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.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 184
39
<< 181  182  183    185  186  187 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 



Strictly speaking this means that mathematicians have been unable to find a way to accurately pinpoint a location in three-dimensional space and are always forced to incorporate cumbersome correcting calculations for spacecraft once they begin to approach their destinations.


Last I checked mathematicians have no difficulty making sure a Hellfire missile finds its destination, e.g. the turban of an Al Qaeda operative in Afghanistan. To me this seems like an astonishing ability to "accurately pinpoint a location in three-dimensional space". And don't get me started on spacecraft, because that's just amazing -- after years of travel, some spacecraft are directed to fly around a few planets and then directed to Mercury for a precise hit, traveling billions and billions of miles.

The calculations may indeed be cumbersome, especially for that ignoramus Pond, but they work very well. By contrast, he can offer nothing at all except for lots of hand waving and making absolutely empty claims.




posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The calculations may indeed be cumbersome . . .


The purpose of innovation is to move on.

Science and technology is held back in order to further the interests of a powerful minority who enjoy the status quo.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The calculations may indeed be cumbersome . . .


The purpose of innovation is to move on.


...and at least to not degenerate into a bunch of babbling idiots. When Pond shows a piece of math that works (such as in reducing resistivity of a wire), then we'll take a look. Until then, it's all words, words, words and no substance.

edit on 4-2-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The calculations may indeed be cumbersome . . .


The purpose of innovation is to move on.


In second reading, this seems to be a non sequitur. Pond, in his stupidity, proclaimed that humans have tremendous difficulties navigating spacecraft and comparable objects in 3D. That is sheer, cold, unadulterated nonsense, and I feel compassion for anybody who's reading such bullsh!t and puts even a modicum of trust or interest into it. Speaking of which, you, Mary, had no idea about the actual capacity of modern engineering, to move massive objects around, as was evidenced in this thread a month or two ago. Pond appears to be suffering from the same kind of ignorance, only applied to space and aeronautics.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SoulVisions

Originally posted by Spiratio

Originally posted by SoulVisions

Originally posted by Spiratio
Dark matter is theorised to exist because we observe an effect but it cannot be measured.


Originally posted by SoulVisions
That's like saying wind doesn't exist.


Originally posted by Spiratio
How so? Wind is observable and measurable.

lol... that was my point, Spiratio. We can't "see" wind, but we know that it's there and are able to measure it's effect. The same as the elusive "dark matter" that we can't "see." In time we'll know more, but for now, in this way, it's comparable to wind, gravity, and other "mysteries" that puzzled scientists/theorists of old.


No, i was pointing out that wind is measurable as well as observable. Dark matter is observable but not measurable...in both instances its known that the phenomena exist... so how does saying "that's like saying wind does't exist" prove any point I'm sorry but your logic baffles me.


Wow, I watch your responses on these threads. You looooooove to argue. You absolutely can not stand it if someone tells you that you are wrong, can you?

On topic? Yes, you can measure dark matter. We've spent millions doing it even. You're not only disagreeing with me on this, you're disagreeing with the entire modern science community if you take the time to investigate the issue. I wish you luck.


Sorry but I think you have the wrong end of the stick, offering my honesty that I don't understand your logic is not an argument, I dislike arguing,,, that's why my responses are either a. informative or b. questions. Any thing else is pointless imo in context of my reason for posting, arguing is pointless its a waste of time.

Regarding dark matter you cannot actually measure the essence of it... I know that there have been something along the line of time-lapsed photos of the divergence of galaxies to measure its estimated speed of propagation in expansion of the cosmos, but there are no devices to measure it as a field. It's beyond our tangible processors.
Using the timelaps method is like measure the speed of a car by detecting the air moving around it not actually using a device that clocks the visualy captured momentum of th eobjective force/thing

Whether anyone disagrees with my posts or not is none of my business and insignificant to my emotional state, but if anyone offers notions that aren't very well thought out or misleading (whether intended or not) to invite/instigate argument then I'll point it out if I feel that its necessary so others can get a better view of what's being implied.
edit on 4-2-2012 by Spiratio because: (no reason given)


here's link which explains it all from the same angle as I was inferring thebibleistheotherside.wordpress.com...
edit on 4-2-2012 by Spiratio because: (no reason given)
note: the name of the link is irrelevant to the wider context of my reason in posting it, this is not an invitation to argue over religious implications I'm not religious
edit on 4-2-2012 by Spiratio because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Americanist
 

I'll see your (apparently random?) piece of artwork and raise you another piece of artwork which isn't completely random:

reply to post by Americanist
 


Originally posted by Americanist
As soon as I saw the number map I realized the Universe is an assembly based on fractal patterns.


blogs.nature.com...

I want to save this file to my pc and I need a filename. How about this for a filename?
"I realized the universe is an asembly based on fractal patterns.jpg"

Do I need your permission to use that filename? If I can't have it, I think I'll just call it "everything's fractal.jpg", I don't think that's copyrighted yet.



edit on 4-2-2012 by Arbitrageur because: added link






I realize it's no da Vinci, but then again... Neither are you. You give off more the jazz hands kind of vibe.

That's it... jazzhandsthefourthiteration.jpg
edit on 4-2-2012 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiratio
Regarding dark matter you cannot actually measure the essence of it... I know that there have been something along the line of time-lapsed photos of the divergence of galaxies to measure its estimated speed of propagation in expansion of the cosmos, but there are no devices to measure it as a field.

Are you serious saying that time-lapse videos can measure evolution of "diversion of galaxies" as observed here on Earth? I wish I had kind words for this, but are you nuts?


It's beyond our tangible processors.


Please define "processors" as best you can, and then proceed to rigorously define "tangible processors".

edit on 4-2-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


And what does the timelaps method show of light?



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Americanist
 

One of our ATS members is an amateur astrophotographer and has made some interesting time-lapse photography here, but it's related to a satellite, not to galaxies:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The satellite is so faint that long shutter times are necessary to see it and the resulting video has some time compression and interesting "light effects" from brighter objects.

It's nice to see some ATS members have talents other than finding sources of complete BS and then promoting them.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiratio
 


The above post is not a conclusion of my own experiments or opinion...it is a conclusion of what scientists have inferred of which I came across through researching websites that cite scientific organisations. Directing incredulity at me is not in context.

Look at the link - My words were allegorical when I said timelaps-like

edit: my exact words were "along the line of time-lapsed photos". Notice this does not infer that I am stating that thats exactally what their method is, just that its similar to time-lapse photography, same as as my sentence above this interjected "edit". Sure it may be a different wording to my original words but they imply the same thing as my original intention. This is another example of how boxed in adherents like yourself are, that you read others words as you want to read them (so as to argue) and not as how the words are truly intended...which can be understood by anyone who has the ability to reason outside of the confines of one specific perspective [edit]

Now of coarse what we see of galaxies from the huble cannot tell us the content of the current dark matter/energy and light matter energy ratio, only what it was in the past. Which is why it is a waste of time to try and estimate it, they'l never have relative measurement to the present moment.
edit on 4-2-2012 by Spiratio because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiratio
Look at the link - My words were allegorical when I said timelaps-like
I looked at your link...and you said you're not promoting a religious point of view, but you realize the views of the authors posting on that site would like us to believe the Earth is 6000 years old? Regardless of your religion, don't you think that impacts the source's credibility?

To see a specific credibility problem with your source, look at the source I posted on this post in page 183, which debunks the modified theory of gravity your creationist source is apparently trying to promote:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter

An 8-sigma significance spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen
Prior to this paper, modified gravity models might have had some possibilities, but I've seen no modified gravity models which can explain this result.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiratio
Now of coarse


What is "of coarse"? Is it coarse versus fine?

what we see of galaxies from the huble cannot tell us the content of the current dark matter/energy and light matter energy ratio, only what it was in the past.

When you receive a call on your cell phone (or any phone), it was in the past. Do you always hang up because it's useless?


Which is why it is a waste of time to try and estimate it, they'l never have relative measurement to the present moment.


See above. The Sun we observe is 8 minutes old, are you saying it's pointless studying it?

Gosh this is stoooooopid.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Spiratio
Look at the link - My words were allegorical when I said timelaps-like
I looked at your link...and you said you're not promoting a religious point of view, but you realize the views of the authors posting on that site would like us to believe the Earth is 6000 years old? Regardless of your religion, don't you think that impacts the source's credibility?

To see a specific credibility problem with your source, look at the source I posted on this post in page 183, which debunks the modified theory of gravity your creationist source is apparently trying to promote:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter

An 8-sigma significance spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen
Prior to this paper, modified gravity models might have had some possibilities, but I've seen no modified gravity models which can explain this result.


Im about to get of my PC

I may look some time latter... In the mean time, maybe you can answer if this link has any impact on this statement.


Originally posted by Spiratio
what we see of galaxies from the huble cannot tell us the content of the current dark matter/energy and light matter energy ratio, only what it was in the past. Which is why it is a waste of time to try and estimate it, they'l never have relative measurement to the present moment.

edit on 4-2-2012 by Spiratio because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I'm not saying the data inst useful in understanding the wider picture (pun not intended), but its pointless in the context of the original endeavour, to measure dark energy and matter as a means to conclude implications for the present..

Your allegories are also pointless.

Also you claim to have compassion for people who have been "duped' by those like Pond however your current avatar is counter productive If you want people to take you seriously



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiratio
I'm not saying the data inst useful in understanding the wider picture (pun not intended), but its pointless in the context of the original endeavour, to measure dark energy and matter as a means to conclude implications for the present..
How do you define the present? Everything we see is in the past. Some things happened further in the past than others.

If you use your argument that astronomical observations are in the past and don't affect the present, then why are you citing sources which mention them at all? You don't have any astronomical data in the present, right?

Frankly you're not making much sense by quoting sources which are based on astronomical observations, and then stating that they are irrelevant to the present.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiratio
Your allegories are also pointless.


These are not allegories. When I'm saying that we see the Sun the way it was 8 minutes ago, this is simple truth. For more stupid people, this may be insurmountable.



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spiratio
reply to post by Spiratio
 


The above post is not a conclusion of my own experiments or opinion...it is a conclusion of what scientists have inferred of which I came across through researching websites that cite scientific organisations. Directing incredulity at me is not in context.

Look at the link - My words were allegorical when I said timelaps-like

edit: my exact words were "along the line of time-lapsed photos". Notice this does not infer that I am stating that thats exactally what their method is, just that its similar to time-lapse photography, same as as my sentence above this interjected "edit". Sure it may be a different wording to my original words but they imply the same thing as my original intention. This is another example of how boxed in adherents like yourself are, that you read others words as you want to read them (so as to argue) and not as how the words are truly intended...which can be understood by anyone who has the ability to reason outside of the confines of one specific perspective [edit]

Now of coarse what we see of galaxies from the huble cannot tell us the content of the current dark matter/energy and light matter energy ratio, only what it was in the past. Which is why it is a waste of time to try and estimate it, they'l never have relative measurement to the present moment.
edit on 4-2-2012 by Spiratio because: (no reason given)


You'll find this link helpful when articulating their main problem...

Scotoma


The term scotoma is also used metaphorically in psychology to refer to an individual's inability to perceive personality traits in themselves that are obvious to others.



en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 4 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Spiratio
Now of coarse


What is "of coarse"? Is it coarse versus fine?

what we see of galaxies from the huble cannot tell us the content of the current dark matter/energy and light matter energy ratio, only what it was in the past.

When you receive a call on your cell phone (or any phone), it was in the past. Do you always hang up because it's useless?


Which is why it is a waste of time to try and estimate it, they'l never have relative measurement to the present moment.


See above. The Sun we observe is 8 minutes old, are you saying it's pointless studying it?

Gosh this is stoooooopid.



Well well... Why don't you expound on wireless communication for us. How do cell phone towers process voice and data? Trust me, the question relates to reality and how we experience time.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Spiratio
I'm not saying the data inst useful in understanding the wider picture (pun not intended), but its pointless in the context of the original endeavour, to measure dark energy and matter as a means to conclude implications for the present..
How do you define the present? Everything we see is in the past. Some things happened further in the past than others.

If you use your argument that astronomical observations are in the past and don't affect the present, then why are you citing sources which mention them at all? You don't have any astronomical data in the present, right?

Frankly you're not making much sense by quoting sources which are based on astronomical observations, and then stating that they are irrelevant to the present.


They must pay you allot to write this stuff, either that or your prone to loosing the plot



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spiratio
They must pay you allot to write this stuff, either that or your prone to loosing the plot
So this is the way you explain why you're linking to sources citing astronomical observations on the one hand, and then claiming astronomical observations are irrelevant on the other hand because they show past rather than present events?

In other words, is this refusal to address the issue a tacit admission on your part that in fact you're not making any sense? Because if it's something other than that, you really should address the issue rather than accusing me of getting paid to write here.

Besides, the paying jobs are in the political forums, not in the skunkworks section



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 181  182  183    185  186  187 >>

log in

join