Suppose the people on the planet Argh (meaning earth in their predominate language, and a few million parsecs around in our galaxy) were to focus an undetected quark/ion set probe here (undetected unless they are learning and the guy programming the coordinates screws up and puts it on the wrong side of our planet at night here) to watch us to see if it’s worth trying to contact us.
If they happened to tune into and review our media and also see this thread, the odds are they would conclude we are really primitive. The odds are it would appear to them most of us here believe that something bigger is in charge that does things the way we do. Odds are to them it would appear that we spend much of our time arguing and still killing each other about what “God” is.
They would probably wait until enough of us are able to accept responsibility for our own actions and also figure out how to do the physics to contact them before they would try to make direct contact with us. Odds are they know they are part of something far more than local “God”.
This is wild hypothesis, and no way to verify it unless it happens
QUOTE (nopEda+May 23 2009, 04:53 PM)
What good would that do? If everything else kept on as it has been, you wouldn't even know you had gone back because everything else would still be as you left it. Try this as an experiment: Tell people that you have succeeded in traveling back in time yourself, but you didn't take the rest of the universe with you and you now feel that some people have trouble seeing you because you're existing in a different point in time.
what good is God without omnipotence?
And so what if time travel is useless if it involves not changing the Universe back to how it was?
Try this experiment tell people there is a God but he won't give any evidence at all of his existence, and only you know the details about him.
what good is God without omnipotence?
And so what if time travel is useless if it involves not changing the Universe back to how it was?
Try this experiment tell people there is a God but he won't give any evidence at all of his existence, and only you know the details about him.
QUOTE (more realistic poster+)
I can't except your childlike and unrealistic G 
FY belief that anything could be truly omnipotent.
FY belief that anything could be truly omnipotent. QUOTE (less realistic poster+)
Does science have any evidence against a truly omnipotent being? No. Does it have any evidence against one? No. Can it make a definitive conclusion on the matter? No. Does that rule out the possibility of such a being? No.
Get it now?
I had it for years. There are people who argue that omnipotence is an impossible and unrealistic concept, and as far back as I can remember I've always agreed with them.
Get it now?
I had it for years. There are people who argue that omnipotence is an impossible and unrealistic concept, and as far back as I can remember I've always agreed with them.
QUOTE (sporacle+May 24 2009, 08:38 AM)
Suppose the people on the planet Argh (meaning earth in their predominate language, and a few million parsecs around in our galaxy) were to focus an undetected quark/ion set probe here (undetected unless they are learning and the guy programming the coordinates screws up and puts it on the wrong side of our planet at night here) to watch us to see if it’s worth trying to contact us.
If they happened to tune into and review our media and also see this thread, the odds are they would conclude we are really primitive. The odds are it would appear to them most of us here believe that something bigger is in charge that does things the way we do. Odds are to them it would appear that we spend much of our time arguing and still killing each other about what “God” is.
They would probably wait until enough of us are able to accept responsibility for our own actions and also figure out how to do the physics to contact them before they would try to make direct contact with us. Odds are they know they are part of something far more than local “God”.
This is wild hypothesis, and no way to verify it unless it happens
If there are other beings traveling around in our star system they are probably fully aware of our existence and only have as much influence on us as they want to, or maybe there's a little bit more than some of them want, and they probably know as much about us as they care to studying us as we study things that don't know we're studying them.
If they happened to tune into and review our media and also see this thread, the odds are they would conclude we are really primitive. The odds are it would appear to them most of us here believe that something bigger is in charge that does things the way we do. Odds are to them it would appear that we spend much of our time arguing and still killing each other about what “God” is.
They would probably wait until enough of us are able to accept responsibility for our own actions and also figure out how to do the physics to contact them before they would try to make direct contact with us. Odds are they know they are part of something far more than local “God”.
This is wild hypothesis, and no way to verify it unless it happens
If there are other beings traveling around in our star system they are probably fully aware of our existence and only have as much influence on us as they want to, or maybe there's a little bit more than some of them want, and they probably know as much about us as they care to studying us as we study things that don't know we're studying them.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 24 2009, 12:40 PM)
what good is God without omnipotence?
He could still have created the universe, or have enough influence on life on Earth to be our God, or anything else short of being truly omnipotent.
He could still have created the universe, or have enough influence on life on Earth to be our God, or anything else short of being truly omnipotent.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And so what if time travel is useless if it involves not changing the Universe back to how it was?
And since we couldn't do it anyway, we can rule the whole idea out right now and never discuss it realistically again.
And since we couldn't do it anyway, we can rule the whole idea out right now and never discuss it realistically again.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Try this experiment tell people there is a God but he won't give any evidence at all of his existence, and only you know the details about him.
You must think you know details about him better than I do since you're trying to argue against them, or whatever you're trying to do.
You must think you know details about him better than I do since you're trying to argue against them, or whatever you're trying to do.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 23 2009, 08:11 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Tell people that you have succeeded in traveling back in time yourself, but you didn't take the rest of the universe with you and you now feel that some people have trouble seeing you because you're existing in a different point in time.
The difference between this and claiming God is a technologically advanced alien is what?
The time travel thing is a silly idea but recognising that God would almost certainly be a technologically advanced alien is realistic.
The time travel thing is a silly idea but recognising that God would almost certainly be a technologically advanced alien is realistic.
I think the silly thing is inventing your own language and then claiming the rest of the world isn't realistic because they don't speak it. It's the rhetorical position of a nutcase.
The difference between this and claiming God is a technologically advanced alien is what?
The time travel thing is a silly idea but recognising that God would almost certainly be a technologically advanced alien is realistic.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
The time travel thing is a silly idea..
You think it is silly because you don't understand Relativity. It is not impossible like you claim, nor does it require moving all the matter in the Universe. It may be possible for a sufficiently advanced civilization.
You think it is silly because you don't understand Relativity. It is not impossible like you claim, nor does it require moving all the matter in the Universe. It may be possible for a sufficiently advanced civilization.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 25 2009, 05:47 PM)
And since we couldn't do it anyway, we can rule the whole idea out right now and never discuss it realistically again.
And since God can't be Omnipotent, we can rule the whole idea out right now and never discuss it realistically again.
And since God can't be Omnipotent, we can rule the whole idea out right now and never discuss it realistically again.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 25 2009, 12:52 PM)
The time travel thing is a silly idea but recognising that God would almost certainly be a technologically advanced alien is realistic.
I think the silly thing is inventing your own language and then claiming the rest of the world isn't realistic because they don't speak it. It's the rhetorical position of a nutcase.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
He could still have created the universe
How is Aliens creating the Universe realistic? How did they create themselves and everything around them out of Nothing?
How is Aliens creating the Universe realistic? How did they create themselves and everything around them out of Nothing?
There is no realism to any of nopEda's posts.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 26 2009, 12:25 AM)
There is no realism to any of nopEda's posts.
Yeah I know. He is an idiot..a megalomaniac at that.
Yeah I know. He is an idiot..a megalomaniac at that.
QUOTE (comPletely unrEalistic memBer+May 25 2009, 05:34 PM)
I had it for years. There are people who argue that omnipotence is an impossible and unrealistic concept, and as far back as I can remember I've always agreed with them.
Let's go back to the relevant part of my post that addresses that issue, shall we?
Let's go back to the relevant part of my post that addresses that issue, shall we?
QUOTE (Doc+)
Your beliefs are not a substitute for evidence, and nature is not restricted by them.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 25 2009, 06:16 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
The time travel thing is a silly idea..
You think it is silly because you don't understand Relativity. It is not impossible like you claim, nor does it require moving all the matter in the Universe. It may be possible for a sufficiently advanced civilization.
If the rest of the universe didn't go back with you, how would you know you had gone back and what good do you think it could do you even if you yourself could go? You couldn't see things as they were then or make any changes that would influence the future, so even if it was possible to go what advantage could there be in going?
You think it is silly because you don't understand Relativity. It is not impossible like you claim, nor does it require moving all the matter in the Universe. It may be possible for a sufficiently advanced civilization.
If the rest of the universe didn't go back with you, how would you know you had gone back and what good do you think it could do you even if you yourself could go? You couldn't see things as they were then or make any changes that would influence the future, so even if it was possible to go what advantage could there be in going?
QUOTE (buttershug+May 25 2009, 06:27 PM)
And since God can't be Omnipotent, we can rule the whole idea out right now and never discuss it realistically again.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 25 2009, 06:30 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda pointed out+)
The time travel thing is a silly idea but recognising that God would almost certainly be a technologically advanced alien is realistic.
You think it is silly because you don't understand Relativity. It is not impossible like you claim, nor does it require moving all the matter in the Universe. It may be possible for a sufficiently advanced civilization.[/QUOTE]
If the rest of the universe didn't go back with you, how would you know you had gone back and what good do you think it could do you even if you yourself could go? You couldn't see things as they were then or make any changes that would influence the future, so even if it was possible to go what advantage could there be in going?
And you seriously don't see the parrallel between
If timetravel exists then ....
and
If God exists then...
Why can someone think rationally about one but the other?
I think the silly thing is inventing your own language and then claiming the rest of the world isn't realistic because they don't speak it.
Try explaining how you think God could be an inferior native of this planet, or whatever else you might think he could be other than what I suggested.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 25 2009, 08:23 PM)
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
If the terms omnipotent and omniscient are included in defining God then whether you believe it to be realistic or not doesn't matter.
make themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning
those particular characteristics to God if he exists.
If the terms omnipotent and omniscient are included in defining God then whether you believe it to be realistic or not doesn't matter.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 26 2009, 01:19 AM)
You think it is silly because you don't understand Relativity. It is not impossible like you claim, nor does it require moving all the matter in the Universe. It may be possible for a sufficiently advanced civilization.[/QUOTE]
If the rest of the universe didn't go back with you, how would you know you had gone back and what good do you think it could do you even if you yourself could go? You couldn't see things as they were then or make any changes that would influence the future, so even if it was possible to go what advantage could there be in going?
And you seriously don't see the parrallel between
If timetravel exists then ....
and
If God exists then...
Why can someone think rationally about one but the other?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 25 2009, 08:28 PM)
Try explaining how you think God could be an inferior native of this planet, or whatever else you might think he could be other than what I suggested.
What you are suggesting is assigning things credited to have been done by God to aliens. That is all.
What you are suggesting is assigning things credited to have been done by God to aliens. That is all.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 26 2009, 01:32 AM)
If the terms omnipotent and omniscient are included in defining God then whether you believe it to be realistic or not doesn't matter.
Hellmans is having a contest.
they have two packets attached to a jar of mayonaise.
One labeled A and one labeled B.
One is Real Mayonaise, one is Hellmann's 1/2 the Fat mayonaise-type dressing.
The idea is you try both and and see if you can tell which one is real.
I just remembered when I read your post that I was going to try them tonight.
I guess I will have to wait untill tomorrow.
I wonder if nopEda can understand that Hellmann's can't call something mayonaise unless it has a certain amount of fat in it because that's part of the definition of mayonaise.
In this case though if Hellmann's tried calling something low fat "mayonaise" instead of mayonaise-type dressing, they would be charged with false advertising.
But Nopeda can misuse the word God and only we will call him on it.
Mayonaise without the fat is not mayonaise.
God without omnipotence is not God.
Hellmans is having a contest.
they have two packets attached to a jar of mayonaise.
One labeled A and one labeled B.
One is Real Mayonaise, one is Hellmann's 1/2 the Fat mayonaise-type dressing.
The idea is you try both and and see if you can tell which one is real.
I just remembered when I read your post that I was going to try them tonight.
I guess I will have to wait untill tomorrow.
I wonder if nopEda can understand that Hellmann's can't call something mayonaise unless it has a certain amount of fat in it because that's part of the definition of mayonaise.
In this case though if Hellmann's tried calling something low fat "mayonaise" instead of mayonaise-type dressing, they would be charged with false advertising.
But Nopeda can misuse the word God and only we will call him on it.
Mayonaise without the fat is not mayonaise.
God without omnipotence is not God.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 25 2009, 06:40 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
He could still have created the universe
How is Aliens creating the Universe realistic? How did they create themselves and everything around them out of Nothing?
Think about how they might be able to survive cycles of big banging and crunching to start with. Let's use us for an example, since we're the only possibility we're aware of:
Eventually our star is going to reach the point that it will on longer sustain life on Earth. The only hope for humans to survive and continue is if they become able to survive independant of this star system. That will be true of all beings who begin dependant on a particular star afawk. If beings can learn to survive without a particular star--we humans still being a hopefully possible example , maybe 
--then the beings might be able to survive throughout the cycles. If some learn to do that, thinking it a step further considers the possibility that some could learn to influence the beginning of cycles...
How is Aliens creating the Universe realistic? How did they create themselves and everything around them out of Nothing?
Think about how they might be able to survive cycles of big banging and crunching to start with. Let's use us for an example, since we're the only possibility we're aware of:
Eventually our star is going to reach the point that it will on longer sustain life on Earth. The only hope for humans to survive and continue is if they become able to survive independant of this star system. That will be true of all beings who begin dependant on a particular star afawk. If beings can learn to survive without a particular star--we humans still being a hopefully possible example
, maybe --then the beings might be able to survive throughout the cycles. If some learn to do that, thinking it a step further considers the possibility that some could learn to influence the beginning of cycles...
QUOTE (vkamath+May 25 2009, 06:40 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
He could still have created the universe
How is Aliens creating the Universe realistic? How did they create themselves and everything around them out of Nothing?
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
Think about how they might be able to survive cycles of big banging and crunching to start with. Let's use us for an example, since we're the only possibility we're aware of:
Eventually our star is going to reach the point that it will on longer sustain life on Earth. The only hope for humans to survive and continue is if they become able to survive independant of this star system. That will be true of all beings who begin dependant on a particular star afawk. If beings can learn to survive without a particular star--we humans still being a hopefully possible example , maybe --then the beings might be able to survive throughout the cycles. If some learn to do that, thinking it a step further considers the possibility that some could learn to influence the beginning of cycles...
As usual you cannot answer the question asked.
How is Aliens creating the Universe realistic? How did they create themselves and everything around them out of Nothing?
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 25 2009, 08:46 PM)
Think about how they might be able to survive cycles of big banging and crunching to start with. Let's use us for an example, since we're the only possibility we're aware of:
Eventually our star is going to reach the point that it will on longer sustain life on Earth. The only hope for humans to survive and continue is if they become able to survive independant of this star system. That will be true of all beings who begin dependant on a particular star afawk. If beings can learn to survive without a particular star--we humans still being a hopefully possible example
, maybe --then the beings might be able to survive throughout the cycles. If some learn to do that, thinking it a step further considers the possibility that some could learn to influence the beginning of cycles... As usual you cannot answer the question asked.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 25 2009, 08:52 PM)
QUOTE (vkamath+)
How is Aliens creating the Universe realistic? How did they create themselves and everything around them out of Nothing?
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
The question was nothingness not lifelessness.
obviously you cannot tell the difference.
Think about how they might be able to survive cycles of big banging and crunching to start with. Let's use us for an example, since we're the only possibility we're aware of:
Eventually our star is going to reach the point that it will on longer sustain life on Earth. The only hope for humans to survive and continue is if they become able to survive independant of this star system. That will be true of all beings who begin dependant on a particular star afawk. If beings can learn to survive without a particular star--we humans still being a hopefully possible example , maybe --then the beings might be able to survive throughout the cycles. If some learn to do that, thinking it a step further considers the possibility that some could learn to influence the beginning of cycles...
You may argue all you want, but creating something out of nothing is Unrealistic.
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
The question was nothingness not lifelessness.
obviously you cannot tell the difference.
This is just nopEda inventing his own definition for time travel, just as he did with God.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 26 2009, 07:16 AM)
Think about how they might be able to survive cycles of big banging and crunching to start with. Let's use us for an example, since we're the only possibility we're aware of:
Eventually our star is going to reach the point that it will on longer sustain life on Earth. The only hope for humans to survive and continue is if they become able to survive independant of this star system. That will be true of all beings who begin dependant on a particular star afawk. If beings can learn to survive without a particular star--we humans still being a hopefully possible example
, maybe --then the beings might be able to survive throughout the cycles. If some learn to do that, thinking it a step further considers the possibility that some could learn to influence the beginning of cycles... You may argue all you want, but creating something out of nothing is Unrealistic.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 26 2009, 01:32 AM)
If the terms omnipotent and omniscient are included in defining God then whether you believe it to be realistic or not doesn't matter.
They are certainly not in my definition, and if they're in yours then I of course must believe you are wrong.
They are certainly not in my definition, and if they're in yours then I of course must believe you are wrong.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 26 2009, 01:35 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
If the rest of the universe didn't go back with you, how would you know you had gone back and what good do you think it could do you even if you yourself could go? You couldn't see things as they were then or make any changes that would influence the future, so even if it was possible to go what advantage could there be in going?
And you seriously don't see the parrallel between
If timetravel exists then ....
and
If God exists then...
Why can someone think rationally about one but the other?
I haven't seen anyone else here think realistically about either one yet.
And you seriously don't see the parrallel between
If timetravel exists then ....
and
If God exists then...
Why can someone think rationally about one but the other?
I haven't seen anyone else here think realistically about either one yet.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 27 2009, 12:26 AM)
And you seriously don't see the parrallel between
If timetravel exists then ....
and
If God exists then...
Why can someone think rationally about one but the other?[/QUOTE]
I haven't seen anyone else here think realistically about either one yet.
Demonstrate with time travel then.
If timetravel exists then ....
and
If God exists then...
Why can someone think rationally about one but the other?[/QUOTE]
I haven't seen anyone else here think realistically about either one yet.
Demonstrate with time travel then.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 26 2009, 01:59 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
The question was nothingness not lifelessness.
obviously you cannot tell the difference.
I can tell the difference but I didn't address the matter from nothingness part, and don't want to discuss that part with a group like this. You can't even understand why God could not be native to a planet he created billions of years AFTER he himself came into existence, so discussing things that are even harder to think about would have to be a negative use of time.
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.
The question was nothingness not lifelessness.
obviously you cannot tell the difference.
I can tell the difference but I didn't address the matter from nothingness part, and don't want to discuss that part with a group like this. You can't even understand why God could not be native to a planet he created billions of years AFTER he himself came into existence, so discussing things that are even harder to think about would have to be a negative use of time.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 26 2009, 01:39 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
Try explaining how you think God could be an inferior native of this planet, or whatever else you might think he could be other than what I suggested.
[Moderator: Suspended 7 days. Please use that time to compose an essay of 150-2000 words showing cause why you shouldn't be purged from this forum.]
So you really think I'm the guy with a problem eh Rpenner? And you want an essay where I have to prove myself? Personally, I think I'll show you the idiot with a problem. Here's the 5 perosnal messages I got from Occimental whilst I've been away.
**********************
BWA-hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Ha. Ha. HAHAHA. ha.
See ya Lui.
I told you that you should write an essay. Dont forget to title it. Bwahahahahahahahaha.Hahahaha.Ha...Bwahahahahahaha.
pissant -AND immature.
Only 6 days left for your essay MoronMan. Better get on it. And this time dont forget to title your essay.
Maybe the next time around you could try to be less of an offensive little ***. Maybe less name calling and bully-boy tactics would serve you better. Or maybe youre just an angry mystic with *** for brains that cant help acting like a total ***. Prove me wrong, *** stain.
Wheres your essay, Lui? Guess youre not as clever as you think.
**********************************
Come on Rpenner, what's physforum trying to conjure up here? I find it comical that it should be myself here that has to prove some kind of worth. I've had people here make up BS just so they can have themselves a crank. It is comedy, you do know that don't you? I mean, we're not really stupid and dishonest pricks you know.
I'll take a leaf outta Alphanumiric's book and tell Occidental that he doesn't know Jack about music theory so he should STFU, and I'll tell Molly Pants at the same time to get his melodic minor formula sorted out and not be so insistant that his lie is the truth and I'm the one with a problem. Because , basically Rpenner, I have worked long and hard at my own thing, and it is worthy of far better than the idiots that have judged it here.
You are an idiot.
When rpenner was handed the job, the FM was "disbanded", yes. But the FM still got what it wanted in the end: a moderator who knows physics.
PHEW
What you are suggesting
What I'm suggesting is a realistic possibility, and though you quite obviously want to consider something else you can suggest no other alternative.
What I'm suggesting is a realistic possibility, and though you quite obviously want to consider something else you can suggest no other alternative.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 27 2009, 12:37 AM)
What you are suggesting[/QUOTE]
What I'm suggesting is a realistic possibility, and though you quite obviously want to consider something else you can suggest no other alternative.
Why is your proposal any more realistic than the real definition of God?
and why is God does not exist not a realistic possibility?
What I'm suggesting is a realistic possibility, and though you quite obviously want to consider something else you can suggest no other alternative.
Why is your proposal any more realistic than the real definition of God?
and why is God does not exist not a realistic possibility?
QUOTE (Doc+)
Your beliefs are not a substitute for evidence, and nature is not restricted by them.
Awaiting a rebuttal.
Awaiting a rebuttal.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 26 2009, 07:37 PM)
What I'm suggesting is a realistic possibility, and though you quite obviously want to consider something else you can suggest no other alternative.
No, what me and others are doing is showing you the standard definition and that yours does not match.
You cannot understand that definitions do not change just because you don't like them.
No, what me and others are doing is showing you the standard definition and that yours does not match.
You cannot understand that definitions do not change just because you don't like them.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 26 2009, 07:21 PM)
They are certainly not in my definition, and if they're in yours then I of course must believe you are wrong.
It's no use.
Either you cannot understand or you don't want to.
It's no use.
Either you cannot understand or you don't want to.
nopEda,
I am curious.
If all you want is to think realistically then why the interest in aliens?
I am curious.
If all you want is to think realistically then why the interest in aliens?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I can tell the difference but I didn't address the matter from nothingness part, and don't want to discuss that part with a group like this.
So your argument is you know the answer but you won't tell us???
So your argument is you know the answer but you won't tell us???
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 20 2009, 06:42 PM)
[Moderator: Suspended 7 days. Please use that time to compose an essay of 150-2000 words showing cause why you shouldn't be purged from this forum.]
So you really think I'm the guy with a problem eh Rpenner? And you want an essay where I have to prove myself? Personally, I think I'll show you the idiot with a problem. Here's the 5 perosnal messages I got from Occimental whilst I've been away.
**********************
BWA-hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Ha. Ha. HAHAHA. ha.
See ya Lui.
I told you that you should write an essay. Dont forget to title it. Bwahahahahahahahaha.Hahahaha.Ha...Bwahahahahahaha.
pissant -AND immature.
Only 6 days left for your essay MoronMan. Better get on it. And this time dont forget to title your essay.
Maybe the next time around you could try to be less of an offensive little ***. Maybe less name calling and bully-boy tactics would serve you better. Or maybe youre just an angry mystic with *** for brains that cant help acting like a total ***. Prove me wrong, *** stain.
Wheres your essay, Lui? Guess youre not as clever as you think.
**********************************
Come on Rpenner, what's physforum trying to conjure up here? I find it comical that it should be myself here that has to prove some kind of worth. I've had people here make up BS just so they can have themselves a crank. It is comedy, you do know that don't you? I mean, we're not really stupid and dishonest pricks you know.
I'll take a leaf outta Alphanumiric's book and tell Occidental that he doesn't know Jack about music theory so he should STFU, and I'll tell Molly Pants at the same time to get his melodic minor formula sorted out and not be so insistant that his lie is the truth and I'm the one with a problem. Because , basically Rpenner, I have worked long and hard at my own thing, and it is worthy of far better than the idiots that have judged it here.
PS.....If anyone is willing to take on what my work is really about, in an honest way, I'm far nicer than the stuck up elites that I've seen recently on this internet. I've always been open to being wrong about any conclusion I may have derived from my studies, but I have checked and re-checked the data, and it is accurate, and it is not logged down in any textbook, and it is interesting and of potential benefit. Let's see if there actually is someone here with a proper scientific attitude and some integrity.
So far I've seen mostly student wanabes. Has anyone here got a real attitude that we humans see as scientific, and not just animalistic biased growliness towards stuff they may not have ever been acquainted with?? Let's have a real discussion, not just put downs and blind judgements. If not, then I really will see ya around guys.
So far I've seen mostly student wanabes. Has anyone here got a real attitude that we humans see as scientific, and not just animalistic biased growliness towards stuff they may not have ever been acquainted with?? Let's have a real discussion, not just put downs and blind judgements. If not, then I really will see ya around guys.
You forgot to title your essay again. And Im really hurt that I wrote to you five separate times and you never once wrote back.
I thought you said you werent Lui DiMartino. Someone else was permanently banned when "an attempt to evade moderator action was taken", so why should you be given preferential treatment? You really should have focused more of your essay on why you shouldnt be banned.
I thought you said you werent Lui DiMartino. Someone else was permanently banned when "an attempt to evade moderator action was taken", so why should you be given preferential treatment? You really should have focused more of your essay on why you shouldnt be banned.
QUOTE (occidental+May 28 2009, 01:35 AM)
You forgot to title your essay again. And Im really hurt that I wrote to you five separate times and you never once wrote back.
I thought you said you werent Lui DiMartino. Someone else was permanently banned when "an attempt to evade moderator action was taken", so why should you be given preferential treatment? You really should have focused more of your essay on why you shouldnt be banned.
Occidental, as far as I'm concerned you can play your silly little games. I'm challenging rpenner, in order to see what he is actually here to do. if he wants to back up know-nothings like you, fine, I'll be happy with that. But it will not actually be good for this forum.
You're ok at the games aren't you Occidental? Got any actual substance besides that? You can start , perhaps, by showing the guys and gals you undertsand my work, and a "mode box" and why it contains new information, and how it gives credence to the idea of a whole unit of information, and what that may imply? Perhaps you can confirm that this whole unit of information idea extends to dozens of other examples, and how the consistency should be taken into account and perhaps exploited in some way? I've noted quite a few ways to exploit the information.
I have phyforum to thank for my realization that my work related to consciousness in some way. But I wouldn't let that go to your head occidental. It was your, and others, lack of open mindedness that spurred me on to further study.
So you see, I am quite comfortable that I haven't been "debunked" , especially by you. The real issue here is what physforum actually wants to become.
Preferential treatment? I want to see if the right thing eventually comes to pass here about our little "scuffle" mate. You have been very vocal in your dismissive attitude, writing me personally whenever you can with your "haaaahaaaa haaas", taking on sockpuppets of your own at other forums in order to conjure up the illusion that others thought my work was bad. Don't pretend you are an angel. If science is about people like you, then god help us, *** Merry.
Well Occidental, let's hear your report about why you only seem to log on in order to fulfill your obsession over me, and about work you really don't understand. I knew you would have nothing to contribute until my suspension was over, and you were here as regular as clockwork, checking to see if I was getting back on. That's pitiful.
I thought you said you werent Lui DiMartino. Someone else was permanently banned when "an attempt to evade moderator action was taken", so why should you be given preferential treatment? You really should have focused more of your essay on why you shouldnt be banned.
Occidental, as far as I'm concerned you can play your silly little games. I'm challenging rpenner, in order to see what he is actually here to do. if he wants to back up know-nothings like you, fine, I'll be happy with that. But it will not actually be good for this forum.
You're ok at the games aren't you Occidental? Got any actual substance besides that? You can start , perhaps, by showing the guys and gals you undertsand my work, and a "mode box" and why it contains new information, and how it gives credence to the idea of a whole unit of information, and what that may imply? Perhaps you can confirm that this whole unit of information idea extends to dozens of other examples, and how the consistency should be taken into account and perhaps exploited in some way? I've noted quite a few ways to exploit the information.
I have phyforum to thank for my realization that my work related to consciousness in some way. But I wouldn't let that go to your head occidental. It was your, and others, lack of open mindedness that spurred me on to further study.
So you see, I am quite comfortable that I haven't been "debunked" , especially by you. The real issue here is what physforum actually wants to become.
Preferential treatment? I want to see if the right thing eventually comes to pass here about our little "scuffle" mate. You have been very vocal in your dismissive attitude, writing me personally whenever you can with your "haaaahaaaa haaas", taking on sockpuppets of your own at other forums in order to conjure up the illusion that others thought my work was bad. Don't pretend you are an angel. If science is about people like you, then god help us, *** Merry.
Well Occidental, let's hear your report about why you only seem to log on in order to fulfill your obsession over me, and about work you really don't understand. I knew you would have nothing to contribute until my suspension was over, and you were here as regular as clockwork, checking to see if I was getting back on. That's pitiful.
QUOTE (occidental+May 28 2009, 01:35 AM)
I thought you said you werent Lui DiMartino. Someone else was permanently banned when "an attempt to evade moderator action was taken", so why should you be given preferential treatment?
Well, typically I don't blindly follow the precedents set by other moderators, but here the behavior of painting himself as a holy warrior set against the conspiracy of dark forces is itself an evidence-based claim. Therefore simple demonstration of the value of the work would clearly demarcate the poster as the righteous bearer of new truth and do much to justify the poster's continued existence on this forum.
However, instead of a demonstration of value or of even evidence of a well-thought-out campaign to return to the common brotherhood of Man, we get more bile and a telling lack of value.
Given this record, what should a fair moderator do?
Well, typically I don't blindly follow the precedents set by other moderators, but here the behavior of painting himself as a holy warrior set against the conspiracy of dark forces is itself an evidence-based claim. Therefore simple demonstration of the value of the work would clearly demarcate the poster as the righteous bearer of new truth and do much to justify the poster's continued existence on this forum.
However, instead of a demonstration of value or of even evidence of a well-thought-out campaign to return to the common brotherhood of Man, we get more bile and a telling lack of value.
Given this record, what should a fair moderator do?
Well.. TobynotToby...
I have looked over your posts and have not seen any actual work, maybe I missed it. What is it that you are seeking to accomplish here?
A proper course of action if you intend to argue that you have much to contribute would be to actually contribute. I await your contribution.
I have looked over your posts and have not seen any actual work, maybe I missed it. What is it that you are seeking to accomplish here?
A proper course of action if you intend to argue that you have much to contribute would be to actually contribute. I await your contribution.
QUOTE (rpenner+May 28 2009, 05:37 AM)
Well, typically I don't blindly follow the precedents set by other moderators, but here the behavior of painting himself as a holy warrior set against the conspiracy of dark forces is itself an evidence-based claim. Therefore simple demonstration of the value of the work would clearly demarcate the poster as the righteous bearer of new truth and do much to justify the poster's continued existence on this forum.
However, instead of a demonstration of value or of even evidence of a well-thought-out campaign to return to the common brotherhood of Man, we get more bile and a telling lack of value.
Given this record, what should a fair moderator do?
You are a few records short of a just collection.
Here's my last response to this place for now:
I don't agree with the put downs here actually. So I've gone and gathered a nice long list of universities and scientists whom I will be contacting in the coming months. Universities that study the effects of transcendental meditation, for example, may be open to the data I'll want to share with them, and the implications regarding consciousness that I think is in the data (Oxford University has such studies). I can specify some understandable experiments, that will test the data according to the predictions made. In that way the prediction can be falsified or affirmed in various ways. It's simple really, to test the results I'm talking about is a question of building a real life "mode box", for example. It will be built inside a sound chamber, and a person will meditate inside the chamber. After an hour or so that person will then conduct various other activities, like the human interaction with machinary experiments as conducted at Princeton.
So keen am I to share these findings that I will finish off my degree if I have to, gaining the 30 credits I need by using my work as a dissertation. I already know that is possible, as I've discussed it with a PHD student.
So basically chaps, your attitude is not the only one that is a so called scientific one. In fact I don't think scientists pre judge anything in the way I have seen the smirksters do here. Science is as much to do with discovery as it is to do with the teaching and consolidation of the already established science.
And rpenner, holycrusader? I don't need to elevate myself to that dizzy standard. This is about simpler things sir. You can feel free to purge my account, and delete anything you fancy.
One last thing, nopEda, God is an atheist mate.
However, instead of a demonstration of value or of even evidence of a well-thought-out campaign to return to the common brotherhood of Man, we get more bile and a telling lack of value.
Given this record, what should a fair moderator do?
You are a few records short of a just collection.
Here's my last response to this place for now:
I don't agree with the put downs here actually. So I've gone and gathered a nice long list of universities and scientists whom I will be contacting in the coming months. Universities that study the effects of transcendental meditation, for example, may be open to the data I'll want to share with them, and the implications regarding consciousness that I think is in the data (Oxford University has such studies). I can specify some understandable experiments, that will test the data according to the predictions made. In that way the prediction can be falsified or affirmed in various ways. It's simple really, to test the results I'm talking about is a question of building a real life "mode box", for example. It will be built inside a sound chamber, and a person will meditate inside the chamber. After an hour or so that person will then conduct various other activities, like the human interaction with machinary experiments as conducted at Princeton.
So keen am I to share these findings that I will finish off my degree if I have to, gaining the 30 credits I need by using my work as a dissertation. I already know that is possible, as I've discussed it with a PHD student.
So basically chaps, your attitude is not the only one that is a so called scientific one. In fact I don't think scientists pre judge anything in the way I have seen the smirksters do here. Science is as much to do with discovery as it is to do with the teaching and consolidation of the already established science.
And rpenner, holycrusader? I don't need to elevate myself to that dizzy standard. This is about simpler things sir. You can feel free to purge my account, and delete anything you fancy.
One last thing, nopEda, God is an atheist mate.
QUOTE (rpenner+May 28 2009, 05:37 AM)
Well, typically I don't blindly follow the precedents set by other moderators, but here the behavior of painting himself as a holy warrior set against the conspiracy of dark forces is itself an evidence-based claim. Therefore simple demonstration of the value of the work would clearly demarcate the poster as the righteous bearer of new truth and do much to justify the poster's continued existence on this forum.
However, instead of a demonstration of value or of even evidence of a well-thought-out campaign to return to the common brotherhood of Man, we get more bile and a telling lack of value.
Given this record, what should a fair moderator do?
Actually, I believe you were the moderator that banned TheFairy after the May Day event for returning with a different screen name.
Regardless, I agree that if Lui could show some kind of evidence for his claims then he should be allowed to continue here. BUT since he has shown himself to be a blatant and habitual liar, if he is going to make outragous accusations about what people have said to him, he should back them up with direct quotes.
Personally, I would like to see Rpenner judge Lui's "Mirror Magic!" book and related work. Maybe Lui can again make his case for "scientific evidence of a spiritual process" as well as his new claim for "consciousness in the data".
However, instead of a demonstration of value or of even evidence of a well-thought-out campaign to return to the common brotherhood of Man, we get more bile and a telling lack of value.
Given this record, what should a fair moderator do?
Actually, I believe you were the moderator that banned TheFairy after the May Day event for returning with a different screen name.
Regardless, I agree that if Lui could show some kind of evidence for his claims then he should be allowed to continue here. BUT since he has shown himself to be a blatant and habitual liar, if he is going to make outragous accusations about what people have said to him, he should back them up with direct quotes.
Personally, I would like to see Rpenner judge Lui's "Mirror Magic!" book and related work. Maybe Lui can again make his case for "scientific evidence of a spiritual process" as well as his new claim for "consciousness in the data".
QUOTE (occidental+May 28 2009, 01:04 PM)
Actually, I believe you were the moderator that banned TheFairy after the May Day event for returning with a different screen name.
Regardless, I agree that if Lui could show some kind of evidence for his claims then he should be allowed to continue here. BUT since he has shown himself to be a blatant and habitual liar, if he is going to make outragous accusations about what people have said to him, he should back them up with direct quotes.
Personally, I would like to see Rpenner judge Lui's "Mirror Magic!" book and related work. Maybe Lui can again make his case for "scientific evidence of a spiritual process" as well as his new claim for "consciousness in the data".
If someone like Alphanumeric here showed you some evidence to back up some theory, would you understand it?
I can back up why a mode box is a whole unit of information, simply by drawing one out and see it link seven major scales into one whole working unit, with one major scale being enharmonically equivelent and seen to be catalyst for transference of tonal information to the other side of the mirror. Then I can show the same phenomena occuring in a mode box also show itself to occur in a fibonacci number grid, and an overtone grid and other examples. Every example leads to the same resulting mirror structure. The information hasn't been logged in this way. I'm mapping it out and I am going to make sure it becomes known, for various reasons.
What I'm looking for is people in the know that can understand the underlying process involved, not some closed minded scoffers. People who will also take onboard the link I am saying is related to consciousness. There are plenty of people out there that will be more than willing to entertain such a link. Many of them seem to come out of the universities. Funny that. The same qualifications as everyone else, but somehow more open-minded than the kind I've met here.
So you continue entertaining here Occidental.
Your state of being is a blatant liar dude. You pretend to have the right to judge what you have no hope of understanding. I call that rude, and is just an unearned desire to pee over people's work if you don't like the sound of it.
Regardless, I agree that if Lui could show some kind of evidence for his claims then he should be allowed to continue here. BUT since he has shown himself to be a blatant and habitual liar, if he is going to make outragous accusations about what people have said to him, he should back them up with direct quotes.
Personally, I would like to see Rpenner judge Lui's "Mirror Magic!" book and related work. Maybe Lui can again make his case for "scientific evidence of a spiritual process" as well as his new claim for "consciousness in the data".
If someone like Alphanumeric here showed you some evidence to back up some theory, would you understand it?
I can back up why a mode box is a whole unit of information, simply by drawing one out and see it link seven major scales into one whole working unit, with one major scale being enharmonically equivelent and seen to be catalyst for transference of tonal information to the other side of the mirror. Then I can show the same phenomena occuring in a mode box also show itself to occur in a fibonacci number grid, and an overtone grid and other examples. Every example leads to the same resulting mirror structure. The information hasn't been logged in this way. I'm mapping it out and I am going to make sure it becomes known, for various reasons.
What I'm looking for is people in the know that can understand the underlying process involved, not some closed minded scoffers. People who will also take onboard the link I am saying is related to consciousness. There are plenty of people out there that will be more than willing to entertain such a link. Many of them seem to come out of the universities. Funny that. The same qualifications as everyone else, but somehow more open-minded than the kind I've met here.
So you continue entertaining here Occidental.
Your state of being is a blatant liar dude. You pretend to have the right to judge what you have no hope of understanding. I call that rude, and is just an unearned desire to pee over people's work if you don't like the sound of it.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 28 2009, 02:02 PM)
Every example leads to the same resulting mirror structure.
Ok. And what do you call that "structure"? You have arbitrarily assigned the name "merkaba" to your "discovery" but are unable to define its meaning. Instead you reference whatever crap you read on the internet to support your claims of "scientific evidence for a spiritual process".
I understand what you are saying just fine. It is you that has the problem comprehending what you read.
Ok. And what do you call that "structure"? You have arbitrarily assigned the name "merkaba" to your "discovery" but are unable to define its meaning. Instead you reference whatever crap you read on the internet to support your claims of "scientific evidence for a spiritual process".
I understand what you are saying just fine. It is you that has the problem comprehending what you read.
QUOTE (occidental+May 28 2009, 03:08 PM)
Ok. And what do you call that "structure"? You have arbitrarily assigned the name "merkaba" to your "discovery" but are unable to define its meaning. Instead you reference whatever crap you read on the internet to support your claims of "scientific evidence for a spiritual process".
I understand what you are saying just fine. It is you that has the problem comprehending what you read.
That's ok Occidental, like I said, have fun entertaining the good people here. I have a few more conducive conversations to be getting on with.
BTW Rob, if you're reading, yes the little ding dong going on here came about a while back. I realized from it the bias in this place, so sorry mate, can't take it seriously anymore. I don't actually care too much, but there is a guy going around here accusing others of being dishonest pricks, when actually on any other forum he'd have been banned for blatant porkies. But that's ok, it amounts to just a small pain. Most of us moved on.
Talking of being banned, Occidental and Grumpy got themselves banned at another forum for being, well, like they are here only slightly more offensve. Occidental had three screen names, all busy posting stupid images so he could humiliate me and anyone else that he doesn't agree with in life. In fact he was one of the "idiots" that led to an image ban here at physforum. It was quite a mafia party here, until physforum got itself a moderator, phew.
The bad guy.
I understand what you are saying just fine. It is you that has the problem comprehending what you read.
That's ok Occidental, like I said, have fun entertaining the good people here. I have a few more conducive conversations to be getting on with.
BTW Rob, if you're reading, yes the little ding dong going on here came about a while back. I realized from it the bias in this place, so sorry mate, can't take it seriously anymore. I don't actually care too much, but there is a guy going around here accusing others of being dishonest pricks, when actually on any other forum he'd have been banned for blatant porkies. But that's ok, it amounts to just a small pain. Most of us moved on.
Talking of being banned, Occidental and Grumpy got themselves banned at another forum for being, well, like they are here only slightly more offensve. Occidental had three screen names, all busy posting stupid images so he could humiliate me and anyone else that he doesn't agree with in life. In fact he was one of the "idiots" that led to an image ban here at physforum. It was quite a mafia party here, until physforum got itself a moderator, phew.
The bad guy.
Wow. Talk about a smokescreen of lies. Good job trying to divert attention away from the holes in your theory.
Prove your accusations.. What forum was I banned from? What does grumpy have to do with anything? What images did I post and why did I post them? Just like your "mirror magic!" book, lots of conclusions and no facts.
You are a liar, LuiDiMartino.
Prove your accusations.. What forum was I banned from? What does grumpy have to do with anything? What images did I post and why did I post them? Just like your "mirror magic!" book, lots of conclusions and no facts.
You are a liar, LuiDiMartino.
QUOTE (occidental+May 29 2009, 01:12 AM)
Wow. Talk about a smokescreen of lies. Good job trying to divert attention away from the holes in your theory.
Prove your accusations.. What forum was I banned from? What does grumpy have to do with anything? What images did I post and why did I post them? Just like your "mirror magic!" book, lots of conclusions and no facts.
You are a liar, LuiDiMartino.
I'm not hiding anything about my work. it's freely available. You're normally very quick to post the link, and to make reference to my bald head and short stubby fingers.
Here's the latest one you ain't heard yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMASRdqKFo&feature=channel
So you deny being Betamax, Scisci and Occidental over at the B4N forum? You even had the audacity to insult the owner's girlfriend. Fool!
It's ok for you to do it here, but I think it went to your heads a little.
Are you denying that the feedback section here, and a few posts too, have you posting ridicule in the form of online pictures? Or that there are a good couple of dozen over at B4N under your various names? It's no biggie, we had a good laugh about you and the Grumpy man.
PS...a quick trek down memory lane for you and Grumpy. Here's that last comment made you by one of the posters over at B4N, after your weeks of intimidation:
..............."This thread is insane. What "scientific" and "rational" person would spend this kind of time arguing with aAzzAa? If aAzzAa were a complete lunatic, that wouldn't bother me as much as the behavior of the "scientists" on this thread.
Maybe building your life on being the observer and never the observed, and on inanimate things rather than other human beings, causes this arrested emotional and social development?"..........
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.ph...3338&start=1110
He made a perfect point to you two there (really four, counting your three screen names), don't you think? No you probably don't.
Prove your accusations.. What forum was I banned from? What does grumpy have to do with anything? What images did I post and why did I post them? Just like your "mirror magic!" book, lots of conclusions and no facts.
You are a liar, LuiDiMartino.
I'm not hiding anything about my work. it's freely available. You're normally very quick to post the link, and to make reference to my bald head and short stubby fingers.
Here's the latest one you ain't heard yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMASRdqKFo&feature=channel
So you deny being Betamax, Scisci and Occidental over at the B4N forum? You even had the audacity to insult the owner's girlfriend. Fool!
It's ok for you to do it here, but I think it went to your heads a little.
Are you denying that the feedback section here, and a few posts too, have you posting ridicule in the form of online pictures? Or that there are a good couple of dozen over at B4N under your various names? It's no biggie, we had a good laugh about you and the Grumpy man.
PS...a quick trek down memory lane for you and Grumpy. Here's that last comment made you by one of the posters over at B4N, after your weeks of intimidation:
..............."This thread is insane. What "scientific" and "rational" person would spend this kind of time arguing with aAzzAa? If aAzzAa were a complete lunatic, that wouldn't bother me as much as the behavior of the "scientists" on this thread.
Maybe building your life on being the observer and never the observed, and on inanimate things rather than other human beings, causes this arrested emotional and social development?"..........
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.ph...3338&start=1110
He made a perfect point to you two there (really four, counting your three screen names), don't you think? No you probably don't.
QUOTE (Lui+May 29 2009, 12:42 AM)
It was quite a mafia party here, until physforum got itself a moderator, phew.
The bad guy.
You are an idiot.
When rpenner was handed the job, the FM was "disbanded", yes. But the FM still got what it wanted in the end: a moderator who knows physics.
The bad guy.
You are an idiot.When rpenner was handed the job, the FM was "disbanded", yes. But the FM still got what it wanted in the end: a moderator who knows physics.
QUOTE (TheDoc+May 29 2009, 01:43 AM)
You are an idiot.When rpenner was handed the job, the FM was "disbanded", yes. But the FM still got what it wanted in the end: a moderator who knows physics.
PHEW
Youre a liar Lui DiMartino.
Wow... that last bit from TobynotToby was pretty random.
Let's see...
Links to a weird amateur band and to a bizarre thread on some forum, the purpose of which is not real obvious.
Do you have a point other than accusations Toby?
Most of us who haven't followed this convo from the start have no idea what you are talking about.... and those who have followed it from the start don't seem to have much more of an idea. Is there a point to all this other than bitter accusations? Could someone maybe explain what you are all so mad about in a rational fashion?
Oh... also...
Lots of Universities study all sorts of esoteric things but I don't think you will like their approach to those studies.
The reputable ones tend to be grounded in verifiable science... not in spirituality.
Let's see...
Links to a weird amateur band and to a bizarre thread on some forum, the purpose of which is not real obvious.
Do you have a point other than accusations Toby?
Most of us who haven't followed this convo from the start have no idea what you are talking about.... and those who have followed it from the start don't seem to have much more of an idea. Is there a point to all this other than bitter accusations? Could someone maybe explain what you are all so mad about in a rational fashion?
Oh... also...
QUOTE
Universities that study the effects of transcendental meditation
Lots of Universities study all sorts of esoteric things but I don't think you will like their approach to those studies.
The reputable ones tend to be grounded in verifiable science... not in spirituality.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 29 2009, 04:42 AM)
Wow... that last bit from TobynotToby was pretty random.
Let's see...
Links to a weird amateur band and to a bizarre thread on some forum, the purpose of which is not real obvious.
Do you have a point other than accusations Toby?
Most of us who haven't followed this convo from the start have no idea what you are talking about.... and those who have followed it from the start don't seem to have much more of an idea. Is there a point to all this other than bitter accusations? Could someone maybe explain what you are all so mad about in a rational fashion?
Oh... also...
Lots of Universities study all sorts of esoteric things but I don't think you will like their approach to those studies.
The reputable ones tend to be grounded in verifiable science... not in spirituality.
Yes I do have a point. One is that I won't be judged by the idiots that have attempted to do so so far. Two, Occidental is playing the same game he has for over two years, and can only seem to get away with it here. Three is that I know how universities conduct their research.
I came here seeking help and to share some of my work. I didn't expect to see humans hounded by scoffy little personalities. Most of the people being hounded left. Most of the other decent posters followed. Its boiled down to the scoffers and a few new people.
Bottom line is that Occidental isn't qualified and I'm looking for someone that is qualified, has a deep understand of the kind of data I'm sharing, and isn't just after some ego buzz on some forum.
It isn't bitter mate. It's dissapointment. And as for the video I sent him, it's becuase he's always posting them here , so I beat him to it.
Let's see...
Links to a weird amateur band and to a bizarre thread on some forum, the purpose of which is not real obvious.
Do you have a point other than accusations Toby?
Most of us who haven't followed this convo from the start have no idea what you are talking about.... and those who have followed it from the start don't seem to have much more of an idea. Is there a point to all this other than bitter accusations? Could someone maybe explain what you are all so mad about in a rational fashion?
Oh... also...
Lots of Universities study all sorts of esoteric things but I don't think you will like their approach to those studies.
The reputable ones tend to be grounded in verifiable science... not in spirituality.
Yes I do have a point. One is that I won't be judged by the idiots that have attempted to do so so far. Two, Occidental is playing the same game he has for over two years, and can only seem to get away with it here. Three is that I know how universities conduct their research.
I came here seeking help and to share some of my work. I didn't expect to see humans hounded by scoffy little personalities. Most of the people being hounded left. Most of the other decent posters followed. Its boiled down to the scoffers and a few new people.
Bottom line is that Occidental isn't qualified and I'm looking for someone that is qualified, has a deep understand of the kind of data I'm sharing, and isn't just after some ego buzz on some forum.
It isn't bitter mate. It's dissapointment. And as for the video I sent him, it's becuase he's always posting them here , so I beat him to it.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 29 2009, 12:26 PM)
Three is that I know how universities conduct their research.
I came here seeking help and to share some of my work. I didn't expect to see humans hounded by scoffy little personalities.
First you say that you understand how research works then you say you didn't expect it here.
I came here seeking help and to share some of my work. I didn't expect to see humans hounded by scoffy little personalities.
First you say that you understand how research works then you say you didn't expect it here.
QUOTE (occidental+May 29 2009, 03:07 AM)
Youre a liar Lui DiMartino.
A long nose just broke through my monitor. I'm telling the truth about you. You already admitted to being those sockpuppets. So stop throwing stones about that kind of thing. As for the point that was made to you and Grumpy by that other poster, it's the kind of point any normal human would make regarding your actions toward someone else.
I'm letting it go anyway. I'll try and remember to drop you a line here after summer, and let you know of any progress.
A long nose just broke through my monitor. I'm telling the truth about you. You already admitted to being those sockpuppets. So stop throwing stones about that kind of thing. As for the point that was made to you and Grumpy by that other poster, it's the kind of point any normal human would make regarding your actions toward someone else.
I'm letting it go anyway. I'll try and remember to drop you a line here after summer, and let you know of any progress.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 29 2009, 12:28 PM)
First you say that you understand how research works then you say you didn't expect it here.
You've just managed to sum up, in that distorted reply, why this place has no credibility.
You've just managed to sum up, in that distorted reply, why this place has no credibility.
Lui
Qualified=Someone who will buy my BS and tell me how brilliant I am.
Qualified=Someone who will buy my BS and tell me how brilliant I am.
and isn't just after some ego buzz on some forum.
You are looking for an ego buzz on EVERY forum. Face the facts, Lui, your just not that smart. And your book is pure mystical crapola.
Yeah, they couldn't take the heat over at Break 4 News. I got banned for telling Killtown what a lowlife he was, I'm actually proud of my behavior at that nutfarm. I spoke truth to wackjobs(including you and Christophera) Just another example of you and your type not reacting well to scientific criticism.
And as to sock puppetry, I've never had one, you can't say that, can you Lui? Without sockpuppets you would soon run out of forums on which you could post. You've had so many here that we've lost track of some of them. You keep coming back, only to once again get banned for your behavior.
Insanity=Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Bottom line is that Occidental isn't qualified and I'm looking for someone that is qualified, has a deep understand of the kind of data I'm sharing,
Qualified=Someone who will buy my BS and tell me how brilliant I am.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Bottom line is that Occidental isn't qualified and I'm looking for someone that is qualified, has a deep understand of the kind of data I'm sharing, |
Qualified=Someone who will buy my BS and tell me how brilliant I am.
and isn't just after some ego buzz on some forum.
You are looking for an ego buzz on EVERY forum. Face the facts, Lui, your just not that smart. And your book is pure mystical crapola.
QUOTE
Talking of being banned, Occidental and Grumpy got themselves banned at another forum
Yeah, they couldn't take the heat over at Break 4 News. I got banned for telling Killtown what a lowlife he was, I'm actually proud of my behavior at that nutfarm. I spoke truth to wackjobs(including you and Christophera) Just another example of you and your type not reacting well to scientific criticism.
And as to sock puppetry, I've never had one, you can't say that, can you Lui? Without sockpuppets you would soon run out of forums on which you could post. You've had so many here that we've lost track of some of them. You keep coming back, only to once again get banned for your behavior.
Insanity=Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
Grumpy
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 29 2009, 12:46 PM)
You've just managed to sum up, in that distorted reply, why this place has no credibility.
They do have people at Universities, right?
There is a big difference between theory and reality.
In theory University research would be all rational but reality is they have people there same as anywhere.
In my experience engineering/logical type people are the most extreme for putting each other down with contempt.
And why don't you go the University research route?
I'm sure there are lots of undergrads looking for research projects for when they go for a PHD. My understanding is that they get guidence not orders on what subject to work on to get a PHD.
They do have people at Universities, right?
There is a big difference between theory and reality.
In theory University research would be all rational but reality is they have people there same as anywhere.
In my experience engineering/logical type people are the most extreme for putting each other down with contempt.
And why don't you go the University research route?
I'm sure there are lots of undergrads looking for research projects for when they go for a PHD. My understanding is that they get guidence not orders on what subject to work on to get a PHD.
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 29 2009, 12:55 PM)
Lui
Qualified=Someone who will buy my BS and tell me how brilliant I am.
That would be your attitude Grumpy, from what I've seen. Whereas I'm not selling any BS, and what I mean by qualified is those that have an understanding of the subjects they think they are qualified to give judgement on. That wouldn't be you, as you know. So what I'm asking is only what would be considered the right thing.
You can be proud of being banned, but the rest of us realized just how defunct science can be when in the hands of a bigots like you.
There's no way a rational person would accept the so called petty judgements over their work that have occured here. You must be insane. Science takes guts, to not be put off by scoffers. That's what I'm proud of, I have a tough skin and am finding my way to the right places, universities and scientists therein.
Qualified=Someone who will buy my BS and tell me how brilliant I am.
That would be your attitude Grumpy, from what I've seen. Whereas I'm not selling any BS, and what I mean by qualified is those that have an understanding of the subjects they think they are qualified to give judgement on. That wouldn't be you, as you know. So what I'm asking is only what would be considered the right thing.
You can be proud of being banned, but the rest of us realized just how defunct science can be when in the hands of a bigots like you.
There's no way a rational person would accept the so called petty judgements over their work that have occured here. You must be insane. Science takes guts, to not be put off by scoffers. That's what I'm proud of, I have a tough skin and am finding my way to the right places, universities and scientists therein.
You are a liar Lui DiMartino. Heres a little reality check for you.
First off, anyone who disagrees with you is labeled "not qualified" by you. You refuse to answer basic questions about the conclusions drawn in your book. The fact is your work is mystic bullshit of the highest degree. You do not have "scientific proof of a spiritual process" like you have claimed. Your "mirror magic!" book is just more creationist propaganda attempting to push your offensive "merkaba god" onto people.
Second, im with Grumpy in my pride for being banned from that other forum. I wlll always stand up against racist revisionist history like the crap that has been posted over there. Maybe you think its ok to spread hate like that, but I dont. So you can take your nazi merkaba ufo's and put them back up your anus, you filthy skinhead. As a side note, the post you referenced there is from 2007. Get over it. And should we take a look at what people there thought of your contribution to the 9-11 thread?
Third, you came to this forum as Mirrorman and were an offensive piece of feces from your very first post. There is no doubt you have always been a troll with an axe to grind against science, and your post history is the proof. So you can quit trying to portray yourself as some helpless victim. Youre a nasty and mean bully to anyone who doesnt agree with your preachy crap.
First off, anyone who disagrees with you is labeled "not qualified" by you. You refuse to answer basic questions about the conclusions drawn in your book. The fact is your work is mystic bullshit of the highest degree. You do not have "scientific proof of a spiritual process" like you have claimed. Your "mirror magic!" book is just more creationist propaganda attempting to push your offensive "merkaba god" onto people.
Second, im with Grumpy in my pride for being banned from that other forum. I wlll always stand up against racist revisionist history like the crap that has been posted over there. Maybe you think its ok to spread hate like that, but I dont. So you can take your nazi merkaba ufo's and put them back up your anus, you filthy skinhead. As a side note, the post you referenced there is from 2007. Get over it. And should we take a look at what people there thought of your contribution to the 9-11 thread?
Third, you came to this forum as Mirrorman and were an offensive piece of feces from your very first post. There is no doubt you have always been a troll with an axe to grind against science, and your post history is the proof. So you can quit trying to portray yourself as some helpless victim. Youre a nasty and mean bully to anyone who doesnt agree with your preachy crap.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 29 2009, 07:42 AM)
A long nose just broke through my monitor. I'm telling the truth about you. You already admitted to being those sockpuppets. So stop throwing stones about that kind of thing. As for the point that was made to you and Grumpy by that other poster, it's the kind of point any normal human would make regarding your actions toward someone else.
I'm letting it go anyway. I'll try and remember to drop you a line here after summer, and let you know of any progress.
I thought you were "letting it go" and "moving on". But please do let us know if you ever progress on to something tangible.
kthnxbye
I'm letting it go anyway. I'll try and remember to drop you a line here after summer, and let you know of any progress.
I thought you were "letting it go" and "moving on". But please do let us know if you ever progress on to something tangible.
kthnxbye
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 29 2009, 01:57 PM)
Grumpy... in the hands of a bigots like you
Please tell me which word you mean to use here and why?
Please tell me which word you mean to use here and why?
QUOTE
bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 29 2009, 01:45 AM)
PHEW
Yes, I know reality can be harsh on you, Lui. But sometimes you gotta accept it.
Yes, I know reality can be harsh on you, Lui. But sometimes you gotta accept it.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 29 2009, 01:57 PM)
Science takes guts, to not be put off by scoffers.
Guts or solid evidence and knowledge of the theory's failure modes.
Guts or solid evidence and knowledge of the theory's failure modes.
QUOTE (occidental+May 29 2009, 02:50 PM)
You are a liar Lui DiMartino. Heres a little reality check for you.
First off, anyone who disagrees with you is labeled "not qualified" by you. You refuse to answer basic questions about the conclusions drawn in your book. The fact is your work is mystic bullshit of the highest degree. You do not have "scientific proof of a spiritual process" like you have claimed. Your "mirror magic!" book is just more creationist propaganda attempting to push your offensive "merkaba god" onto people.
Second, im with Grumpy in my pride for being banned from that other forum. I wlll always stand up against racist revisionist history like the crap that has been posted over there. Maybe you think its ok to spread hate like that, but I dont. So you can take your nazi merkaba ufo's and put them back up your anus, you filthy skinhead. As a side note, the post you referenced there is from 2007. Get over it. And should we take a look at what people there thought of your contribution to the 9-11 thread?
Third, you came to this forum as Mirrorman and were an offensive piece of feces from your very first post. There is no doubt you have always been a troll with an axe to grind against science, and your post history is the proof. So you can quit trying to portray yourself as some helpless victim. Youre a nasty and mean bully to anyone who doesnt agree with your preachy crap.
So why is it you can't answer a basic music theory question, have no idea about two thirds of the contents of my book, but have such a speil about you? I don't make the claims you suggest I do, not in the book. I do have my opinions, which I will speak whether you like it or not. Try reading it in a way that would justify what you think you represent.
To be perfectly honest, what I have seen of the "good guys" here would make me prefer to be a crank, if I believed in such a thing. And if I did I'd believe you are more cranky, because it is you that thinks he talks validity, when really he is blind to to the thing he judges. You're a bus driver telling the world how to be a top chauffer. you're a fake basically.
Occidental, I don't chase people around like you do, write them personal emails with "haaa haaa haaaas" in the title, and the other underhand stuff you think you are qualified to do in the name of "good". So yes, we are not the same. If you really think you can give me a bad name from the experience here at physforum, be my guest. I have the utmost faith in ordinary everyday normal people to actually tell you where to get off sunshine.
I'm looking forward to plenty of disagreement from those I will end up respecting because they show they know what they are talking about. I don't respect you.
PS...Grumpy and you were banned because you were rude nasty little shites, that makes my behavior here and at B4N a poor second.
And lastly, I consider myself a lover a science, as people that know me know too well. So forgive me if I stick the proverbial finger right up your nose on that one.
First off, anyone who disagrees with you is labeled "not qualified" by you. You refuse to answer basic questions about the conclusions drawn in your book. The fact is your work is mystic bullshit of the highest degree. You do not have "scientific proof of a spiritual process" like you have claimed. Your "mirror magic!" book is just more creationist propaganda attempting to push your offensive "merkaba god" onto people.
Second, im with Grumpy in my pride for being banned from that other forum. I wlll always stand up against racist revisionist history like the crap that has been posted over there. Maybe you think its ok to spread hate like that, but I dont. So you can take your nazi merkaba ufo's and put them back up your anus, you filthy skinhead. As a side note, the post you referenced there is from 2007. Get over it. And should we take a look at what people there thought of your contribution to the 9-11 thread?
Third, you came to this forum as Mirrorman and were an offensive piece of feces from your very first post. There is no doubt you have always been a troll with an axe to grind against science, and your post history is the proof. So you can quit trying to portray yourself as some helpless victim. Youre a nasty and mean bully to anyone who doesnt agree with your preachy crap.
So why is it you can't answer a basic music theory question, have no idea about two thirds of the contents of my book, but have such a speil about you? I don't make the claims you suggest I do, not in the book. I do have my opinions, which I will speak whether you like it or not. Try reading it in a way that would justify what you think you represent.
To be perfectly honest, what I have seen of the "good guys" here would make me prefer to be a crank, if I believed in such a thing. And if I did I'd believe you are more cranky, because it is you that thinks he talks validity, when really he is blind to to the thing he judges. You're a bus driver telling the world how to be a top chauffer. you're a fake basically.
Occidental, I don't chase people around like you do, write them personal emails with "haaa haaa haaaas" in the title, and the other underhand stuff you think you are qualified to do in the name of "good". So yes, we are not the same. If you really think you can give me a bad name from the experience here at physforum, be my guest. I have the utmost faith in ordinary everyday normal people to actually tell you where to get off sunshine.
I'm looking forward to plenty of disagreement from those I will end up respecting because they show they know what they are talking about. I don't respect you.
PS...Grumpy and you were banned because you were rude nasty little shites, that makes my behavior here and at B4N a poor second.
And lastly, I consider myself a lover a science, as people that know me know too well. So forgive me if I stick the proverbial finger right up your nose on that one.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 29 2009, 07:26 AM)
Bottom line is that Occidental isn't qualified and I'm looking for someone that is qualified, has a deep understand of the kind of data I'm sharing, and isn't just after some ego buzz on some forum.
Ummm, ask almost any other poster who remembers you from your days as Boneidol and you'll be told that I've consistently demonstrated a better grasp of both musical theory and mathematics than you, so I'm absolutely qualified to discuss your book.
So why do you dismiss everything I say about it?
Ummm, ask almost any other poster who remembers you from your days as Boneidol and you'll be told that I've consistently demonstrated a better grasp of both musical theory and mathematics than you, so I'm absolutely qualified to discuss your book.
So why do you dismiss everything I say about it?
QUOTE (rpenner+)
However, instead of a demonstration of value or of even evidence of a well-thought-out campaign to return to the common brotherhood of Man, we get more bile and a telling lack of value. Given this record, what should a fair moderator do?
Ban him permanently and request that Neutron block his IP address.
1. He's proven himself to be a disruptive influence time after time, and has never contributed anything of note to this forum. Look at the way he's derailed even this thread, despite the fact that he nominally came to the defense of the OP.
2. He failed to deliver on your request for an essay. His response numbered less than 150 words, and consisted entirely of telling off Occidental, lying about me (and thus establishing without doubt that he is the multiply-banned user known as boneidol/dibedy/squeeze/mickderry/mirrorman/etc) and whining about people on this forum. He never once even hinted at anything which could be construed as even an attempt to justify who he shouldn't be purged.
3. Every time he's merely banned permanently, he simply creates a new handle and engages in the same self-righteous 'crusade', simply banning him has no effect but to give the rest of us a few days to a few weeks' respite.
Ban him permanently and request that Neutron block his IP address.
1. He's proven himself to be a disruptive influence time after time, and has never contributed anything of note to this forum. Look at the way he's derailed even this thread, despite the fact that he nominally came to the defense of the OP.
2. He failed to deliver on your request for an essay. His response numbered less than 150 words, and consisted entirely of telling off Occidental, lying about me (and thus establishing without doubt that he is the multiply-banned user known as boneidol/dibedy/squeeze/mickderry/mirrorman/etc) and whining about people on this forum. He never once even hinted at anything which could be construed as even an attempt to justify who he shouldn't be purged.
3. Every time he's merely banned permanently, he simply creates a new handle and engages in the same self-righteous 'crusade', simply banning him has no effect but to give the rest of us a few days to a few weeks' respite.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 30 2009, 12:52 AM)
Ummm, ask almost any other poster who remembers you from your days as Boneidol and you'll be told that I've consistently demonstrated a better grasp of both musical theory and mathematics than you, so I'm absolutely qualified to discuss your book.
So why do you dismiss everything I say about it?
So why do you dismiss everything I say about it?
QUOTE (rpenner+)
However, instead of a demonstration of value or of even evidence of a well-thought-out campaign to return to the common brotherhood of Man, we get more bile and a telling lack of value. Given this record, what should a fair moderator do?
Ban him permanently and request that Neutron block his IP address.
1. He's proven himself to be a disruptive influence time after time, and has never contributed anything of note to this forum. Look at the way he's derailed even this thread, despite the fact that he nominally came to the defense of the OP.
2. He failed to deliver on your request for an essay. His response numbered less than 150 words, and consisted entirely of telling off Occidental, lying about me (and thus establishing without doubt that he is the multiply-banned user known as boneidol/dibedy/squeeze/mickderry/mirrorman/etc) and whining about people on this forum. He never once even hinted at anything which could be construed as even an attempt to justify who he shouldn't be purged.
3. Every time he's merely banned permanently, he simply creates a new handle and engages in the same self-righteous 'crusade', simply banning him has no effect but to give the rest of us a few days to a few weeks' respite.
You're another fake Mpants. You couldn't even spell the correct formula for the Melodic Minor scale, and used your weight around here to make it seem you were in the right, and got your little buddies to back you up. IS THIS HOW SCIENCE IS DONE????????????????????
Tell you what, Rpenner seems like a very intelligent human. I'll find the post where you provided the wrong spelling for the Melodic minor, and then went on to blatantly deny that you had. Rpenner seems like he knows enough to confirm that you had. Or would that not be to this forum's liking?
I wouldn't discuss music with you if you were the last busker in Soho.
Grow a shorter nose BDW-Pants.
Ban him permanently and request that Neutron block his IP address.
1. He's proven himself to be a disruptive influence time after time, and has never contributed anything of note to this forum. Look at the way he's derailed even this thread, despite the fact that he nominally came to the defense of the OP.
2. He failed to deliver on your request for an essay. His response numbered less than 150 words, and consisted entirely of telling off Occidental, lying about me (and thus establishing without doubt that he is the multiply-banned user known as boneidol/dibedy/squeeze/mickderry/mirrorman/etc) and whining about people on this forum. He never once even hinted at anything which could be construed as even an attempt to justify who he shouldn't be purged.
3. Every time he's merely banned permanently, he simply creates a new handle and engages in the same self-righteous 'crusade', simply banning him has no effect but to give the rest of us a few days to a few weeks' respite.
You're another fake Mpants. You couldn't even spell the correct formula for the Melodic Minor scale, and used your weight around here to make it seem you were in the right, and got your little buddies to back you up. IS THIS HOW SCIENCE IS DONE????????????????????
Tell you what, Rpenner seems like a very intelligent human. I'll find the post where you provided the wrong spelling for the Melodic minor, and then went on to blatantly deny that you had. Rpenner seems like he knows enough to confirm that you had. Or would that not be to this forum's liking?
I wouldn't discuss music with you if you were the last busker in Soho.
Grow a shorter nose BDW-Pants.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 29 2009, 08:00 PM)
You're another fake Mpants. You couldn't even spell the correct formula for the Melodic Minor scale, and used your weight around here to make it seem you were in the right, and got your little buddies to back you up.
There you go, lying through your teeth again.
First off, I didn't use my weight for anything. People volunteered to come in on my side of the debate because they felt I was right. It's not my fault you can't get any support from others around here, and I can.
As for the whole melodic minor thing, here, I'll provide a link to where I said it.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=369304
Now, if rpenner is so inclined, he can follow the argument. I wonder if he'll pick up on the fact that you continually misidentified the jazz minor as the melodic minor (it's a variation with the same descending intervals as ascending, and it's what you kept calling the melodic minor), or if he'll pick up on your complete misunderstanding of the concept of retrograde inversion, or on your claims to have produced a new, octave-repeating scale in a 12 tone octave, or on your claims of when retrograde inversion and tonal inversion (which you continually mislabel as 'mirroring') were invented and by whom.
What do you think? Will he notice those things, or is he musically illiterate enough not to? Trippy caught onto at least one of your errors, and he has no musical education at all...
Find me even one place where I claimed to be doing science.
Find me even one place where I claimed to be doing science.
Tell you what, Rpenner seems like a very intelligent human. I'll find the post where you provided the wrong spelling for the Melodic minor, and then went on to blatantly deny that you had.
Go ahead, it's just above in this very post. Of course, it didn't happen the way you claim it did, and anyone who cares (I honestly doubt if rpenner does) can see that you're lying through your teeth right now.
I know. Likely because I know more than you about it, and am not too humble to rub it in your face when you pretend otherwise.
See, the thing is that if you'd just man up when you mess up, admit your mistakes, and stop this idiotic crusade, I'd be much nicer to you. I wouldn't point out your every fallacy, hypocrisy and idiocy. I'd let minor mistakes slide, because there's no point in pissing you off, if you're a decent guy.
But you're not. You're an insufferable buffoon who lies like he was allergic to the truth in order to pass judgement on people you've never even met, and you're an idiot too, so I'll always be rude to you.
There you go, lying through your teeth again.
First off, I didn't use my weight for anything. People volunteered to come in on my side of the debate because they felt I was right. It's not my fault you can't get any support from others around here, and I can.
As for the whole melodic minor thing, here, I'll provide a link to where I said it.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=369304
Now, if rpenner is so inclined, he can follow the argument. I wonder if he'll pick up on the fact that you continually misidentified the jazz minor as the melodic minor (it's a variation with the same descending intervals as ascending, and it's what you kept calling the melodic minor), or if he'll pick up on your complete misunderstanding of the concept of retrograde inversion, or on your claims to have produced a new, octave-repeating scale in a 12 tone octave, or on your claims of when retrograde inversion and tonal inversion (which you continually mislabel as 'mirroring') were invented and by whom.
What do you think? Will he notice those things, or is he musically illiterate enough not to? Trippy caught onto at least one of your errors, and he has no musical education at all...
QUOTE
IS THIS HOW SCIENCE IS DONE????????????????????
Find me even one place where I claimed to be doing science.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| IS THIS HOW SCIENCE IS DONE???????????????????? |
Find me even one place where I claimed to be doing science.
Tell you what, Rpenner seems like a very intelligent human. I'll find the post where you provided the wrong spelling for the Melodic minor, and then went on to blatantly deny that you had.
Go ahead, it's just above in this very post. Of course, it didn't happen the way you claim it did, and anyone who cares (I honestly doubt if rpenner does) can see that you're lying through your teeth right now.
QUOTE
I wouldn't discuss music with you if you were the last busker in Soho.
I know. Likely because I know more than you about it, and am not too humble to rub it in your face when you pretend otherwise.
See, the thing is that if you'd just man up when you mess up, admit your mistakes, and stop this idiotic crusade, I'd be much nicer to you. I wouldn't point out your every fallacy, hypocrisy and idiocy. I'd let minor mistakes slide, because there's no point in pissing you off, if you're a decent guy.
But you're not. You're an insufferable buffoon who lies like he was allergic to the truth in order to pass judgement on people you've never even met, and you're an idiot too, so I'll always be rude to you.
Well... that was odd.
My sister teaches classical music... but I don't have a musical bone in my whole body.
However...
I would really have to see any kind of serious content from Toby before I could say he can hold a candle to "Crusher jodhpurs" (took me a while to come up with a new version for MjolnirPants).
So far it's just a long litany of complaints.
Is that it?
My sister teaches classical music... but I don't have a musical bone in my whole body.
However...
I would really have to see any kind of serious content from Toby before I could say he can hold a candle to "Crusher jodhpurs" (took me a while to come up with a new version for MjolnirPants).
So far it's just a long litany of complaints.
Is that it?
Would anyone would be interested in auditioning for the parts of Toto and/or an Uncommonly Brave Lion?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 30 2009, 04:20 AM)
There you go, lying through your teeth again.
First off, I didn't use my weight for anything. People volunteered to come in on my side of the debate because they felt I was right. It's not my fault you can't get any support from others around here, and I can.
As for the whole melodic minor thing, here, I'll provide a link to where I said it.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=369304
Now, if rpenner is so inclined, he can follow the argument. I wonder if he'll pick up on the fact that you continually misidentified the jazz minor as the melodic minor (it's a variation with the same descending intervals as ascending, and it's what you kept calling the melodic minor), or if he'll pick up on your complete misunderstanding of the concept of retrograde inversion, or on your claims to have produced a new, octave-repeating scale in a 12 tone octave, or on your claims of when retrograde inversion and tonal inversion (which you continually mislabel as 'mirroring') were invented and by whom.
What do you think? Will he notice those things, or is he musically illiterate enough not to? Trippy caught onto at least one of your errors, and he has no musical education at all...
Find me even one place where I claimed to be doing science.
Go ahead, it's just above in this very post. Of course, it didn't happen the way you claim it did, and anyone who cares (I honestly doubt if rpenner does) can see that you're lying through your teeth right now.
I know. Likely because I know more than you about it, and am not too humble to rub it in your face when you pretend otherwise.
See, the thing is that if you'd just man up when you mess up, admit your mistakes, and stop this idiotic crusade, I'd be much nicer to you. I wouldn't point out your every fallacy, hypocrisy and idiocy. I'd let minor mistakes slide, because there's no point in pissing you off, if you're a decent guy.
But you're not. You're an insufferable buffoon who lies like he was allergic to the truth in order to pass judgement on people you've never even met, and you're an idiot too, so I'll always be rude to you.
The only line I need from that post is where you said this:
.............The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd)............
So maybe Rob would like to get his sister to confirm that I was right when I told Mpants that that wasn't the formula for the melodic minor, but was actually the formula for the Harmonic minor.
So it has nothing to do with "jazz Minor" which I'm familiar with. Every music book, and every internet link on music that gives the spelling of these formulas will confirm me as right.
The next thirty posts from that point was you stubbornly denying what I was saying, Trippy chipping in that he had some links where it could be confirmed you were right (but of course wasn't supplying the links), theDoc, Grumpy and can't remember who else confirming that you were right. But actually you made an error, refused to correct it, and used that to stiffle any real discussion that may have ensued. So, as far as I'm concerned you're a waste of time from now on. And it is no great privilage to have a bunch of dodgy personalities confirming each other's scams.
And that sums up why you have been a dissapointment. You go on about integrity, but all you're about is lording it over the people whenever you can.
Tell you what Mpants, put your answer up in the homework section here. Get all the young students to use your spelling of the melodic minor from now on.
First off, I didn't use my weight for anything. People volunteered to come in on my side of the debate because they felt I was right. It's not my fault you can't get any support from others around here, and I can.
As for the whole melodic minor thing, here, I'll provide a link to where I said it.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=369304
Now, if rpenner is so inclined, he can follow the argument. I wonder if he'll pick up on the fact that you continually misidentified the jazz minor as the melodic minor (it's a variation with the same descending intervals as ascending, and it's what you kept calling the melodic minor), or if he'll pick up on your complete misunderstanding of the concept of retrograde inversion, or on your claims to have produced a new, octave-repeating scale in a 12 tone octave, or on your claims of when retrograde inversion and tonal inversion (which you continually mislabel as 'mirroring') were invented and by whom.
What do you think? Will he notice those things, or is he musically illiterate enough not to? Trippy caught onto at least one of your errors, and he has no musical education at all...
Find me even one place where I claimed to be doing science.
Go ahead, it's just above in this very post. Of course, it didn't happen the way you claim it did, and anyone who cares (I honestly doubt if rpenner does) can see that you're lying through your teeth right now.
I know. Likely because I know more than you about it, and am not too humble to rub it in your face when you pretend otherwise.
See, the thing is that if you'd just man up when you mess up, admit your mistakes, and stop this idiotic crusade, I'd be much nicer to you. I wouldn't point out your every fallacy, hypocrisy and idiocy. I'd let minor mistakes slide, because there's no point in pissing you off, if you're a decent guy.
But you're not. You're an insufferable buffoon who lies like he was allergic to the truth in order to pass judgement on people you've never even met, and you're an idiot too, so I'll always be rude to you.
The only line I need from that post is where you said this:
.............The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd)............
So maybe Rob would like to get his sister to confirm that I was right when I told Mpants that that wasn't the formula for the melodic minor, but was actually the formula for the Harmonic minor.
So it has nothing to do with "jazz Minor" which I'm familiar with. Every music book, and every internet link on music that gives the spelling of these formulas will confirm me as right.
The next thirty posts from that point was you stubbornly denying what I was saying, Trippy chipping in that he had some links where it could be confirmed you were right (but of course wasn't supplying the links), theDoc, Grumpy and can't remember who else confirming that you were right. But actually you made an error, refused to correct it, and used that to stiffle any real discussion that may have ensued. So, as far as I'm concerned you're a waste of time from now on. And it is no great privilage to have a bunch of dodgy personalities confirming each other's scams.
And that sums up why you have been a dissapointment. You go on about integrity, but all you're about is lording it over the people whenever you can.
Tell you what Mpants, put your answer up in the homework section here. Get all the young students to use your spelling of the melodic minor from now on.
So whats with all the screennames, Lui? Is it so you can chase people around and point out how much you dont like them? Why should a poster that was REPEATEDLY banned for being OFFENSIVE get to come back under a new screen name, with an attitude more foul than the last? All you do is spew insults and degrade the people on this forum, say how much you hate this place, and say youre leaving. Then you come back -again and again and again.
Youre a habitual liar. Your post history over more than ten screennames with all your denials and claims about who you are proves it. YOU have no credibility. End of story.
And thats before we even open your book to look at your creationist bullexcrement. Go over to answersingenesis.com if you want to be received as a Savior. But get it through your head that you will never be viewed as a savior here with that intelligent design crap youre pushing. You cant even define the terms and expressions you use. In fact, you cant even discuss the terms and expressions you use without launching into a smokescreen of diversionary lies to hide the fact that your work is total mystic crap.
Youre a very angry and confused mystic, LuiDiMartino.
Youre a habitual liar. Your post history over more than ten screennames with all your denials and claims about who you are proves it. YOU have no credibility. End of story.
And thats before we even open your book to look at your creationist bullexcrement. Go over to answersingenesis.com if you want to be received as a Savior. But get it through your head that you will never be viewed as a savior here with that intelligent design crap youre pushing. You cant even define the terms and expressions you use. In fact, you cant even discuss the terms and expressions you use without launching into a smokescreen of diversionary lies to hide the fact that your work is total mystic crap.
Youre a very angry and confused mystic, LuiDiMartino.
QUOTE (occidental+May 30 2009, 02:05 PM)
So whats with all the screennames, Lui? Is it so you can chase people around and point out how much you dont like them? Why should a poster that was REPEATEDLY banned for being OFFENSIVE get to come back under a new screen name, with an attitude more foul than the last? All you do is spew insults and degrade the people on this forum, say how much you hate this place, and say youre leaving. Then you come back -again and again and again.
Youre a habitual liar. Your post history over more than ten screennames with all your denials and claims about who you are proves it. YOU have no credibility. End of story.
And thats before we even open your book to look at your creationist bullexcrement. Go over to answersingenesis.com if you want to be received as a Savior. But get it through your head that you will never be viewed as a savior here with that intelligent design crap youre pushing. You cant even define the terms and expressions you use. In fact, you cant even discuss the terms and expressions you use without launching into a smokescreen of diversionary lies to hide the fact that your work is total mystic crap.
Youre a very angry and confused mystic, LuiDiMartino.
You spew the same old crap, but you never touch on the fact you can't answer very very basic music theory questions, and so your opinion is totally worthless.
I'd like not to have to keep responding to a tosser like you, but then I also don't see why you should get away with your pathetic mind games.
Youre a habitual liar. Your post history over more than ten screennames with all your denials and claims about who you are proves it. YOU have no credibility. End of story.
And thats before we even open your book to look at your creationist bullexcrement. Go over to answersingenesis.com if you want to be received as a Savior. But get it through your head that you will never be viewed as a savior here with that intelligent design crap youre pushing. You cant even define the terms and expressions you use. In fact, you cant even discuss the terms and expressions you use without launching into a smokescreen of diversionary lies to hide the fact that your work is total mystic crap.
Youre a very angry and confused mystic, LuiDiMartino.
You spew the same old crap, but you never touch on the fact you can't answer very very basic music theory questions, and so your opinion is totally worthless.
I'd like not to have to keep responding to a tosser like you, but then I also don't see why you should get away with your pathetic mind games.
Smokescreen.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 30 2009, 07:39 AM)
The only line I need from that post is where you said this:
.............The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd)............
So you're admitting to quote mining my post in order to support your position? Good. It's good to admit your wrongdoings.
Liu... I said in the very post I said that last line in that it was the harmonic minor. For all we know, you were just parroting back what I'd already told you.
Liu... I said in the very post I said that last line in that it was the harmonic minor. For all we know, you were just parroting back what I'd already told you.
So it has nothing to do with "jazz Minor" which I'm familiar with.
Obviously, you kept putting it's formula in your posts, although you kept calling it the melodic minor...
Really? Here's wikipedia:
Really? Here's wikipedia:The interval between the sixth and seventh degrees of this scale (in this case F and G♯) is a minor third/augmented second. While some composers, notably Mozart, have used this interval to advantage in melodic composition, other composers, having felt it to be an awkward leap, particularly in vocal music, considered a whole step between these two scale degrees more conducive to smooth melody writing, so either the subtonic seventh was used or the sixth scale degree raised. Traditionally, music theorists have called these two options the ascending melodic (also known as heptatonia seconda) and descending melodic minor scales, the ascending being identical in its upper tetrachord to the major scale, and the descending being simply the natural minor: A B C D E F♯ G♯ A' and then A' G F E D C B A respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_scale
How's that foot taste, Liu?
Because you were lying. Of course I deny lies about me.
Because you were lying. Of course I deny lies about me.
Trippy chipping in that he had some links where it could be confirmed you were right (but of course wasn't supplying the links),
He offered to, in exchange for the same considerations from you that I was asking for. You declined, so don't blame him.
Hehe
Hehe
But actually you made an error, refused to correct it, and used that to stiffle any real discussion that may have ensued.
You were the one who kept (and keeps) bringing it up, stifling any other discussion in favor of this stupid rehashing.
More abuse, Liu? I thought you didn't approve of abusing people online?
More abuse, Liu? I thought you didn't approve of abusing people online?
Tell you what Mpants, put your answer up in the homework section here. Get all the young students to use your spelling of the melodic minor from now on.
There is no "spelling", there is only a "formula" or "intervals". "Spelling" is an amateur's vocabulary, not that of an educated musician.
Oh, and my formula has two forms: one for ascending and one for descending.
.............The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd)............
So you're admitting to quote mining my post in order to support your position? Good. It's good to admit your wrongdoings.
QUOTE
So maybe Rob would like to get his sister to confirm that I was right when I told Mpants that that wasn't the formula for the melodic minor, but was actually the formula for the Harmonic minor.
Liu... I said in the very post I said that last line in that it was the harmonic minor. For all we know, you were just parroting back what I'd already told you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So maybe Rob would like to get his sister to confirm that I was right when I told Mpants that that wasn't the formula for the melodic minor, but was actually the formula for the Harmonic minor. |
Liu... I said in the very post I said that last line in that it was the harmonic minor. For all we know, you were just parroting back what I'd already told you.
So it has nothing to do with "jazz Minor" which I'm familiar with.
Obviously, you kept putting it's formula in your posts, although you kept calling it the melodic minor...
QUOTE
Every music book, and every internet link on music that gives the spelling of these formulas will confirm me as right.
Really? Here's wikipedia:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Every music book, and every internet link on music that gives the spelling of these formulas will confirm me as right. |
Really? Here's wikipedia:The interval between the sixth and seventh degrees of this scale (in this case F and G♯) is a minor third/augmented second. While some composers, notably Mozart, have used this interval to advantage in melodic composition, other composers, having felt it to be an awkward leap, particularly in vocal music, considered a whole step between these two scale degrees more conducive to smooth melody writing, so either the subtonic seventh was used or the sixth scale degree raised. Traditionally, music theorists have called these two options the ascending melodic (also known as heptatonia seconda) and descending melodic minor scales, the ascending being identical in its upper tetrachord to the major scale, and the descending being simply the natural minor: A B C D E F♯ G♯ A' and then A' G F E D C B A respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_scale
How's that foot taste, Liu?
QUOTE
The next thirty posts from that point was you stubbornly denying what I was saying,
Because you were lying. Of course I deny lies about me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The next thirty posts from that point was you stubbornly denying what I was saying, |
Because you were lying. Of course I deny lies about me.
Trippy chipping in that he had some links where it could be confirmed you were right (but of course wasn't supplying the links),
He offered to, in exchange for the same considerations from you that I was asking for. You declined, so don't blame him.
QUOTE
theDoc, Grumpy and can't remember who else confirming that you were right.
Hehe
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| theDoc, Grumpy and can't remember who else confirming that you were right. |
Hehe
But actually you made an error, refused to correct it, and used that to stiffle any real discussion that may have ensued.
You were the one who kept (and keeps) bringing it up, stifling any other discussion in favor of this stupid rehashing.
QUOTE
So, as far as I'm concerned you're a waste of time from now on. And it is no great privilage to have a bunch of dodgy personalities confirming each other's scams.
More abuse, Liu? I thought you didn't approve of abusing people online?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So, as far as I'm concerned you're a waste of time from now on. And it is no great privilage to have a bunch of dodgy personalities confirming each other's scams. |
More abuse, Liu? I thought you didn't approve of abusing people online?
Tell you what Mpants, put your answer up in the homework section here. Get all the young students to use your spelling of the melodic minor from now on.
There is no "spelling", there is only a "formula" or "intervals". "Spelling" is an amateur's vocabulary, not that of an educated musician.
Oh, and my formula has two forms: one for ascending and one for descending.
QUOTE (rpenner+)
Capt. Hammer-Pants?
Hehehe.
A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do...
Hehehe.
A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 30 2009, 06:58 PM)
So you're admitting to quote mining my post in order to support your position? Good. It's good to admit your wrongdoings.
Liu... I said in the very post I said that last line in that it was the harmonic minor. For all we know, you were just parroting back what I'd already told you.
Obviously, you kept putting it's formula in your posts, although you kept calling it the melodic minor...
Really? Here's wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_scale
How's that foot taste, Liu?
Because you were lying. Of course I deny lies about me.
He offered to, in exchange for the same considerations from you that I was asking for. You declined, so don't blame him.
Hehe
You were the one who kept (and keeps) bringing it up, stifling any other discussion in favor of this stupid rehashing.
More abuse, Liu? I thought you didn't approve of abusing people online?
There is no "spelling", there is only a "formula" or "intervals". "Spelling" is an amateur's vocabulary, not that of an educated musician.
Oh, and my formula has two forms: one for ascending and one for descending.
Liu... I said in the very post I said that last line in that it was the harmonic minor. For all we know, you were just parroting back what I'd already told you.
Obviously, you kept putting it's formula in your posts, although you kept calling it the melodic minor...
Really? Here's wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_scale
How's that foot taste, Liu?
Because you were lying. Of course I deny lies about me.
He offered to, in exchange for the same considerations from you that I was asking for. You declined, so don't blame him.
Hehe
You were the one who kept (and keeps) bringing it up, stifling any other discussion in favor of this stupid rehashing.
More abuse, Liu? I thought you didn't approve of abusing people online?
There is no "spelling", there is only a "formula" or "intervals". "Spelling" is an amateur's vocabulary, not that of an educated musician.
Oh, and my formula has two forms: one for ascending and one for descending.
QUOTE (rpenner+)
Capt. Hammer-Pants?
Hehehe.
A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do...
You made an error, and you thought you were bigger than science by playing pathetic little games with others. That's you MP. No doubt that you and other prima donnas like Occidental will always have a home here. The rest of us with something to offer will go searching for those with real integrity in science in order to do our duty and report what we find.
You're running out of people to pick on though.
You didn't live up to your own standard MP. You're just a fake on this one. I've never seen a bigger waste of a 180 IQ as I have witnessed in your behavior.
For any music student interested , Mpants is completely mistaken in his spelling of the Melodic Minor. When he says this:
............The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd)............
This is the formula for the Harmonic minor. Put a root note to the formula and here is what you get:
A B C D E F G# A
This is Harmonic Minor.
So why he should send in a link that shows he is wrong, as if it actually shows him right, is a bit strange.
In his link the correct spelling of melodic minor is given, by the notes
A B C D E F# G# A
As you can see this doesn't match up with his spelling. Consider the rest of his speil as a way of trying to confuse the issue. He got it wrong, and therefore was able to keep on with the mind game at physforum that they are the "good guys" and we are the cranks. Pitiful eh? And to think I was hoping for a fukking moderator to sort out this childish mind game stuff. Oh well, no biggie.
What I meant by the comment you have highlighted is that information is seen to swap mirror sides continually at one specific axis point (4.5).
Does that hold true for East Indian music as well?
Hehehe.
A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do...
You made an error, and you thought you were bigger than science by playing pathetic little games with others. That's you MP. No doubt that you and other prima donnas like Occidental will always have a home here. The rest of us with something to offer will go searching for those with real integrity in science in order to do our duty and report what we find.
You're running out of people to pick on though.
You didn't live up to your own standard MP. You're just a fake on this one. I've never seen a bigger waste of a 180 IQ as I have witnessed in your behavior.
For any music student interested , Mpants is completely mistaken in his spelling of the Melodic Minor. When he says this:
............The formula for a melodic minor scale is W H W W H W* H (W* is an augmented 2nd)............
This is the formula for the Harmonic minor. Put a root note to the formula and here is what you get:
A B C D E F G# A
This is Harmonic Minor.
So why he should send in a link that shows he is wrong, as if it actually shows him right, is a bit strange.
In his link the correct spelling of melodic minor is given, by the notes
A B C D E F# G# A
As you can see this doesn't match up with his spelling. Consider the rest of his speil as a way of trying to confuse the issue. He got it wrong, and therefore was able to keep on with the mind game at physforum that they are the "good guys" and we are the cranks. Pitiful eh? And to think I was hoping for a fukking moderator to sort out this childish mind game stuff. Oh well, no biggie.
Doesn't all this BS just confirm that the musical scales we currently use are all products of the human mind. WE developed these scales - not Mother Nature. Therefore any patterns we find there are due to the ratios of the notes which WE selected.
I'll say it again... you are just finding Easter Eggs that we hid from ourselves a long time ago.
I'll say it again... you are just finding Easter Eggs that we hid from ourselves a long time ago.
And also touchs on why Bollywood music sounds so strange to western ears.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 30 2009, 03:18 PM)
You made an error, and you thought you were bigger than science by playing pathetic little games with others...
blah blah blah, more of the same bullshit and lies...
Oh shut up and move on you stupid troll. Don't you ever get sick of bitching about the same bullshit excuse for stalking me?
Jesus H, Christ, you're like an autistic kid who's told he can't have some toy....
You're full of ***, your whole argument is based on lies, excuses, and ignoring your own screwups, and in case you haven't noticed, nobody cares, dumbass!
blah blah blah, more of the same bullshit and lies...
Oh shut up and move on you stupid troll. Don't you ever get sick of bitching about the same bullshit excuse for stalking me?
Jesus H, Christ, you're like an autistic kid who's told he can't have some toy....
You're full of ***, your whole argument is based on lies, excuses, and ignoring your own screwups, and in case you haven't noticed, nobody cares, dumbass!
QUOTE (gmilam+May 30 2009, 09:00 PM)
Doesn't all this BS just confirm that the musical scales we currently use are all products of the human mind. WE developed these scales - not Mother Nature. Therefore any patterns we find there are due to the ratios of the notes which WE selected.
I'll say it again... you are just finding Easter Eggs that we hid from ourselves a long time ago.
Sure gmilam, which makes it ok for your bud Mpants to tell absolute lies when he feels like it? Is that your idea of getting on? You being a musician , I find dissappointing that you couldn't correct him. Because we all know what happened after he pulled that little deceitful stroke.
So you stfu guys. You may not care, but we in the outside world look down on silly little kids taking over a forum with their silly little games.
And for you information Gmilam, the whole point of deciding to bring this "mirror structure" to the attention of others is that it doesn't just occur within music scales. It occurs within natural overtones, Fibonacci numbers and dozens of other examples. It is intrinsic. It won't go away because a select few forum huggers can't be bothered to entertain it, due to other priorities , like bashing all the cranks. Get over yourselves dudes.
What makes you think I haven't moved on MurkyPants, ya hammer horror? Your whole "argument" is based on a few pals that don't care if you're right or not, a couple of musos that wouldn't dare back me against you, and a silly forum that can't get its act together. How about some integrity after all? Think you can really manage that ya little clever clot idiot?
I'll say it again... you are just finding Easter Eggs that we hid from ourselves a long time ago.
Sure gmilam, which makes it ok for your bud Mpants to tell absolute lies when he feels like it? Is that your idea of getting on? You being a musician , I find dissappointing that you couldn't correct him. Because we all know what happened after he pulled that little deceitful stroke.
So you stfu guys. You may not care, but we in the outside world look down on silly little kids taking over a forum with their silly little games.
And for you information Gmilam, the whole point of deciding to bring this "mirror structure" to the attention of others is that it doesn't just occur within music scales. It occurs within natural overtones, Fibonacci numbers and dozens of other examples. It is intrinsic. It won't go away because a select few forum huggers can't be bothered to entertain it, due to other priorities , like bashing all the cranks. Get over yourselves dudes.
What makes you think I haven't moved on MurkyPants, ya hammer horror? Your whole "argument" is based on a few pals that don't care if you're right or not, a couple of musos that wouldn't dare back me against you, and a silly forum that can't get its act together. How about some integrity after all? Think you can really manage that ya little clever clot idiot?
Lui
All we really care about is seeing your lying arse kicked to the curb once more, hopefully for good this time.
Grumpy
All we really care about is seeing your lying arse kicked to the curb once more, hopefully for good this time.
Grumpy
OK... here's a way to settle the argument once and for all.
Toby
What is your argument... exactly?
I don't want to hear what Mjolnirpants did.. what he didn't do, etc.. blah blah blah.
What is your argument specifically and spelled out. Fresh, direct from you.
All I hear from you so far is insults, whining and dismissals. It's not content.. in fact it's anti-content.
Post your argument and let's see if you are right.
Toby
What is your argument... exactly?
I don't want to hear what Mjolnirpants did.. what he didn't do, etc.. blah blah blah.
What is your argument specifically and spelled out. Fresh, direct from you.
All I hear from you so far is insults, whining and dismissals. It's not content.. in fact it's anti-content.
Post your argument and let's see if you are right.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 31 2009, 12:15 AM)
OK... here's a way to settle the argument once and for all.
Toby
What is your argument... exactly?
I don't want to hear what Mjolnirpants did.. what he didn't do, etc.. blah blah blah.
What is your argument specifically and spelled out. Fresh, direct from you.
All I hear from you so far is insults, whining and dismissals. It's not content.. in fact it's anti-content.
Post your argument and let's see if you are right.
I've put together a more concise version of my book, with a new introduction, which will be online as soon as I finish off a few more animations that go with it.
****************************************************************
The purpose of this book is to convey the results obtained from symmetrical reflection of various formulas, both music and number based. Once a music scale has been cycled, and the mirror cycle has also been exposed, there is a focus on the symmetrical relationships between the various positions. The law of position and the clockwise/anti-clockwise flows go on to show that there is a mirror side that is not an isolated system, but one that integrates its own information with the information this side of the mirror. Both sides of these mirrored formulas will be seen to need each other in order to function as a whole unit.
The tri-tone relationships within any music scale will also be focused on. It will be seen that these tri-tone positions are catalyst for swapping information over to the other side of the mirror. The interplay that exists between two tri-tones within the major scale system will be exposed. A mirror structure is built on the logic of the swapping-over process at the tri-tones. This same mirror structure is then shown to occur in many ways using music theory and also natural number cycles, including natural overtones and the Fibonacci number sequences. The exposed mirror structure itself performs the role of uniting both sides of the mirror into one whole unit of information.
In effect, the results shown in the proceeding chapters have yet to be pondered in the way shown, and the obvious question is can we exploit this information in various ways? Therefore at the end of the book there is speculation on how this mirror information exposed can be utilized. Does it add another angle to the idea of a holographic universe, for example? Is it another useful insight into the nature of consciousness itself? Can it help thinkers concoct various experiments in order to
travel in and out of a mirror universe? Teleportation? String theory?
Information contained within various grids composed of symmetrically reflected music and number formulas will be seen to travel in and out of the mirror sides, and one asks if setting up or mimicking the results of these dual grids of frequency information can lead to a real penetration into the mirror side, in a way that will not be based on having to create masses of energy in order to travel vast distances into space. In other words do universes exist in mirror pairs that share information, and can we “ride” on that wave as it enters the mirror side at one specific axis point?
There is much speculation about creating warp speeds in order to travel through space. But is there a shorter way, as shown within the results of dual formula grids, and how the information interacts either side of the mirror? The reason such questions are asked in the first place is because of the nature of the dual cycles
of information being unearthed. With a little pondering, what at first seems extremely simple music and number cycles, one can perhaps see that the relationships unearthed can become applicable to natural process that are going on, both inside us and outside.
Of course in science there is a vast body of knowledge, built up and including many wonderful formulas. So why should simple information based on cycles have anything worthwhile to offer the science world? This is perhaps a question answerable by any scientist that takes the time to focus on the results in this book, and perhaps on pondering the results will see a relationship there with the many more apt scientific formulas that exists, or perhaps inspire a new science formula that describes reality. If there is found a cross-over from music theory/number cycles to science, then the book will have been a worthwhile venture.
********************************************
Constructive critcism always invited. Trollish scoffing always opposed.
On the comment that you hear insults form me, that is true. I've yet to match the volume of insults that somehow go unnoticed at this place, and have been "unnoticed" for at least two years.
Toby
What is your argument... exactly?
I don't want to hear what Mjolnirpants did.. what he didn't do, etc.. blah blah blah.
What is your argument specifically and spelled out. Fresh, direct from you.
All I hear from you so far is insults, whining and dismissals. It's not content.. in fact it's anti-content.
Post your argument and let's see if you are right.
I've put together a more concise version of my book, with a new introduction, which will be online as soon as I finish off a few more animations that go with it.
****************************************************************
The purpose of this book is to convey the results obtained from symmetrical reflection of various formulas, both music and number based. Once a music scale has been cycled, and the mirror cycle has also been exposed, there is a focus on the symmetrical relationships between the various positions. The law of position and the clockwise/anti-clockwise flows go on to show that there is a mirror side that is not an isolated system, but one that integrates its own information with the information this side of the mirror. Both sides of these mirrored formulas will be seen to need each other in order to function as a whole unit.
The tri-tone relationships within any music scale will also be focused on. It will be seen that these tri-tone positions are catalyst for swapping information over to the other side of the mirror. The interplay that exists between two tri-tones within the major scale system will be exposed. A mirror structure is built on the logic of the swapping-over process at the tri-tones. This same mirror structure is then shown to occur in many ways using music theory and also natural number cycles, including natural overtones and the Fibonacci number sequences. The exposed mirror structure itself performs the role of uniting both sides of the mirror into one whole unit of information.
In effect, the results shown in the proceeding chapters have yet to be pondered in the way shown, and the obvious question is can we exploit this information in various ways? Therefore at the end of the book there is speculation on how this mirror information exposed can be utilized. Does it add another angle to the idea of a holographic universe, for example? Is it another useful insight into the nature of consciousness itself? Can it help thinkers concoct various experiments in order to
travel in and out of a mirror universe? Teleportation? String theory?
Information contained within various grids composed of symmetrically reflected music and number formulas will be seen to travel in and out of the mirror sides, and one asks if setting up or mimicking the results of these dual grids of frequency information can lead to a real penetration into the mirror side, in a way that will not be based on having to create masses of energy in order to travel vast distances into space. In other words do universes exist in mirror pairs that share information, and can we “ride” on that wave as it enters the mirror side at one specific axis point?
There is much speculation about creating warp speeds in order to travel through space. But is there a shorter way, as shown within the results of dual formula grids, and how the information interacts either side of the mirror? The reason such questions are asked in the first place is because of the nature of the dual cycles
of information being unearthed. With a little pondering, what at first seems extremely simple music and number cycles, one can perhaps see that the relationships unearthed can become applicable to natural process that are going on, both inside us and outside.
Of course in science there is a vast body of knowledge, built up and including many wonderful formulas. So why should simple information based on cycles have anything worthwhile to offer the science world? This is perhaps a question answerable by any scientist that takes the time to focus on the results in this book, and perhaps on pondering the results will see a relationship there with the many more apt scientific formulas that exists, or perhaps inspire a new science formula that describes reality. If there is found a cross-over from music theory/number cycles to science, then the book will have been a worthwhile venture.
********************************************
Constructive critcism always invited. Trollish scoffing always opposed.
On the comment that you hear insults form me, that is true. I've yet to match the volume of insults that somehow go unnoticed at this place, and have been "unnoticed" for at least two years.
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 30 2009, 11:57 PM)
Lui
All we really care about is seeing your lying arse kicked to the curb once more, hopefully for good this time.
Grumpy
I see you as a corrupt mind Grumpy. You would be the first to complain if someone that didn't know anything about a particular subject started speiling on about it as if they knew. Heck, that's what most of the arguments here seem to be about, "you know-nothing so and so" etc.
I think you should permanently retire as you are obviously past your best, and are now doing no more than expressing grumpy old man sentiments to people with innovative minds and the desire to keep the process of discovery alive. You don't think a ban from a forum is going to put that kind of light out do you?
But yes, you obviously desire peace and quite (and a nice warm mug of cocoa by the bedside). Over to you moderator. It's been tremendously educational.
All we really care about is seeing your lying arse kicked to the curb once more, hopefully for good this time.
Grumpy
I see you as a corrupt mind Grumpy. You would be the first to complain if someone that didn't know anything about a particular subject started speiling on about it as if they knew. Heck, that's what most of the arguments here seem to be about, "you know-nothing so and so" etc.
I think you should permanently retire as you are obviously past your best, and are now doing no more than expressing grumpy old man sentiments to people with innovative minds and the desire to keep the process of discovery alive. You don't think a ban from a forum is going to put that kind of light out do you?
But yes, you obviously desire peace and quite (and a nice warm mug of cocoa by the bedside). Over to you moderator. It's been tremendously educational.
Hmmmm....
So far as I can tell then, your theory is that music is likened to numbers and formula and this is applicable to science.
Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?
1. Do you have actual math that applies to any physical process in a way that is not achieved otherwise?
2. Do you have any actual math to show that your theory applies to warp travel?
I don't have any desire to dispute your musical theory... I just wonder why you take the enormous leap from music to warp travel.
It sounds, on the face of it... well... silly.
So far as I can tell then, your theory is that music is likened to numbers and formula and this is applicable to science.
Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?
1. Do you have actual math that applies to any physical process in a way that is not achieved otherwise?
2. Do you have any actual math to show that your theory applies to warp travel?
I don't have any desire to dispute your musical theory... I just wonder why you take the enormous leap from music to warp travel.
It sounds, on the face of it... well... silly.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 31 2009, 01:47 AM)
Hmmmm....
So far as I can tell then, your theory is that music is likened to numbers and formula and this is applicable to science.
Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?
1. Do you have actual math that applies to any physical process in a way that is not achieved otherwise?
2. Do you have any actual math to show that your theory applies to warp travel?
I don't have any desire to dispute your musical theory... I just wonder why you take the enormous leap from music to warp travel.
It sounds, on the face of it... well... silly.
Once it is seen that information, based on frequency relationships does swap mirror sides at a consistently occurring axis point, why is it silly to attempt this same phenomena in a laboratry , with a real life Mode box , for example? How else is information teleported, if not by some knowledge of frequency? If there is an unused and verifiable mirror structure, why can't one learn to use it?
Also, I'm very specific about the idea that this phenomena doesn't apply to music making, but is a process that can be seen to occur in music cycles, according to position either side of two axis points. So what is found to occur in these cycles can be elevated to ranges far outside the audible, by using the law of octaves.
Music cycles are only one element relating to the appearance of this same mirror structure. Because it is so consistent is the reason that I became interested in studying it further.
So far as I can tell then, your theory is that music is likened to numbers and formula and this is applicable to science.
Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?
1. Do you have actual math that applies to any physical process in a way that is not achieved otherwise?
2. Do you have any actual math to show that your theory applies to warp travel?
I don't have any desire to dispute your musical theory... I just wonder why you take the enormous leap from music to warp travel.
It sounds, on the face of it... well... silly.
Once it is seen that information, based on frequency relationships does swap mirror sides at a consistently occurring axis point, why is it silly to attempt this same phenomena in a laboratry , with a real life Mode box , for example? How else is information teleported, if not by some knowledge of frequency? If there is an unused and verifiable mirror structure, why can't one learn to use it?
Also, I'm very specific about the idea that this phenomena doesn't apply to music making, but is a process that can be seen to occur in music cycles, according to position either side of two axis points. So what is found to occur in these cycles can be elevated to ranges far outside the audible, by using the law of octaves.
Music cycles are only one element relating to the appearance of this same mirror structure. Because it is so consistent is the reason that I became interested in studying it further.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 30 2009, 08:08 PM)
There is much speculation about creating warp speeds in order to travel through space.
"Warp speeds?"
That's f*cking awesome!
Ok, here's the constructive criticism: Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. "Warp speeds" is a concept from Star Trek, not one stemming from actual science.
However, there is a real theoretical construct often called a 'warp drive', although this does not produce speeds in excess of c. (c is the speed of light in a vacuum.) This is more properly known as an Alcubierre metric, after the man who first proposed it, physicist Miguel Alcubierre. This is theoretically produced by contracting the space in front of an object and expanding the space behind it. It has the effect of allowing a ship to travel a greater 'distance' in a given period of time than light could in 'flat' space. There is no local motion faster than c, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
While the Alcubierre metric isn't the only form of non-local FTL that might theoretically exist someday, it is the most popular. Another method which is similar in that it involves distortions of space-time, requires string theory to be accurate, and works using the same principles as the FTL expansion of the universe in the inflation period.
What this has to do with music and tonal inversion however, is entirely within your head.
If you want to know something about mainstream interest in advanced propulsion, including FTL ideas, read the the site below, which sheds light on the now defunct Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program, sponsored by NASA at Glenn Research Center.
Warp Drive, When?
"Warp speeds?"
That's f*cking awesome!
Ok, here's the constructive criticism: Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. "Warp speeds" is a concept from Star Trek, not one stemming from actual science.
However, there is a real theoretical construct often called a 'warp drive', although this does not produce speeds in excess of c. (c is the speed of light in a vacuum.) This is more properly known as an Alcubierre metric, after the man who first proposed it, physicist Miguel Alcubierre. This is theoretically produced by contracting the space in front of an object and expanding the space behind it. It has the effect of allowing a ship to travel a greater 'distance' in a given period of time than light could in 'flat' space. There is no local motion faster than c, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
While the Alcubierre metric isn't the only form of non-local FTL that might theoretically exist someday, it is the most popular. Another method which is similar in that it involves distortions of space-time, requires string theory to be accurate, and works using the same principles as the FTL expansion of the universe in the inflation period.
What this has to do with music and tonal inversion however, is entirely within your head.
If you want to know something about mainstream interest in advanced propulsion, including FTL ideas, read the the site below, which sheds light on the now defunct Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program, sponsored by NASA at Glenn Research Center.
Warp Drive, When?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 31 2009, 03:10 AM)
"Warp speeds?"
That's f*cking awesome!
Ok, here's the constructive criticism: Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. "Warp speeds" is a concept from Star Trek, not one stemming from actual science.
However, there is a real theoretical construct often called a 'warp drive', although this does not produce speeds in excess of c. (c is the speed of light in a vacuum.) This is more properly known as an Alcubierre metric, after the man who first proposed it, physicist Miguel Alcubierre. This is theoretically produced by contracting the space in front of an object and expanding the space behind it. It has the effect of allowing a ship to travel a greater 'distance' in a given period of time than light could in 'flat' space. There is no local motion faster than c, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
While the Alcubierre metric isn't the only form of non-local FTL that might theoretically exist someday, it is the most popular. Another method which is similar in that it involves distortions of space-time, requires string theory to be accurate, and works using the same principles as the FTL expansion of the universe in the inflation period.
What this has to do with music and tonal inversion however, is entirely within your head.
If you want to know something about mainstream interest in advanced propulsion, including FTL ideas, read the the site below, which sheds light on the now defunct Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program, sponsored by NASA at Glenn Research Center.
Warp Drive, When?
Actually mate, you come across as a typical individual not to share anything new with. You will grasp at whatever you came out of college learning. And also you keep trying to pin it down to "music", when I've made it clear it is to do with a particular strucure that may be utilized for various purposes. if you have not made it to the point where you can see that, then what constructive comments are you attempting to make?
Once I do make a scientist with a musical background aware of this structure, then I think we'll be talking to the right people who I hope will appreciate the experiments I have in mind in order to test the data and the likelihood of the structure doing exactly what it is seen to be doing in the grids involved.
What I meant by the comment you have highlighted is that information is seen to swap mirror sides continually at one specific axis point (4.5). If we can find a way to copy this kind of process using the structural mirror relationships established (that will work in any octave range), we may in fact bypass the need for having to create actual speed as such, and use a different principle based on universes relating to each other in mirror pairs, and to use the relationships based on various frequencies in order to manifest at another point on the mirror side, and back through the same axis on that side to manifest back to this side. But the dual manifestations should be like a zig zag effect, meaning we will appear at a different point in this universe. As I can advise on the proper set-up, a device needn't look like a bunch a big resonators, but can actually look like a small laser set up, contained in a small area.
So it has little to do with music. And it is only one idea.
That's f*cking awesome!
Ok, here's the constructive criticism: Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. "Warp speeds" is a concept from Star Trek, not one stemming from actual science.
However, there is a real theoretical construct often called a 'warp drive', although this does not produce speeds in excess of c. (c is the speed of light in a vacuum.) This is more properly known as an Alcubierre metric, after the man who first proposed it, physicist Miguel Alcubierre. This is theoretically produced by contracting the space in front of an object and expanding the space behind it. It has the effect of allowing a ship to travel a greater 'distance' in a given period of time than light could in 'flat' space. There is no local motion faster than c, however.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive
While the Alcubierre metric isn't the only form of non-local FTL that might theoretically exist someday, it is the most popular. Another method which is similar in that it involves distortions of space-time, requires string theory to be accurate, and works using the same principles as the FTL expansion of the universe in the inflation period.
What this has to do with music and tonal inversion however, is entirely within your head.
If you want to know something about mainstream interest in advanced propulsion, including FTL ideas, read the the site below, which sheds light on the now defunct Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program, sponsored by NASA at Glenn Research Center.
Warp Drive, When?
Actually mate, you come across as a typical individual not to share anything new with. You will grasp at whatever you came out of college learning. And also you keep trying to pin it down to "music", when I've made it clear it is to do with a particular strucure that may be utilized for various purposes. if you have not made it to the point where you can see that, then what constructive comments are you attempting to make?
Once I do make a scientist with a musical background aware of this structure, then I think we'll be talking to the right people who I hope will appreciate the experiments I have in mind in order to test the data and the likelihood of the structure doing exactly what it is seen to be doing in the grids involved.
What I meant by the comment you have highlighted is that information is seen to swap mirror sides continually at one specific axis point (4.5). If we can find a way to copy this kind of process using the structural mirror relationships established (that will work in any octave range), we may in fact bypass the need for having to create actual speed as such, and use a different principle based on universes relating to each other in mirror pairs, and to use the relationships based on various frequencies in order to manifest at another point on the mirror side, and back through the same axis on that side to manifest back to this side. But the dual manifestations should be like a zig zag effect, meaning we will appear at a different point in this universe. As I can advise on the proper set-up, a device needn't look like a bunch a big resonators, but can actually look like a small laser set up, contained in a small area.
So it has little to do with music. And it is only one idea.
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 31 2009, 01:13 PM)
What I meant by the comment you have highlighted is that information is seen to swap mirror sides continually at one specific axis point (4.5).
Does that hold true for East Indian music as well?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 31 2009, 03:10 AM)
"Warp speeds?"
That's f*cking awesome!
That's f*cking awesome!
QUOTE (buttershug+May 31 2009, 01:49 PM)
Does that hold true for East Indian music as well?
If you mean the actual scales involved, then yes, the same structure is apparent.
In fact some quarter tones are quite relevant when it comes to configuring these devices..
If you mean the actual scales involved, then yes, the same structure is apparent.
In fact some quarter tones are quite relevant when it comes to configuring these devices..
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+May 30 2009, 06:29 PM)
Sure gmilam, which makes it ok for your bud Mpants to tell absolute lies when he feels like it? Is that your idea of getting on? You being a musician , I find dissappointing that you couldn't correct him. Because we all know what happened after he pulled that little deceitful stroke.
Sorry, I lost interest in y'all's discussion. I ignore the pedantic bullshit in favor of more substantial discussion elsewhere. (I also tend to tune out most people's he said/she said crap.)
Don't recall who posted what... but for the record the wikipedia definition of the melodic minor that MP posted somwehere around here has been my understanding of the scale for years. Raised 6 and 7 ascending/natural descending.
Now can YOU let it go and move on to something more substantial.
Sorry, I lost interest in y'all's discussion. I ignore the pedantic bullshit in favor of more substantial discussion elsewhere. (I also tend to tune out most people's he said/she said crap.)
Don't recall who posted what... but for the record the wikipedia definition of the melodic minor that MP posted somwehere around here has been my understanding of the scale for years. Raised 6 and 7 ascending/natural descending.
Now can YOU let it go and move on to something more substantial.
QUOTE (gmilam+May 31 2009, 03:01 PM)
Sorry, I lost interest in y'all's discussion. I ignore the pedantic bullshit in favor of more substantial discussion elsewhere. (I also tend to tune out most people's he said/she said crap.)
Don't recall who posted what... but for the record the wikipedia definition of the melodic minor that MP posted somwehere around here has been my understanding of the scale for years. Raised 6 and 7 ascending/natural descending.
Now can YOU let it go and move on to something more substantial.
No worries I will let it go. The only reason it became a "big deal" is because of this so called "I'm hard on cranks because they give wrong info to people". And you just confirmed there that his initial post was the formula for Harmonic Minor, as I told him, and he denied, and a big useless row broke out because of it.
So MP, you're a crank on that one. Have the decency to admit it and move on .
And as for the idiots that backed you up, Ya should feel ashamed dipsticks.:-))
Don't recall who posted what... but for the record the wikipedia definition of the melodic minor that MP posted somwehere around here has been my understanding of the scale for years. Raised 6 and 7 ascending/natural descending.
Now can YOU let it go and move on to something more substantial.
No worries I will let it go. The only reason it became a "big deal" is because of this so called "I'm hard on cranks because they give wrong info to people". And you just confirmed there that his initial post was the formula for Harmonic Minor, as I told him, and he denied, and a big useless row broke out because of it.
So MP, you're a crank on that one. Have the decency to admit it and move on .
And as for the idiots that backed you up, Ya should feel ashamed dipsticks.:-))
TobynotToby
Seriously, your postulate about musical math being applicable to warp drive is .. well.. how shall I phrase this ... ridiculous... at best.
Do you have any actual reason to believe that the math you made up based on musical scales has any application to the real world in any way?
Also...
What experiments?
Lastly... seriously your argument with Mjolnirpants is ludicrous and little above the level of a two year old. I have no idea what you are talking about harmony wise, but your tone is one of petulance and obfuscation. Any reason for that?
Seriously, your postulate about musical math being applicable to warp drive is .. well.. how shall I phrase this ... ridiculous... at best.
Do you have any actual reason to believe that the math you made up based on musical scales has any application to the real world in any way?
Also...
QUOTE
Once I do make a scientist with a musical background aware of this structure, then I think we'll be talking to the right people who I hope will appreciate the experiments I have in mind in order to test the data and the likelihood of the structure doing exactly what it is seen to be doing in the grids involved.
What experiments?
Lastly... seriously your argument with Mjolnirpants is ludicrous and little above the level of a two year old. I have no idea what you are talking about harmony wise, but your tone is one of petulance and obfuscation. Any reason for that?
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 27 2009, 02:57 AM)
No, what me and others are doing is showing you the standard definition and that yours does not match.
You cannot understand that definitions do not change just because you don't like them.
Which definition do you think is correct, and why?
You cannot understand that definitions do not change just because you don't like them.
Which definition do you think is correct, and why?
QUOTE (buttershug+May 27 2009, 12:52 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
What I'm suggesting is a realistic possibility, and though you quite obviously want to consider something else you can suggest no other alternative.
Why is your proposal any more realistic than the real definition of God?
There are more than one, so which one do you consider to be "real" and why do you think everyone should accept the one you like best?
One reason that what I suggest is more realistic than some, is that I take into consideration the fact God would almost certainly have to be a technologically advanced alien.
Why is your proposal any more realistic than the real definition of God?
There are more than one, so which one do you consider to be "real" and why do you think everyone should accept the one you like best?
One reason that what I suggest is more realistic than some, is that I take into consideration the fact God would almost certainly have to be a technologically advanced alien.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
and why is God does not exist not a realistic possibility?
It is. Let's think it through in detail:
God might not exist.
There, done with that.
Then again he might exist, and if so he almost certainly would have to be an alien who is VERY much more advanced than any humans on this planet.
It is. Let's think it through in detail:
God might not exist.
There, done with that.
Then again he might exist, and if so he almost certainly would have to be an alien who is VERY much more advanced than any humans on this planet.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 27 2009, 07:18 AM)
nopEda,
I am curious.
If all you want is to think realistically then why the interest in aliens?
If God exists it's pretty unlikely he could be a native of Eath, so....
I am curious.
If all you want is to think realistically then why the interest in aliens?
If God exists it's pretty unlikely he could be a native of Eath, so....
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.