Unlock the Zodiac Chakras in DNA

Originally posted by Golden Boy

I notice that you continue to get bash points. There must be something original here.

Ah! Maybe collaboration is an act of nature.

Oh hmm, then that would mean proof of nature and even the Theory of Evolution hasnt't proven nature, yet Golden Boy shows it can be done before anybody else can reason complete proof.

Okay, I think I get what you're saying here.

Complete your thought because it may not last.

You say that there may be a connection, and that you need to do further research. Is that correct?

It didn't last. Back to work... *sigh*

If so, why did you jump ahead to basing an entire system on a connection that may not exist?

You want me to prove everything of a system before proof itself can be shown.

^-ludicrous-^

Indeed. Hope for a miracle!

Scientific miracles are original. Quote-mines can't be all that bad if you want to verify originality.

Next prediction: nature of sin... anybody can join me to bank on it.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy

I notice that you continue to get bash points. There must be something original here.

Ah! Maybe collaboration is an act of nature.

Oh hmm, then that would mean proof of nature and even the Theory of Evolution hasnt't proven nature, yet Golden Boy shows it can be done before anybody else can reason complete proof.

You say that there may be a connection, and that you need to do further research. Is that correct?

It didn't last. Back to work... *sigh*

Then explain where I went wrong. If you will not explain yourself, we can't make any progress.
Then again, when you do attempt to explain yourself, you make zero sense, so maybe that isn't the best idea...

If so, why did you jump ahead to basing an entire system on a connection that may not exist?

You want me to prove everything of a system before proof itself can be shown.

No, I want you to prove that the absolute bare essentials are present. You have taken this connection as granted and built everything up on that. Before you can do that, you have to establish that the basis of your idea is sound.

^-ludicrous-^

Indeed. Hope for a miracle!

Scientific miracles are original. Quote-mines can't be all that bad if you want to verify originality.

Next prediction: nature of sin... anybody can join me to bank on it.

And again, .

Please, try and make your posts at least semi-coherent. No one can read your mind. Simply babbling as you are now gets us nowhere.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Then explain where I went wrong. If you will not explain yourself, we can't make any progress.

Because it is about the OP and not about my ability to "explain yourself" at all.

Then again, when you do attempt to explain yourself, you make zero sense

If you can be more polite, then maybe we can collaborate about what zero-emission means.

No, I want you to prove that the absolute bare essentials are present.

The OP isn't about the bare essentials of life itself. It is about Zodiac Chakras and being able to unlock them, especially by computer simulation.

You have taken this connection as granted and built everything up on that.

I haven't built anything except a simulation.

There have been dynamic compilers made over the years, yet that would be computer jargon to explain that here in this thread, especially when there is stated intention to limit such discussion to not go off-topic towards such jargon. Eventually, another thread sometime can get into the dynamics.

Before you can do that, you have to establish that the basis of your idea is sound.

The simulation works. That is proof. This initial research is just to figure out where to expand from there. There is an obvious conspiracy when these 'just fit' and the results are exponential through every simulated generation.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Then explain where I went wrong. If you will not explain yourself, we can't make any progress.

Because it is about the OP and not about my ability to "explain yourself" at all.

TRANSLATION: I just get to make assertions and you have to accept them at face value.

Yeah.

No, I want you to prove that the absolute bare essentials are present.

The OP isn't about the bare essentials of life itself. It is about Zodiac Chakras and being able to unlock them, especially by computer simulation.

Fortunately, that's what I'm asking about. Prove that the bare essentials of this are present. Show the evidence that you have for a connection between them.

You have taken this connection as granted and built everything up on that.

I haven't built anything except a simulation.

Exactly.

Before you can do that, you have to establish that the basis of your idea is sound.

The simulation works.

The simulation does nothing but draw an image on a screen.

That is proof.

No, it isn't.

Originally posted by Golden Boy

That is proof.

No, it isn't.

Obviously, there was no reason to post up some code like you did here unless you wanted to show your own contradiction.

Computer Scientists say it takes mathematics to write code. You even said such. You posted code as proof there yet here you would call a simulation as not proof despite the fact a simulation is considered to be written in code.

Explain.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy

That is proof.

No, it isn't.

Obviously, there was no reason to post up some code like you did here unless you wanted to show your own contradiction.

That's not computer code.

yet here you would call a simulation as not proof despite the fact a simulation is considered to be written in code.

Explain.

Because you have not written a simulation. You have written a program that puts an image on a screen. That is not proof.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
That's not computer code.

They are all symbols. How they compress or decompress is not the object of discussion. It is of interest, yet obviously a major distraction for this topic.

Because you have not written a simulation. You have written a program that puts an image on a screen. That is not proof.

It's not proof because a simulation has been written in the past.

The truth needs an observer to the image on a screen. The implication itself is an assimilation by need. This need is a non-deterministic abstraction of an image.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
That's not computer code.

They are all symbols. How they compress or decompress is not the object of discussion. It is of interest, yet obviously a major distraction for this topic.

Then let's drop it.

Because you have not written a simulation. You have written a program that puts an image on a screen. That is not proof.

It's not proof because a simulation has been written in the past.

Then show this simulation.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Then show this simulation.

Done did. Proof already given.

Here is an abstraction to help map the simulation:

An atomatrix, a name given to a defined indivisable structure, constitutes one atomic matrix unit. Many atomatrices bound together can form an object, something perceptible. The Object Space System, Atomatrix OSS, has many procedures to generate and manipulate those objects. It uses a dynamic compiler and a virtual machine to process objects at a higher level than the raw atomatrices. The OSS offers the design and implementation features that are known of popular object orientated program languages. Ionica, which uses the OSS, is an object orientated framework for the end-user or developer.

Now once you understand atomatrix, then you can understand patented information about Proton Exchange Membranes.

Sea it works.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
Then show this simulation.

Done did. Proof already given.

Where?

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Done did. Proof already given.

Where?

The truth needs an observer to the image on a screen. The implication itself is an assimilation by need. This need is a non-deterministic abstraction of an image.

Find the truth about will.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy

Done did. Proof already given.

Where?

The truth needs an observer to the image on a screen. The implication itself is an assimilation by need. This need is a non-deterministic abstraction of an image.

This is not a computer simulation.

Find the truth about will.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by dzonatas]

Stop BSing.

Originally posted by Golden Boy
This is not a computer simulation.

Then this is proof that this discussion is over.

Computers are people

The word computer once meant a person who did computations, but now it almost always refers to automated electronic devices. Computers can do much more than calculate, however. They are now used in all sorts of ways to better control or automate products and processes.

If you don't compute, Golden Boy, you have only proven yourself as unproven to prove anything, and subsequently that means you have only stated patent nonsense in your request evidence all over ATS.

reply to post by dzonatas


There you again trying to mis-use words to skew a debate. You lost. Get over it. I won't even ask why you are reading the children's Encyclopaedia Brittanica.

Originally posted by davesidious
There you again trying to mis-use words to skew a debate.

Explain exactly what words are misused.

You lost.

That's nonsense because there no intention to win anything.

Get over it.

+1 potential ignore list candidate

I won't even ask why you are reading the children's Encyclopaedia Brittanica.

It's a children's version of words, so they could be easily understood. If children know computers are people, then this whole thread should not be hard. It's published proof.

reply to post by dzonatas


You were using the word "computer" in the common usage. Then, when it was pointed out to you that we were talking about people, and not computers, you found a page on a childs' website that used "computer" in an archaic form, to mean people.

Computers are not people. People used to perform the roles we currently use computers for, but computers are not people.

Your argument fell apart, and all you could do was mis-use a word to try to get back on target. You failed. Just like when you started to talk about "human", "humanoid", and "homo sapiens" in that other thread, and you mis-used the words horrifically, then put me on ignore for pointing that out.

Originally posted by davesidious
You were using the word "computer" in the common usage. Then, when it was pointed out to you that we were talking about people, and not computers, you found a page on a childs' website that used "computer" in an archaic form, to mean people.

Look at my past posts and see how many times I have stated "Computers are people" way before I even started this thread. It's commonly used.

The title Computer Science obviously wasn't fully understood.

Computers are not people. People used to perform the roles we currently use computers for, but computers are not people.

Don't make up ambiguous magically rules out of thin air about what rules means. That is a cheat. Words mean everything they mean and nothing less.

Your argument fell apart, and all you could do was mis-use a word to try to get back on target.

New 'initial research' started, same topic.

You failed. Just like when you started to talk about "human", "humanoid", and "homo sapiens" in that other thread, and you mis-used the words horrifically, then put me on ignore for pointing that out.

An exponential result, "failed"... let's prove fail by this system of Zodiac Charas.

Rotation...

reply to post by dzonatas


Clearly you and the English language have some pre-existing beef I know nothing about. Please, keep continuing to murder it, creating abstract and undefined uses of words, and see how many more threads you can derail with your colourful dictionary.

Computer, from the 1980s onwards, means an electrical device capable of, and used for, computation. That is irrefutable (but I'm sure you'll try). It doesn't matter how many times you've stated the nonsense that it doesn't, or when you first stated it, it is patently incorrect. Maybe you meant to say "some people are computers", but "computers are people" implies that every computational device is in fact a human being.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by Golden Boy
This is not a computer simulation.

Then this is proof that this discussion is over.

Computers are people

The word computer once meant a person who did computations, but now it almost always refers to automated electronic devices. Computers can do much more than calculate, however. They are now used in all sorts of ways to better control or automate products and processes.

If you don't compute, Golden Boy, you have only proven yourself as unproven to prove anything, and subsequently that means you have only stated patent nonsense in your request evidence all over ATS.

Wow. Really? Such epic fail has rarely been displayed in the history of the world. I have never seen such blatant equivocation.

So when you said that the "computer simulation" worked, you really meant that you had been able to think all this up. And you call this evidence.

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by davesidious
You were using the word "computer" in the common usage. Then, when it was pointed out to you that we were talking about people, and not computers, you found a page on a childs' website that used "computer" in an archaic form, to mean people.

Look at my past posts and see how many times I have stated "Computers are people" way before I even started this thread. It's commonly used.

Just because you use it doesn't mean that it is commonly used. Also, to avoid being misleading, if what you really mean is that you call people "computers", you should say "people are computers".

The title Computer Science obviously wasn't fully understood.

Well, duh, as it generally applies to, y'know, computers. I suppose that you meant to say that you are a psychologist.

Originally posted by davesidious
reply to post by dzonatas

 

Clearly you and the English language have some pre-existing beef I know nothing about.

Obviously, pure english is not the same as capitalized English.

Please, keep continuing to murder it, creating abstract and undefined uses of words, and see how many more threads you can derail with your colourful dictionary.

Some computers have affinity to make accusations.

Computer, from the 1980s onwards, means an electrical device capable of, and used for, computation.

Some computers are not self-aware of electrochemical brains.

That is irrefutable (but I'm sure you'll try).

Symbology of the Zodiac Chakras includes self-evident similarities of experiences.

It doesn't matter how many times you've stated the nonsense that it doesn't, or when you first stated it, it is patently incorrect.

Optical devices, like an electrochemical brain, use light to weigh mass, and this transistory reaction of the output is in likeness to senses. By a neural network, a organically grown systems of weights and measures provides an array of fuzzy logic sensory.

Maybe you meant to say "some people are computers", but "computers are people" implies that every computational device is in fact a human being.

Computers merely follow instructions, which is the basis to compute, until they halt. Computers that halt with no further instruction available would be a scientific miracle except that artificial intelligence carries an obvious question of affected sensory and the question of the source of that affection. Note that the continuous curiosity to find that source is a state of heighten awareness, which carries levels of inhibition undefined.