to be, we are just folks with ideas. Some of them very interesting ideas...
Ha ha, that's a cool image (and the bear one too), well done! And yeah, anyone can simply play the ridicule card over and over. It's so "yesterday" eh?!
We're told that religion and spiritual stuff is fixed and unmoving, but that science is always being redifined. But one would think it's the other way around at Physorg.
600 years ago the kind of mentalities that exist at Physorg would have opposed a round earth theory, would have stood in the way of any progress away from religion. Because they have the same kind of spirit as the intimidaters back then. I would advice they take a good look at what they think they are trying to do. If it isn't just plain ol "well no one is going to know who I am so I'll just intimidate a few strangers", then I'd say they are not doing science any good at all.
Theres' plenty of room here for these intimidaters to just post what they'd like to post in terms of science. Let's see some forum mafia threads that are positive and delivering some science discussions they want to share.
Waitin............
QUOTE (BigFairy+Sep 30 2008, 11:38 AM)
U MUST BE REALLY CONFUSED THEN
U MUST BE REALLY CONFUSED NOW
QUOTE (BigFairy+Sep 30 2008, 12:00 PM)
WHY YES AND I LIKE IT
Although, as you are confused you may simply hate it and yourself at the same time?
Please define a physics or technology related question, if that isn't too confusing for you. Although are you suggesting that the Creation/Evolution section should be taken away? How about new theories? Must everything be here to serve only your confusion?
Although, as you are confused you may simply hate it and yourself at the same time?
QUOTE
If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
Please define a physics or technology related question, if that isn't too confusing for you. Although are you suggesting that the Creation/Evolution section should be taken away? How about new theories? Must everything be here to serve only your confusion?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.