It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A mass lack of understanding

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


You still sound like spirituality would have anything to do with religion, simply not aware enough yet to understand our words. Additionally you seem to talk against the TV claim of what people would believe. I don't remember anyone mentioning a god of the bible as the TV shows it would exist.

You could say we are "scientists" questioning official claims who also include improving the mechanisms of how or why to improve our way to make more and rather qualitative "science".
-> A mass lack of understanding

To become a great inventor you have to understand everything. A laser gun running on an ordinary battery? A machine equal to a human? It's all easy to me, but I do not support "society".
We see a problem in this world that can only be fixed when many are great understanders on their own.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of Einstein, who only based his words on other words, not really helping anyone. (Besides from that inventing things for "society" is often negative for us)
Tesla was a great inventor, who sadly noticed too late who he really worked for and what he caused. The greatest inventor of all of todays time I would say. Of course schools and media replace him with the image of "Thomas Alpha Edison" to hide his further research.
edit on 6-4-2014 by oneoneone because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by oneoneone
 


There is no clear definition of what spirituality is. So if i am not understanding you correctly, you may have to define what you mean more precisely.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 01:10 PM
link   

oneoneone

You should read my answer about what spirituality is:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And a comparison between spirituality and science:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


So there is this definition of it being religion; some who didn't get into the topic would think - hey! lets be spiritual! and meditate and wait for something magical to happen, but meditation is originally about being silent to think more efficiently and to relax your muscles so you can feel other parts of you that you forgot about and is not required to be spiritual. I would say it's a misused word. Though on this site there are many wise people lured to gather.

One can say something that sounds different to different people, yet they all learn something. That would be a spiritual text, because the mind of the person was not fixed to a definition, but instead focused on the positive use.
A spiritually progressed person who understands how mind and his surroundings (people and the world) work -> thats why he does different things; because he understood it is better to.

"Spirit"uality as in spirit -> working with the invisible worlds sounds most legit by inheritance.
Acknowledging/thinking about the spiritual world - that is what most deep thinkers have in common. By meditation you could feel more of this world and understand more of it at once. There are social problem related organs in you, but marking them spiritual in this definition manner would be like calling something magic
They're claimed to be connected by magnetic fields tho which would let your feeling of being anywhere flow in and out of you, or instead energy. Looks like I can let energy flow through there at least, or just blood, who knows.
edit on 6-4-2014 by oneoneone because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Woodcarver
reply to post by oneoneone
 


There is no clear definition of what spirituality is. So if i am not understanding you correctly, you may have to define what you mean more precisely.


with your last post you didn't "scientifically" prove that "god" don't exist.

and you didn't answer about problem of 0 divided by 0?

actually, don't bother to answer because you tend to observe everything even more rigorous than scientists do.

most of us here (and many scientists) accept both science and spirituality as important.

why don't you?

also, seems like you have very limited understanding of religion and spirituality.

so, you talking about "god of bible" without understanding it, or even trying is equally productive as someone would discuss quantum mechanics without knowing anything of real substance about it.

in the end it seems funny because you cannot really try to sound like an authority on a subject that you know little about, being incompetent.

if you want to use scientific method to describe the world I don't mind at all, please do, especially if you are science expert.

but talking about religion/spirituality from the view of science while not having any understanding of it is in the end very sad and I hope you are just a troll.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
some quotes from scientists:




Carl Sagan — 'Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.'




There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see.
Leonardo da Vinci





“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” ― Nikola Tesla





My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. Albert Einstein





“My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists.” ― Nikola Tesla






To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit. Stephen Hawking



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by demus
 


Im pretty sure i proved that there is a very low probability of its liklihood which is about the same level as any other ancient myth or mythological creature.

As far as the (0/0) i answered correctly and explained myself. The answer is not infinity. It is 0. Very simple.

I am actually quite well rounded in my education, but for you to say that i am more rigorous than a scientist, well.... That just goes beyond flattery. I am actually a scientist.

The rest of your post just sounds bitter and mean so i'll leave it at that.



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Woodcarver
reply to post by demus
 


Im pretty sure i proved


No, try again?



posted on Apr, 6 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ScottProphhit
 


Oh well. Tough crowd.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Woodcarver
reply to post by demus
 


Im pretty sure i proved that there is a very low probability of its liklihood which is about the same level as any other ancient myth or mythological creature.

As far as the (0/0) i answered correctly and explained myself. The answer is not infinity. It is 0. Very simple.

I am actually quite well rounded in my education, but for you to say that i am more rigorous than a scientist, well.... That just goes beyond flattery. I am actually a scientist.

The rest of your post just sounds bitter and mean so i'll leave it at that.


what kind of scientist are you if you don't know basic mathematics?

0 divided by 0 is not 0.

at least not in mathematics.



Why can't we divide by zero? The reason that the result of a division by zero is undefined is the fact that any attempt at a definition leads to a contradiction.





Such a division can be formally expressed as a/0 where a is the dividend (numerator). In ordinary arithmetic, the expression has no meaning, as there is no number which, multiplied by 0, gives a (assuming a≠0), and so division by zero is undefined.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by demus
 


The contradiction is in the question because you literally cannot divide by 0. If i have 5 cookies and i want to share them equally between two people, they would each get 2.5 cookies.

If i want to share it between 0 people then i pass out zero. Its quite simple. Read up. In no equation ever is the answer infinity because you can always add 1 or multiply infinity by any number. I did take a math class once or twice.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Woodcarver
reply to post by demus
 


The contradiction is in the question because you literally cannot divide by 0. If i have 5 cookies and i want to share them equally between two people, they would each get 2.5 cookies.

If i want to share it between 0 people then i pass out zero. Its quite simple. Read up. In no equation ever is the answer infinity because you can always add 1 or multiply infinity by any number. I did take a math class once or twice.


you failed on high school mathematics and you're talking about science?

on topic: spirituality is science, science is spirituality.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by demus
 


Your right. I should tear up my Phd.

What is 0/0?



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


Are you talking about low level level energy emmissions inside vacuum tubes? because that is not what (0/0) is describing.

www.mathsisfun.com...

Because math is fun.

edit on 7-4-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Woodcarver
reply to post by demus
 


Your right. I should tear up my Phd.

What is 0/0?


you were swearing by mathematics.

I presented you with mathematical question.

you have failed to answer through the mathematics.

you said "0, every calculator can calculate that" which is not true as I already stated.

PHD? oh my GOD! you are my idol!



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by demus
 


I will swear by mathematics.

The only other acceptable answer would be (0/0)=indeterminate. Which would then be represented as a 0.

You brought up education.

Plus i dont put much stock into the piece of paper myself. It is the knowledge that comes with it that matters. There are plenty of subjects that i dont have a formal education in. I would consider myself proficient in several of them and im sure you are too.
edit on 7-4-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Woodcarver
reply to post by demus
 


I will swear by mathematics.

The only other acceptable answer would be (0/0)=indeterminate. Which would then be represented as a 0.

You brought up education.

Plus i dont put much stock into the piece of paper myself. It is the knowledge that comes with it that matters. There are plenty of subjects that i dont have a formal education in. I would consider myself proficient in several of them and im sure you are too.
edit on 7-4-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)


except it wouldn't be represented as zero, not in mathematics.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by demus
 


Holy crap!! Would you just tell me what you think the answer is then?



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Woodcarver
reply to post by demus
 


Holy crap!! Would you just tell me what you think the answer is then?


answer is that 0 divided by zero is:

indeterminate form:

indeterminate:


...not exactly known, established, or defined.


the answer could be zero but it doesn't have to be.

that is what mathematics say.

Zero Laws and L'Hopital's Rule

you said it's "easy" and that the answer is zero in your first reply.

and you're the guy who claimed that he can prove any "spiritual claim" to be wrong with scientific means.

well, you've failed but I don't blame you.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by demus
 


That is exactly what i said. 0. Then i said the only other acceptable answer would be indeterminate but it would be written as a zero. Which is exactly what you just said. How long did you have to look at that page i sent you before you realised i was right.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   

demus

Woodcarver
reply to post by demus
 


I will swear by mathematics.

The only other acceptable answer would be (0/0)=indeterminate. Which would then be represented as a 0.

You brought up education.

Plus i dont put much stock into the piece of paper myself. It is the knowledge that comes with it that matters. There are plenty of subjects that i dont have a formal education in. I would consider myself proficient in several of them and im sure you are too.
edit on 7-4-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)


except it wouldn't be represented as zero, not in mathematics.


0 is exactly what you said it wouldnt be.

I win. Im done. Go cry in the corner.
edit on 8-4-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join