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.

 

Excellent explanation of the ripple effect *Video*

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Some of you may may have heard of the butterfly effect, the idea that a butterfly's wings in New York could cause a Tornado in Texas. It sends out a ripple effect, which shapes/changes the course of events, gaining a bigger influence over time.

A small change can cause a huge reaction. Think of the ripples in a pond. It grows bigger the farther out it goes. A small change causes a larger reaction over time.

I was watching Fringe (I'm a few weeks behind), and there was an excellent explanation of this with an example. Check it out:


I posted something similar before, but the video got messed up and i couldn't re-edit the thread.




posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
i remember seeing your previous thread, it was almost exactly like this, although slightly reworded.. with exactly the same video..



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Mulit-Reality butterfly bounce balance It's allot bigger and more involved than you ever thought it was.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mossme89
 


Nice video clip OP.

Such a thing is sort of humbling to meditate upon. Seemingly tiny things, that can somehow turn very big.

A couple of ways to think about this in our everyday lives. First, we may indeed be able to control our actions, at least to some extent, but we do not get to control the "outcome" of our actions. Such a thing seems to literally be out of our hands, considering the far-flung effects that are not just out of our span of control, they would also tend to be very remote from our mere knowledge of them, as they ripple on out into infinity.

This first humbling thought probably should fill us with a certain amount of "fear", perhaps we really should be more careful as we go about our business.

But second, we can turn it around, and look at it from the other direction. Considering how little we really can "control", it would be irrational to worry too much. Yes, we probably "should" worry about whether a particular action is right or wrong, but we should NOT worry about the consequences of our actions beyond that.

Do we help the old lady cross the street? YES, even if later we find out that because we did so, a small child somehow was killed (imagine, a car must slow down for the old lady, delaying the driver by 10 seconds, only to have a child run out at a particular moment down the street, that otherwise would have been avoided...)

I'm not a religionist, but I respect the ones who humbly "allow" their god to do the worrying about this kind of thing. We can only do what we think is right at each juncture, after that, "providence", or fate or whatever gets to decide how it all plays out.

Which reminds me of that famous ancient story about the farmer, who's son's leg is broken, and the people say "how unlucky", but the following day, when the army comes through claiming recruits, the son who would have otherwise been taken into battle, remains alive. We never know. Even something seemingly "unlucky" at a particular moment might just make a very big positive difference in the long run.

JR

edit on 13-2-2011 by JR MacBeth because: spelling!



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CIGGSofWAR
Mulit-Reality butterfly bounce balance It's allot bigger and more involved than you ever thought it was.


Phrased as a few words, "It all matters."
(Even when the butterfly doesn't flutter.)



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Now this is what I was trying to assert within the threads about those quantum theorists who suggest that we can reorganize the effects of what has already occurred by simply (I don't know) adjusting what we believed our past to be. I understand the concept of intellectually re-internalizing past events and what they mean - and changing our view of them - and there's value in that for people suffering from regrets and PTSD-type pain. But, the idea that we can somehow learn to change, in a real physical sense, that past period of time - well, that involves way too much rearrangement of too many other people's pasts, and the entire fabric of residual information that's emerged as a direct result of all that's occurred since then and as a direct result of each event. The idea of that being possible simply doesn't square with the linkage issue that reality presents as a follow-on to each and every event that occurs. To make that work, you have to invent more than what actually can be proven to exist, and that's not how theories are developed. That's how religions are developed.

I hope this clip helps dispell the notion that a small, potentially misinterpreted indication in a photon experiment is not the smoking gun that upends the entire space/time continuum, as some here have insisted it is. Science is observation and indication, but it is also responsible determination, with observation and indication tempered by established fact and/or overwhelming empirical data and hard logical reasoning. There's plenty to get excited over without falling prey to magical thinking.



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

now that was an interesting and informative post all the way up to this ...

Science is observation and indication, but it is also responsible determination, with observation and indication tempered by established fact and/or overwhelming empirical data and hard logical reasoning. There's plenty to get excited over without falling prey to magical thinking.

would you be touting the same science principle that encouraged humans to believe the Earth was flat for centuries? or perhaps the Sun orbited Earth or that Galileo was perceived a heretic? or maybe the same science that based the foundation of physics on 'standards' that are changing rapidly everyday, but were once believed to be 'static'?

i almost starred your post until the 'dimensional delusions' you've been trained to accept and promote made their vile appearance. With such voluntary restrictions, growth is hampered and understanding is but a word.

yes, i believe science has its place ... as a working theory, nothing more.
if any scientist can show a constant, static, foundational baseline, i may be more inclined to agree ... however, as most are well aware, even the foundational baseline is changing every day because our world is dynamic, not static.
Life is not static, why would you deny the most dynamic influence of all ... that which many perceive as, majik?



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Or to look at it another way "IF YOu dont Mind it dont mMatter ! Mind over Matter" lol



posted on Feb, 13 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NorEaster
 

now that was an interesting and informative post all the way up to this ...

Science is observation and indication, but it is also responsible determination, with observation and indication tempered by established fact and/or overwhelming empirical data and hard logical reasoning. There's plenty to get excited over without falling prey to magical thinking.

would you be touting the same science principle that encouraged humans to believe the Earth was flat for centuries? or perhaps the Sun orbited Earth or that Galileo was perceived a heretic? or maybe the same science that based the foundation of physics on 'standards' that are changing rapidly everyday, but were once believed to be 'static'?

i almost starred your post until the 'dimensional delusions' you've been trained to accept and promote made their vile appearance. With such voluntary restrictions, growth is hampered and understanding is but a word.


The flat world notion wasn't based in any sort of logic or empirical evidence at all. and Galileo wasn't the first person to suggest what he suggested. "Turtles, all the way down..." That's logic? The Sun orbiting the Earth? There was powerful political forces (The Church) that had also convinced people that it was sinful to wash their own bodies at that time. You can't equate the Dark Ages with the 21st Century. Not even for the sake of a cool post on the ATS board. It just ends up sounding ridiculous.

There's a difference between questioning the belligerent ignorance of people who built their fortunes on pulling things clear out of their asses, and making careless statements about isolated test results that flatly violate mountains of overwhelming evidence that's been compiled over the course of decades of serious and careful research. We know a lot more about reality than they did even 500 years ago. Those folks were digging themselves out of a hole that we wouldn't even be able to understand now days. Suggesting any alignment in modern thought concerning time/space continuum and flat-earthism is pretty gratuitous.


yes, i believe science has its place ... as a working theory, nothing more. if any scientist can show a constant, static, foundational baseline, i may be more inclined to agree ... however, as most are well aware, even the foundational baseline is changing every day because our world is dynamic, not static.
Life is not static, why would you deny the most dynamic influence of all ... that which many perceive as, majik?


Here's a quick excerpt from a book that might help you with the notion of "fluid time", as well as the notion of a conscious awareness that allegedly would have the capacity for jumping around from one segment of time to another. It's the ramifications of anything doing such a thing that has to be considered. Not whether someone can imagine doing such a thing. This excerpt deals with the idea of a timeless God, but the ramifications of such a being are the same as suggesting that Time itself is an illusion.


It’s pretty easy to just state that God (or energy, for that matter) exists, has always existed, and will always exist. In fact, it’s extremely easy to make that statement. It’s even easier if you follow it up with the claim that human beings can't know the truth about the eternal nature of God (or energy), and are foolish to even approach the subject. Or better yet, you can declare that these pesky humans are defiant of God’s authority when they approach this subject, and that it is a mystery that no human can ever know. This approach wraps it all up very nicely.

However, if we take a good look at what else has been stated about any one of these eternal gods, we begin to see some real problems with the dichotomy of an eternal god who has a specific timetable for humanity, and who actually adjusts His approach and attitude toward humanity as causal time moves forward within the relationship between the two. Let me explain.

In the larger presentation of an eternal god, we have a spectacularly brilliant, conscious being that has existed for all time. In fact, time doesn't even exist in the realm of this being. He experiences a forever now, with all that was, all that is, and all that ever will be, in physical existence as a permanent now. Not only does He experience this, He experiences it as an all-knowing, and all-experiencing hyper-awareness that is expressed as dynamic and unique personage. This suggests that what began for humanity, what is for humanity, and what will be for humanity, always is for God. This, logically speaking, suggests two completely incompatible existential states of being that can never be reconciled. Or so it would seem.

In fact, there is one issue that presents itself immediately when conceiving of this relationship between that which is, and that which becomes as time progresses. In His physical involvement with humanity, which now (as in a human time-centric now, since corporeal humanity is an ongoing result of tightly bound causal progression and interaction) would this god deal with? If this god selected a now for physical interaction, how would this god separate that specific slice of now out from the entire equal and logically inseparable now that would always be present in that eternal god’s perception of the human being’s ongoing trajectory and then resulting continuum? How would this god even perceive (let alone, respond to) this trajectory/continuum structure if causation is impossible in its realm?

Or is it a case where this god can become equally trajectory/continuum-centric (as a complete and foundational basis of what He is) at will, but if so, how does He establish His own individual historical context (back-dating Himself, as it were) in order to form His own unique projected trajectory, before fitting His own inimitable contextual identity into the contextual whole of each previously established continuum within the contextual environment as is the case with all else that’s collected within that environment – having established that environment as an environment to begin with?

Or is it a case of God being able to do whatever the hell He wants to, and just doing it in spite of all that’s come into being within this tightly woven causal environment that contains us and everything we know to exist? But then, if that’s the case, then why do religions each have their god focused on critical mission-centric dramas designed to engage humans in activities that are meant to satisfy a very specific need that only humanity can fulfill for the god of said religion? Or am I in danger of losing my eternal existence by even bothering to puzzle any of this out?

(excerpt from TAKING DOWN THE CURTAIN)


The point is that trajectory is not isolated, and continuum trails out behind trajectory - like the flaming tail of a shooting star. One causes the other, so they can't be separated. Your suggestion that continuum can be vaporized by simply deciding that the trajectory never occurred, isn't logically supportable. Especially since so many trajectories launch as a result of the impact of other trajectories and their resulting causal continuums. And I'm not even getting into the logical ramifications of violating the residual informational continuum - which is more rigid than you'd likely acknowledge anyway.

Being open minded is one thing. Allowing your head to open so wide as to let your brain fall out onto the table is something else altogether.
edit on 2/13/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 
oh come on now, we've identified 12,000yrs of human life form on this planet and you think the 'Flat' concept just appeared outta thin air? are u serious?

what does it matter if Galileo was first or not? where did that distinction come from?
suppose i should advise you that my historical knowledge far surpasses the Dark Ages, perhaps you should catch up to the rest of us? however, there isn't a whole lot of reference to the science of those days because the Dark Ages destroyed it. (or didn't they teach you that part?)


decades of serious and careful research.

you mean like the decades of Al Gore and that kinda serious and careful research ? or maybe the kind of hasty research done on experimental drugs so they can be 'tried' on the public only to be attorney fodder at a later date? or maybe the kinda research that says Astrology has gained another Sun sign? or, how 'bout the science of psychology that practices on our most vulnerable ... children?? yeppers, i'm all too familiar with the 'science' protocols and practices.


We know a lot more about reality than they did even 500 years ago

now there's a quantum leap considering we, to this day, cannot decipher, interpret or even explain the science of the Mayan culture. do you realize that even with ALL of the sciences of today, we cannot replicate any of the pyramids with comparable mathematical precision? i'm guessing records of 500 or more yrs ago still have much to teach. Dead Sea Scrolls ring a bell?

ahem, i never suggested any such alignment ... nice deflection though.
fluid time and a time/space continuum is much more than a notion ... it just has yet to be fully discovered.

well, after briefing your excerpt, i must suggest ... after many out-of-body experiences, your author has much to learn. if you actually believe that tripe, please explain deja-vu or do you simply deny it?

besides, if one views god as energy, then we are but an extension of him/it.
why is god perceived to be 'external' ?? the concept of omniscience rather eliminates that possibility.
please define 'image', then we'll talk.


just doing it in spite of all that’s come into being within this tightly woven causal environment that contains us and everything we know to exist?

causal environment? says who? science i would suppose even though they are still learning.
if we know everything to exist, why are their new discoveries, daily, annually, geographically, inter-personally, spiritually, emotionally, physically and universally? clearly, we all have much to learn.


then why do religions each have their god focused on critical mission-centric dramas designed to engage humans in activities that are meant to satisfy a very specific need that only humanity can fulfill for the god of said religion?

because religions are created and led by humans. spirituality transcends any need for religion.

how exactly did a ripple effect thread transform into this mish-mash about a time continuum anyway?
the ripple-effect can be demonstrated in any number of physical examples. why is it so hard to accept in a quantum or spiritual realm? can you logically explain a physical, ripple effect? (careful, tsunami warnings aren't perfected yet) so, why is any logical explanation necessary for majik?

[quot4e] Being open minded is one thing. Allowing your head to open so wide as to let your brain fall out onto the table is something else altogether
agreed but what effect does a closed-mind produce?
if the brain is mush upon death anyway, why not exercise it to its fullest potential while we can?
polarity could be considered a vehicle connecting the continuum ... it's not like it's been studied, just denied.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NorEaster
 
oh come on now, we've identified 12,000yrs of human life form on this planet and you think the 'Flat' concept just appeared outta thin air? are u serious?

what does it matter if Galileo was first or not? where did that distinction come from?
suppose i should advise you that my historical knowledge far surpasses the Dark Ages, perhaps you should catch up to the rest of us? however, there isn't a whole lot of reference to the science of those days because the Dark Ages destroyed it. (or didn't they teach you that part?)


Who gives a sh*t where it originated. It wasn't based on logic or evidence. Grow up and learn to read. Are you try to troll me? Not a good idea there, skippy.



decades of serious and careful research.

you mean like the decades of Al Gore and that kinda serious and careful research ? or maybe the kind of hasty research done on experimental drugs so they can be 'tried' on the public only to be attorney fodder at a later date? or maybe the kinda research that says Astrology has gained another Sun sign? or, how 'bout the science of psychology that practices on our most vulnerable ... children?? yeppers, i'm all too familiar with the 'science' protocols and practices.


So, now you're a Sarah Palin miracle thinker? No use for that there book learnin' crap, eh? Makin it up as you go along? Imposing your wonderfulness on the whole of reality, are ya? Christ. Where the hell did they call you up from?

What's your issue with reality, Jimbo? Can't handle it? You want a Jesus monster to come down and punch all the bad folks in the face? Well sorry, but it ain't gonna show up for you. You're on your own. You might want to touch base with the owners of this reality before you start making rules for things.



We know a lot more about reality than they did even 500 years ago

now there's a quantum leap considering we, to this day, cannot decipher, interpret or even explain the science of the Mayan culture. do you realize that even with ALL of the sciences of today, we cannot replicate any of the pyramids with comparable mathematical precision? i'm guessing records of 500 or more yrs ago still have much to teach. Dead Sea Scrolls ring a bell?


Sh*t scrawled by guys who didn't even know what the moon actually was? Oh yeah, good one. I'm being schooled right here on reality by folks who thought that viruses were demons. Brilliant. Oh, and regardless of what the hell you think about how we "can't replicate any of the pyramids" - we have replications all over the place, and at all sizes. I can buy a friggin' replication of the pyramids for 5 bucks in a souvenier shop.

We can build one if we gave enough of a crap about building one. The big difference is that we don't care about pyramids. They're big stone ego-monuments. We have Donald Trump blowing his ego loads all over Manhattan, and Dubai is like a fetish paradise for people who need that sort of thing. You want to build a pyramid, there are plenty of engineering students who can probably CAD together totally workable plans for you.

Guys who make documentaries for History Channel get boners over telling you that no one can do what the ancients did, but they get paid to tell you that. Their careers depend on you believing that. So, believe it. Who cares.


ahem, i never suggested any such alignment ... nice deflection though.
fluid time and a time/space continuum is much more than a notion ... it just has yet to be fully discovered.

well, after briefing your excerpt, i must suggest ... after many out-of-body experiences, your author has much to learn. if you actually believe that tripe, please explain deja-vu or do you simply deny it?

besides, if one views god as energy, then we are but an extension of him/it.
why is god perceived to be 'external' ?? the concept of omniscience rather eliminates that possibility.
please define 'image', then we'll talk.


I have no idea what this little flame-out was all about. Are you talking with yourself? That excerpt explains why a non-causal being can't engage directly with a causal being. I wrote that exceprt myself and I never had an out-of-body experience, so I have no idea what you're trying to suggest. I suspect that you have no idea either.



just doing it in spite of all that’s come into being within this tightly woven causal environment that contains us and everything we know to exist?

causal environment? says who? science i would suppose even though they are still learning.
if we know everything to exist, why are their new discoveries, daily, annually, geographically, inter-personally, spiritually, emotionally, physically and universally? clearly, we all have much to learn.


What do you mean "Who says so?". What kind of response is that? If an event occurs, then the fact of that event comes into existence as soon as it occurs. That is the most fundamental example of cause/effect. This is how a contextual environment is created. This is the only way that such an environment is created. This is simple logic. Nothing mystical or subjective about it. Pure ramification, and no frills whatsoever. I don't care if you accept it, but don't came back with "Who died and made you boss?" if you don't accept it. This is the basis of reality. At least have the dignity to not treat it like a kid on a swing you want to hijack for yourself.



then why do religions each have their god focused on critical mission-centric dramas designed to engage humans in activities that are meant to satisfy a very specific need that only humanity can fulfill for the god of said religion?

because religions are created and led by humans. spirituality transcends any need for religion.

how exactly did a ripple effect thread transform into this mish-mash about a time continuum anyway?
the ripple-effect can be demonstrated in any number of physical examples. why is it so hard to accept in a quantum or spiritual realm? can you logically explain a physical, ripple effect? (careful, tsunami warnings aren't perfected yet) so, why is any logical explanation necessary for majik?


Are you drunk? Is that what this is? Am I getting pissed off at a drunk?

Man.....I'm done with this exchange. The ripple effect is about time-continuum and the ramification of event. If you can't even see that, then this is a waste. I'll hit reply, but only as a protest against belligerent ignorance and the jerks who try to bully people with it. Try a laxative.

edit on 2/14/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 
you mimic quite well, too bad your comprehension isn't as astute.

what does it matter if Galileo was first or not?
exactly, i agree --> what does it matter ??
... however, first you said

"Science is observation and indication, but it is also responsible determination, with observation and indication tempered by established fact and/or overwhelming empirical data and hard logical reasoning. There's plenty to get excited over without falling prey to magical thinking.
they you go on to say

Who gives a sh*t where it originated. It wasn't based on logic or evidence.

Now, if you choose to retract this line of baloney, feel free. Otherwise, which is it ... based on "observation and indication tempered by established fact and/or overwhelming empirical data and hard logical reasoning" ... or ... "It wasn't based on logic or evidence" ?? your confusion technique is astounding.

regarding Galileo, he was perceived a heretic by the Church, science community and much of society. yet, you claim the science that condemned him was solid. (sun orbits earth) ... try to stay within your own argument, please ??


Are you try to troll me? Not a good idea there, skippy.
why would i bother Junior ???

besides, i have more important things to do but thanks for the poor attempt at an insult ... skippy? at least it was good for a chuckle


If you didn't want to discuss the topic, why are you here?
If you didn't want to discuss it with me, why did you answer my post?
(hmmmmmm, now i wonder ... who's trolling whom?)
look, i didn't write your words, you did ... if my questioning them is too big a concept for you, feel free to ignore me ... after all, it is your choice.


So, now you're a Sarah Palin miracle thinker?
what?? are you drunk or on quaaludes? sorry for your fantasy but Sarah simply doesn't float my boat. the rest of this rant isn't deserving a response.

interesting how you childishly pick a piece of a quote that you choose to 'attack' --> "can't replicate any of the pyramids" -- nice try Junior, but it doesn't count if you don't include the rest ... "with comparable mathematical precision", as the original.
And that is still a Fact, whether you admit it or not

i could care less about a souvenir, show me an exact replica? we have the technology, right? (we certainly have the 'man-power'
--> after all, isn't that how they did it then? lack of scientific knowledge or input and all)

and just what gives you the idea that i even watch History Channel? mighty Assuming, aren't you?

odd, you claim to have 'knowledge' about the time/space continuum yet you refuse to answer easy questions...

fluid time and a time/space continuum is much more than a notion ... it just has yet to be fully discovered. please explain deja-vu or do you simply deny it?

besides, if one views god as energy, then we are but an extension of him/it.
why is god perceived to be 'external' ?? the concept of omniscience rather eliminates that possibility.
please define 'image', then we'll talk.

I have no idea what this little flame-out was all about.
------ well of course not, a closed-mind is seldom introduced or exposed to such extraordinary and exciting experiences. flame?? oohhhhh, you can't handle the truth ... i get it.


That excerpt explains why a non-causal being can't engage directly with a causal being. I wrote that exceprt myself and I never had an out-of-body experience, so I have no idea what you're trying to suggest. I suspect that you have no idea either.
that excerpt explains nothing, it is an opinion, nothing more.
i am talking about experience ... there IS a difference.
you say can't, i say happens all the time ... so we disagree, is that a problem ?


If an event occurs, then the fact of that event comes into existence as soon as it occurs. That is the most fundamental example of cause/effect.
this is the most perverted reasoning for cause/effect i've ever heard. the mere 'existence' of an event indicates no direct cause but may reveal some effect. Without further investigation, the relation of cause/effect is both suggestive and premature based on assumption laced with minimal fact.

This is the basis of reality. At least have the dignity to not treat it like a kid on a swing you want to hijack for yourself.
If what you state above is your 'perception of reality', it is not my desire to share in your limitations and please, try showing some respect to others ... instead of wrongly insisting my reality isn't possible.
are you living my life? are you willing to accept the experiences of others?

i seldom drink and why are you getting 'pissed' ?? this is just a discussion.

Man.....I'm done with this exchange. The ripple effect is about time-continuum and the ramification of event. If you can't even see that, then this is a waste. I'll hit reply, but only as a protest against belligerent ignorance and the jerks who try to bully people with it.

if you don't want to participate in the conversation, leave it ... you have the power

while the ripple effect occurs within the time/space continuum, they are not inter-linked as you're attempting to imply but are failing miserably to prove.
and why focus on the 'ramification of event', when the cause is yet to be determined?

Try a laxative.
try taking your own advice



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join