It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by Epsillion70
I agree ..
In the beginning was thought, and thought was with god , and thought was god ...?
Oh wait that is 'word' ... But, what is a 'word' if it is not 'verbal thought' ... ?
Originally posted by Taledus
Yes Jeremy...just let us know how many more people you need so as to have more @$$3$ to pull the answers from.
Mathematics is not hard...I follow down to the second of everything he was trying to explain...but there are missing parts which no one cares to point out...except me. But I follow now, it is not the fact that over half of the information is missing, others innability to ask questions, or the profound lack of logic I am provided, it is completely my fault for not understanding the conforming theory of "decoding" a nonsensical approach to an unlogical assumption.
But alas! Jeremy has yet to respond...only a few who claim to understand the solution, but do not provide evidience of such a claim, not even in miniscule form, of thier profound understanding, and supposed I.Q. that is higher than mine.
Just to point out: If a mathematician was provided this absured information, and someone had to EXPLAIN phi to them, then he/she was not a mathematician in the first place, and would take waaaaayyyy longer than a week to arrive at the precise obscurred knowledge being presented here.
But let's say that the entire point has been overlooked, and the answer does have metaphisical reasoning pertaining to these assumptions...what is it? Anyone have a clue of how many diverse metaphysical theories there are?...a freaking lot! Nobody has yet to pinpoint the exact metaphysical evidience to support they claim has just happened upon them to resolve applicable theory. I believe that people are just wanting to sound REALLY SMART when presented with a question they are just TOO stupid to answer.
It is not Jeremy that is at fault here though...it is the people who all of a sudden can't explain why they follow the theory with half of the evidience. Has anyone filled in the rest? Probably not! The fact is, he provided half of the problem in the video, and about 1/4 of the solution...the rest is meerly unexplained information that NOBODY has the ability to explain.
And betting money on this proves that you would be very broke without proving me wrong.
To all that say they understand it...you ARE lying unless you can prove otherwise!
I call shenanigans!