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.

 

Baddogma's Meta Cafe- Polite Discussions About Scientific Mysticism and General Weirdness

page: 355
82
<< 352  353  354    356  357  358 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF


edit on 25-2-2017 by Peeple because: I love Anaanas painting too




posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs

I like to look at science as an incredibly useful predictive tool, actually in much the same way as many ancient religions. It attempts to explain what the hell is going on, and in a way that allows us to affect that process.

However, it seems very easy to start viewing consistent predictive ability for "Truth," when its a human abstraction of the "Truth." Its also easy to start defending that as science is supposed to be a self-correcting system. Buuut, us humans are notoriously horrible at self-correction (especially in groups), and science is carried out by us humans. We start defining what is, and what is not, by whether or not we have an abstraction for it. Part of me wants to say that's because of our "advanced" stage of knowledge, and maybe that is a factor, but the behavior has persisted for thousands of years.

Like a miner's pickaxe, science only uncovers what is already there. Just because one didn't find a vein of quartz and gold doesn't mean that quartz and gold don't exist. When its put like that, its an obviously silly notion, but we see that very assumption at work even on boards like ATS.

We have to know where to dig, what we are looking for, and how to get there. Determining all that can be damn tough if all we did was find a piece of gold on the ground, or briefly saw a UFO in the sky. And if we don't have something like the piece of gold to show others.. it might as well not exist to them. Of course, we also have people claiming to have found that nugget, but never really did! That doesn't complicate things at all


I've seen some actually claim that we pretty much know everything there is to know and I would guess that claim has been repeated throughout the centuries. I dont know if we could ever make such a statement with confidence, even if we actually do reach a stage like that. While it may be detrimental in many ways, I also think its a really interesting behavior.

We like that trusty old hammer. Even though we tell ourselves we would immediately change it out if something better comes along, it is more likely to be passed down for generations than thrown in the trash.

And, you know, I'm not sure that's entirely a bad thing.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

I'm referring to waves in the general "scientific" sense. I've actually made a good amount of effort to avoid arbitrary terms and ideas where possible. So, if you (or anyone reading now or in the future) aren't quite sure what I mean, doing a search is likely to help. I used things like + and - in the same way (the way they are understood in general wave mechanics, or even just calculus). After decades, those things may change, but for now I am trying to supplement what I'm talking about with the knowledge base that exists.

This short(ish) video might illustrate the whole + and - thing, lets see if it provides any clarification. Understanding that its not meant as a comprehensive explanation of the entire aspect.



The attempt was to relate the functions of a "time wave" to waves in general, basically. As in this theory, they are derivatives of it. A lot of this is actually explaining how time and gravity are related, and why things like time dilation would result. Their lack of specific mention in that context is not meant to imply a lack of relation. Most of this is strongly based in "standard" physics, but perhaps glossing over those aspects/relationships as if they are given isn't a good approach.

I would certainly agree that there are "at least two" time domains in the TE, more careful word use might have been good there. According to relativity and this TLE/TE theory, there actually wouldn't be a specific identifiable number as it is an emergent property of the movement between objects.

And hey, if it gets too annoying, we can always just.. stop. I simply enjoy taking the opportunity to try to whittle down an extremely complex subject into conversational form. I've yet to succeed, as I think I've mentioned, but it gets better each time. Thanks for helping me refine the process

edit on 25-2-2017 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam
~time dilation
~space shrink
~Gravity increase
Special Relativity

What blows my mind sticking with the classics..
if you approach the speed of light not only does time go slower for you relative to someone not moving..

BUT

distance shrinks..

AND

apparent gravity increase..

when you are at 99% the speed of light something like 10 miles becomes a tenth of a mile.. And you become much more like a black hole.

so what happens if you go the speed of light?? it's just forever time, with no space??

I can never quite get my brain to do it.

And of course you become immensely massive which is gravity..

It's like gravity time and space are some sort of unified field..

And something about "dark gravity" (they call it dark matter but that's an assumption step we don't want to take, they are measuring gravity) gives me the impression that space/time/gravity is bigger than we can notice some how..

which is obviously the entire thing to the movie interstellar.

Light shouldn't even know what time is... Or.. LOL...

feeling enlightened yet?

seems to me light thinks everything is in the same space and same time, like some sort of wtf? OF course from our perspective it still takes time..
light just disagrees.. We're both right it seems.. And that's why people resist the "illusion" word.. and they are right to.. but at the ..same time.. someone else is right about their own perception too..









edit on 25-2-2017 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs

That's a pretty damn entertaining video


I think the thing that's almost easy to forget is we can get super weird with relativity. Super duper funky, in fact.

Most of us grew up with it in the backdrop, so its normalized to a great degree, but the damn stuff is as wonky as it is accurate.

Funny thing is, things don't need to make sense when playing with the infinite, or even the finite
Indeed, only a small percentage of all the "things" happening will, though our universe/TE will have a sort of consistency that helps. And, of course, us being of that TE, we have some sort of intuitive sense going on. We slowly bring these things into our cultural story and solidify the foundation through which we approach the world. At least, until something better comes along and we tear it down and try again.

As explored in that video, "momentum" can be pretty interesting. What happens when we suddenly stop momentum, or start it for that matter, isn't exactly straightforward or obvious. Though it manifests a bit differently in varying circumstances, its a pretty expansive area of study in and of itself.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

Here's a dance to make all my nonsense better:




posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

I was wondering do you really have momentum above your speed and mass?
so how could that be? And it would be because distance is shrinking.. So you are kind of going faster so that conserves momentum.. And gaining weight..

It's like I'm just starting to see these extra variables.

that video actually helped me..

But like we were saying earlier relativity is not the only thing I am banking on.. How could I? But that is certainly a lot to hold in ones head.. So I'm going to find physics problems dealing with relativity and just do a LOT of them until I ahve a more working knowledge instead of an "understanding"

Then I can try to make my own version of string theory.. But my strings would not be... LOL.. So I don't know what theory that would be..

And I purposefully was trying to find something funny.. I think even though I'm always smiling and I don't have some deep dark gritty slicy need to know (anymore) people still miss that I'm a super super deep lil furry kitty cat.

haha







edit on 25-2-2017 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Peeple

I'm referring to waves in the general "scientific" sense. I've actually made a good amount of effort to avoid arbitrary terms and ideas where possible. So, if you (or anyone reading now or in the future) aren't quite sure what I mean, doing a search is likely to help. I used things like + and - in the same way (the way they are understood in general wave mechanics, or even just calculus). After decades, those things may change, but for now I am trying to supplement what I'm talking about with the knowledge base that exists.

Great. So if someone would get back and read through your posts these waves you're talking about are just waves in general. Wow. Try that seriously and you got 100s of words about nothing.


This short(ish) video might illustrate the whole + and - thing, lets see if it provides any clarification. Understanding that its not meant as a comprehensive explanation of the entire aspect.


Maybe you should watch it then.



The attempt was to relate the functions of a "time wave" to waves in general, basically. As in this theory, they are derivatives of it. A lot of this is actually explaining how time and gravity are related, and why things like time dilation would result. Their lack of specific mention in that context is not meant to imply a lack of relation. Most of this is strongly based in "standard" physics, but perhaps glossing over those aspects/relationships as if they are given isn't a good approach.

You were the one denying black holes have something to do with this. That's why I brought up gravity and time. But nice to see you're slowly getting there.


I would certainly agree that there are "at least two" time domains in the TE, more careful word use might have been good there. According to relativity and this TLE/TE theory, there actually wouldn't be a specific identifiable number as it is an emergent property of the movement between objects.

Okay. That's logical to me.


And hey, if it gets too annoying, we can always just.. stop. I simply enjoy taking the opportunity to try to whittle down an extremely complex subject into conversational form. I've yet to succeed, as I think I've mentioned, but it gets better each time. Thanks for helping me refine the process


I don't think I want to anymore. You're extremely condescending and I still haven't gotten over the speed/Bugatti metaphor in a timeless realm.
I could also go back and quote all your fallacies, but since you seem to think you're explaining something to me, I will let you have the fun to find all of your own mistakes.
For the future if someone defines a variable or asigns a name to something in a conversation you can't just take that and turn it into meaning everything....
So for now I will step back thank you.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
Or it may be the old religion!


I am not sure about "the" but it is certainly "a" old religion/belief/practice. I can imagine all kinds of reasons why the stars may have been important, technologically as well as ideologically, and their importance revered, but older does not necessarily denote better or transferability. The Egyptians may have had every good reason to have had faith in the stars, the Nile for millenia was reliable, dependable and behaved according to schedule, a schedule that could be followed and predicted by the stars. Had Mesopotamia or Greece or the rest of Africa taken the same tact they would have been in trouble. Longer term, such memorials set in stone nolonger align to the stars and changes on the surface of the planet are affected to a far greater degree, by atmospheric and physcial changes closer to home. Eight thousand years ago, flash floods led to humans abandoning their seasonal fishing camps there for generations, and today, the damming of the Nile is leading to a reduction in fertility, as the silt that has been the life's blood of Egypt just can't get through to do what it does. So, to Washington and the Freemasons...Monkey see, monkey do...they never had an original thought in their lives and so copy a "magic" that they so clearly do not understand...that obelisk is a phallus you know, always was, always will be.




originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I love your new work!! Yeah, wish the details were clearer but it is still great!


Thanks for the poem. Poetry, painting, time and space. Music and dreaming. A manic kind of mish-mash of open ended items. And we always end up back at the mind and language. Poetry and painting by pass the semantic and is very freeing! What a wonderful way to start the weekend!

:hi-five:



Thank you so much. Every time I start a new picture it is a learning curve, I used a lot of different materials to layer in as much information as I could, there is a lot in there, that's in part what I challenge myself to do, but it specifically covers a period of 1850ish to the end of the 1920s. The central figure ("king of the Underworld") is Basil Zarhoff, and that is Rosa Luxemburg sealed up inside the tree. Gertrude Bell ("queen of the Underworld") is doubled, appearing on both sides (the form of the picture was inspired by an Etruscan illustration of the waker and dreamer, the two realm dwellers seperated by a sapling). All the materials (probably) are oil and chemically based, which in itself saves me from including those industries pictorially.

If there is anything else that interests you, do ask, I am sure I'd be happy to explain.

edit on 26-2-2017 by Anaana because: fixed quotes



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Reverbs
Let's see This is from the first one..



I really like the organic-ness of that...I did something similar under the roots of the tree, similar colour scheme too. I think of them as endrometrial folds, or intestines...your picture looks digestive, don't you think?

I did a "warm up" picture before this...it was actually a failure but we'll call it a starter instead
that was similar to yours. In the bigger version I can see but not fully read your words...I began by writing out, jumbled, a load of my poems, that I'd written myself, love poems mostly...unrequited, unfulfilled love...blah!, sooooo it was meant as a kind of exorcism, letting go of those hopes and dreams...illusions and delusions and attempting to move forward to something more tangible. It kind of worked but in that not necessarily how I expected it to, kind of way.




originally posted by: Reverbs
whoa wtf.. My roommate butchered a bull and fed it to tigers today.. I guess life never gets boring does it? I'm going to have to ask her about that when I see her. She volunteers at a tiger rescue place.


I am green with envy...well maybe not at the butchering...couldn't the tigers do that themselves?

Thanks for the nice words, always appreciated.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Anaana

No I don't think they can..
For whatever reason. It probably costs too much to drop 1,000s of beef in front of a few Rescued Tigers.

Digestive. haha yea it is. The words are music and they are coming from the girl, but they are the girl as they loop back in..
So who's making who? the girl making music or the music the girl made making the girl who is making the music?

Two of the songs I liked a lot at the time are embedded in there.

"waiting for the end" Linkin Park
and
"Morrison Fraternity" Narallis

So it's sort of the circle of life, but the circle of life contained in your own life.. what you create creates you to create what you create that creates you again.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Reverbs
a reply to: Anaana

No I don't think they can..
For whatever reason. It probably costs too much to drop 1,000s of beef in front of a few Rescued Tigers. [/quote]

I was being a little tongue in cheek, I'm not so squeamish as to be opposed to live prey, but squeamish enough that I certainly wouldn't want to watch. Butchery is a fine skill to have though.

Where are they rescued from?


originally posted by: Reverbs
Digestive. haha yea it is. The words are music and they are coming from the girl, but they are the girl as they loop back in..
So who's making who? the girl making music or the music the girl made making the girl who is making the music?

Two of the songs I liked a lot at the time are embedded in there.

"waiting for the end" Linkin Park
and
"Morrison Fraternity" Narallis

So it's sort of the circle of life, but the circle of life contained in your own life.. what you create creates you to create what you create that creates you again.



That sweet spot of where do I end and everything else begin, that's where you find the really good stuff, because there is no beginning, middle and end, no matter how hard those kinds of neat little stories are pounded into us. I like looking at the spaces in between.




posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Reverbs

Please do share it when you get there


I like relativity. I really do feel that for the first time, we have a brick of the foundation "right." But, it sure does seem that it isn't comprehensive enough.

I suspect its all like a series of curtains, where we can only really peek into the next room but the ones beyond that remain "hidden."

I'd love to be able to see where we will be 1,000 years from now..



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

I expect you will get over it eventually
Or not..

*shrug*

Perhaps our expectations of the conversation did not quite align. It was fun for me all the same.


What I will say is that the things you have pointed out have arisen from misunderstanding. I like to try to link ideologies, so inevitably I will define my variables just as you will define your variables. In fact, I think the very process is critical to meaningful discourse. If you don't like others defining their own variables when discussing their "beliefs," that must lead to a lot of frustration? I'm actually not sure how to approach that issue from my end. I don't know how to actually discuss things from my end if you are the only one who is able to define and redefine the terms in the conversation.

Ill take some responsibility in all of it and I can probably work on the condescension.

From my end, it seems you intentionally misconstrue what is being said in order to dismiss it in the most expedient way possible. It comes off as disingenuous, though I dont think thats how its meant. It can make it difficult when it seems each post is taken as an individual item, rather than a continuous context. Frequently, it seemed the posts weren't even really being read at all, as something that was in the previous post would be totally ignored in order to redefine my variables in the current post. The way I see it, a conversation is about each person bringing their own variables to the table and then trying to construct a workable equation out of it. I actually expect it as a normal part of discussion, so this might be a truly fundamental difference.

It felt like in one post, I would say 2+2=4, then a couple of posts later I would talk about how 3+1=4 and the response would be "Well, what about 2+2?" Then, I'd talk about 0+4=4 and the response would be "well, what about 3+1?" At it a point it really does start to feel like its not just misunderstanding or a failure to communicate, but something else entirely.

Ill take your words to heart, Peeps. Whether or not you do the same is entirely up to you, but I felt it was only fair to provide the same opportunities. Thank you for the conversation, truly



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Baddogma

For me "dilemna" looks pretty wrong. Berenstein, on the other hand..

I'm just not willing to dismiss it all out of hand and am willing to take peoples word for it (well, to an extent..).

I just went through my own theory and beliefs, so that serves as a great base for where I'm coming from at least (whether or not I did it well is another story).

It seems its usually looked at as a new phenomena, which might be the case. If it is, then something had to change, and I think we have a few strong possibilities like CERN. Of course, there might be things going on that are not publicized ..

Our math isn't complete on these things, which is why facilities like CERN exist in the first place, but many like to categorically state we know how such an experiment will affect the world.. Bit of a contradiction there.

I also think that it could just be a natural phenomena that wasn't possible to "see" until we had technology like the internet to arrive at some sort of consensus.

If that's the case, and its honestly where I go with it, it means that different "phase groups" of our civilization are constantly colliding, combining, and dividing.

It could be that these different groups reside in different areas of that surface tension and as they move, they align and separate from others. One way to check, tenuous as it may be, is to compare average lifespan. Not particularly feasible for many reasons, but it would be interesting.

Could even be a combination where it IS a natural mechanism, but it is being affected by structures like CERN.

In the end, it really does seem a bit more than faulty memory. If it is more, then we have a pretty exciting, new behavior to learn about. At the very least, it seems to merit discussion and exploration.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
For me "dilemna" looks pretty wrong. Berenstein, on the other hand..


I agree with you on "dilemna", and Berenstein is just a US thing I believe. Neither apply to me though...but every so often "owl" and "whole" just don't make any sense to me and I find it hard to write them out. Just those two words. Vulnerable I spelt "vunerable" for years because that was how I said it and I write what the voice in my head says, my fingers don't do it on their own, I knew it had an "l" but since I didn't pronouce the "l" I would forget about it...stream of consciousness writing rather than notes of course...I now enunciate the "l" fully and have since ceased to have the problem.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Anaana

I think that a lot of it for me, and perhaps others, is the experience of seeing the word itself. I have an inexplicable, visceral reaction to seeing "Berenstain." Almost a revulsion. It goes beyond the normal "hey, I've been spelling that differently!"

That's the part the bothers me. I have remembered plenty of things incorrectly in my life, I always just shrugged, corrected myself, and moved on. Until I saw "Berenstain" the first time, it was like nails on a chalkboard.

So its not so much the certainty of memory, its the reaction itself that baffles and intrigues me. I could definitely be remembering incorrectly, all evidence points to that, but the reaction remains just as strong as that first time. Why?

Why has a wrench been thrown into the works of a very, very common behavior (correcting memory)? I can think of some explanations, but none of them stop at faulty memory. I find it fascinating.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

Perhaps it's just the "stain". It's a dirty word, after all. And I'm not trying to be funny, it conjures up dirt.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Anaana

That's possible, though I would think I'd have had the reaction long before now, or after introduction to ME. If that is the cause, it still occurred at a seemingly random and abritrary point long, long after introduction to the Berenstein Bears (read them constantly as a kid) and before I was aware of something like the Mandela Effect. I would also think that I would have at least partially similar reactions to the word "stain" itself, as well as other words and phrases that include it, but that isnt the case. Interestingly, the core area of interest remains either way.

It also wouldn't explain ones like "mirror, mirror on the wall." However, with those, I'm much more willing to chalk it up to confirmation bias as I learned about them through discussions on the topic of the ME. It doesn't change the fact that I have the same reaction, but I might be expecting it and fulfilling that expectation.



posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

Ahhh...but these are bears, cute cuddly, a thing of purity, childhood innocence...stained.

Dirty bears. What kind of stains are they?



Have you re-read the stories - I'm not familiar with them at all - anything disturbing there? Like Captain Pugwash and Seaman Stains?

FYI -


There is a persistent urban legend, repeated by the now defunct UK newspaper the Sunday Correspondent, that ascribes sexually suggestive names – such as Master Bates, Seaman Staines, and Roger (meaning "have sex with") the Cabin Boy – to Captain Pugwash's characters, and indicating that the captain's name was a slang Australian term for oral sex.[3] The origin of this myth is likely due to student rag mags from the 1970s[4]and the character Master Mate, whose name when spoken by Pugwash occasionally sounded something like "Master Bate". However none of the other characters ever featured in the show. Interestingly, although there was a real character called Willy, which is an inoffensive British slang term for penis, this character is never cited as an example of the double entendres.

John Ryan successfully sued both the Sunday Correspondent and The Guardian newspapers in 1991 for printing this legend as fact.[5]


en.wikipedia.org...

Most of my generation remember this as "true", I think simply because it makes something quite mundane suddenly seem nefarious.
edit on 26-2-2017 by Anaana because: Master Bates

edit on 26-2-2017 by Anaana because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
82
<< 352  353  354    356  357  358 >>

log in

join