ATS and OWS: What the heck, ATS?

reply to post by klarkowski67

Who are you replying to?

And everyone I know yells at traffic from time to time...so I am mildly confused at your non sequiter dismissal there, Captain...

Originally posted by MemoryShock

I suspect nenothtu has never truly lived in a communal environment where people value company over bravado stories of "how I slaughtered a day of work to make myself conform to the propagated line of 'I did it myself'"...I have made fortunes and lost them overnight due to a system that re-defines its' terms overnight without telling everyone...working a nine to five is not so much heroism these days...

Two pence...

I don't believe I'm grasping your meaning here.

I grew up in Appalachia, with extended family and neighbors that actually helped neighbors and that sort of thing. Not much in the way of television, so I never really got addicted to it like most have - we had to find other things to amuse ourselves with, generally in groups of people, working the gardens and the fields, Sitting around campfires on the river fishing, Sometimes just sitting up all night until dawn catching up with family or friends who had been gone a while and came home to visit.

Do you mean "communal environment" sort of like that? or a different sort of "commune"?

I'm REALLY not getting the "slaughtering a day of work" thing. Not fathoming that at all. I don't work a 9-5. So what are you getting at there?

Care to elaborate?

reply to post by nenothtu

The slaughtering a day of work thing was my unique way of thinking that people who do their routine day in and day out deserve to be indignant on the fact that other people weren't alloted the same circumstances...unique rhetoric to me.

Fair enough...I wasn't really bashing but your posts seem to be a bit too condemning in tone for what is a valid complaint (though it is true that I do see much incoherency in the Occupy conversation, both online and in person)...

And while the theme is different, I did mean communal in that way...tis the definition after all...Take my posts apart at will, Mon Seigneur...

reply to post by MemoryShock


Nah, no need to disassemble your posts.

What I have to say to OWS is just my way of trying to get a point across. Think of it as getting in touch with my inner Drill Sergeant. I may not be very nice, but I grab attention, and I get heard.

There's some of what they claim to stand for that I agree with, some that I don't, but whether I agree or not, there are certain things they need to accomplish in order to be taken seriously.so that they can actually make themselves heard. If you'll notice, in all these OWS threads once I've got their attention by being a nasty old curmudgeon, I give them tips on how to be more effective.

I don't really care what they have to say myself - I've heard nearly all of what I've heard from them so far before. I DO care, however, that they are wasting their time saying a plethora of things, often contradictory, ineffectively. True enough, it's their time to waste if they want to go that route, but therein lies the road to ruin, madness, and ultimately heartbreak.

It's my civic duty to help them hone their message, if they truly have one, whether I agree with it or not. Some will hear me, some will ignore me, and some will get 12 different kinds of pissed off at me, but at the end of the day, NONE can say I didn't try, that I didn't warn them.

reply to post by antonia

No, the universe is a closed system. It has borders and is curved.

Uh-huh. I see. Been to the borders, have you? Are you the cartographer who has mapped out those borders and its curve for all of us to see? Would you mind showing us this map of the universe, with its clearly defined borders and how it curves?

All expansion occurs in the fourth dimension.

Okay, okay, okay, I am not sure where you were taught physics and astronomy but let's get some facts straight here. The current theory regarding the nature of the universe is that it is an expanding universe. It is important, when discussing this theory of expanding universe, that we understand how such a hypothesis was formulated.

Prior to the formulation, in cosmology, and astronomy, the physics being used led observers to observe a paradox. The paradox has truly existed for thousands of years as the ancient Greeks noted that in regards to the universe, it is either infinite or finite, both of which come with problems, thus the paradox. However, after the advent of telescopic observation, by the time of early 19th century, an astronomer by the name of Heinrich Olbers began advocating a finite universe paradigm. His assumptions were based upon our own perceptions, or more accurately his perceptions. Olbers argued that if the universe were infinite, and that infinite universe filled with stars, then our own line of sight would eventually fall upon a star, no matter where we looked up in the nighttime sky. It must be remembered, of course, that regardless of the size of any star, the brightness of that star remains constant. Based upon Olbers assumptions, then if the universe were infinite, our nighttime sky would be bright with the brightness of all the stars that should be there, but obviously the nighttime sky is not bright, and there are dark areas of the night, so Olbers posited that the universe must be finite.

The paradox of this hypothesis takes us back to Newtonian physics and that understanding of gravity. What Newton had discovered was that gravity is always attractive. In this universe of oh-so pretty, pretty objects, every object attracts every other other object. Under this understanding, then the universe should, at some point, collapse in on itself. Since this mathematical (based upon physics) equation had obviously not borne itself out yet, astronomer's and physicist's alike were presented with a paradox.

Now, enter Einstein. Einstein's own perception of the universe was that it was static, but in developing his own theory of gravity, under the General Theory of Relativity, it seemed as if he ran into the same problem Newton was having with the math and its paradox. Einsteins equations were telling him that the universe should be either expanding or collapsing. To deal with this problem, Einstein developed a solution we now know as the Cosmological Constant. This cosmological constant essentially canceled out the effects of gravity on a large scale, allowing Einstein to maintain his own perception of a static universe.

Later, after the discovery of an expanding universe by Edwin Hubble, Einstein would call his cosmological constant "one of my greatest blunders", but at this point in this brief history of how we've come to understand the universe, it should be noted that these understandings were largely informed by the perceptions of the experimenter or researcher. Olbers understanding of a finite universe was informed by his own perceptions of the universe. Newton's as well as Einsteins understandings of gravity, and the universe were informed by their own perceptions, and to be sure, when it came to Einstein, when the math went against his own informed perception, he played fast and loose with reality to cram the math in a way that would bear out his perception.

Getting back to the expanding universe theory, as telescopic technology advanced, astronomer's, such as Vesto Slipher, discovered what we now call a redshift, which helped to better understand the plethora of faint lights astronomer's were now seeing with the advancement of telescopes. When these distant faint lights were posited to be distant galaxies, while physicists and mathematicians were simultaneously working with Einstein's theory of gravity, equations were discovered that might help explain the idea of an expanding universe, where the redshift is the product of light shining from distant objects as that light travels through an expanding universe. As an object becomes increasingly distant, the redshift will increase, or so say those working with Einstein's theory of gravity, and understanding that astronomer's have declared the distant lights as distant galaxies, or if you will, objects.

Continued...

reply to post by antonia


The History of How We've Come to Understand the Universe: Part II

In 1929, when Hubble began measuring the redshifts of what were believed to be - and indeed still are - a number of different galaxies, Hubble was also measuring the relative distance by measuring the apparent brightness of a particular kind of star, or "variable stars" known as Cepheid of each galaxy. By plotting redshift against relative distance he determined that the redshift of these distant galaxies increased in a linear manner, or as a function of linear measurement of their distance. So far, the only explanation for this phenomenon has been an expanding universe.

Once science accepted as conventional wisdom that the universe was probably expanding, it didn't take too long for many of them to start hypothesizing that the universe was once smaller than it is today, and this led to certain physicists, with their own distinct personal biases and understandings of the cosmos, such as George Lemaitre, to formulate mathematical theories that have now become known as "The Big Bang Theory". Lemaitre was a Catholic priest and to suggest that his own understandings of Genesis had no influence on the formulations of his mathematical hypothesis, strikes me as rather naive.

From an expanding universe we surmise a smaller universe in the past, and from a smaller universe we surmise that quite possibly the universe had a beginning and that beginning was a singular point from which everything has since expanded from. Under this paradigm, the expanding universe is finite under time and space, or the time space continuum, which would be that 4th Dimension you've alluded to. However, whether or not the universe is indeed expanding is not so much resolved - hence The Big Bang Theory - as it finally laid to rest the paradoxical problems the math leading up to this point was creating. The Big Bang Theory solves paradoxical problems, but remains a theory.

Given all of this, where we are at now, regarding the properties of an expanding universe is that the mathematical equations leave us with three possible solutions. Each solution comes with its own predictions on the fate of the universe. It is believed that in order to determine the exact fate of the universe what has to be done is accurately measure how fast the universe expands in relation to how much matter the universe contains. Here is the big ass problem with that; no one really knows how big the universe is - although some have argued that the universe is a cube that is 30 billion light years on each side, and under this belief it can then be argued that the size of the universe is about 2.7E+31 cubic light years - but in truth, no one knows how big the universe is, nor does anyone know how much matter the universe contains.

This is not to say that mass hasn't been calculated and guessed at. In this article; The Extension, Age and Mass of the Universe, calculated by means of atomic physical quantities and Newton's gravitational 'constant', for example, the authors estimate that the universe is about 1.6E+60 kilograms in terms of its mass. These are the best guesses, and one can only hope to presume from the "best and the brightest" of our physicists and scientist, which still leads us to the harsh reality that it is unknown how big the universe is and how much matter the universe contains.

Getting back to the three possible types of universes under an expanding universe paradigm, we have:

1.) The Open Universe, or universes

2.) The Flat Universe, or universes

and finally;

3.) The Closed Universe, or universes

Under an open universe solution, the universe would expand forever, as it would under the flat universe solution, the difference being that the flat universe would slow down to zero after an infinite amount of time - if you can wrap your mind around slowing down after an infinite amount of time. It is only under the third solution, the one you are advocating so dogmatically, where a closed system would mean an expanding and collapsing universe possibly leading to a new big bang. Under all of these solutions, and because of gravity, the expansion of the universe slows.

This brief history of how we have come to understand the universe is much more inclusive of all that is understood, as opposed to your dogmatic insistence that the universe is closed. Why I found it worthwhile to address your dogma and understandings of the universe is because of its relevance to many of the disagreements regarding this so called "Occupy movement".

Continued....

reply to post by antonia


The History of How We Came to Understand the Universe: Part III

In the possible solutions to an expanding universe paradigm, you antonia have rejected two of these solutions and insist that the fact is that it is a closed universe that is expanding until gravity demands contraction and the finite universe will collapse in on itself. Why you have rejected the other two solutions as having any credibility - even though you allude to their existence - only you can begin to answer, but it is no surprise to me that same person that is insisting that humanity is plagued with some sort of universal scumbag gene, is also insisting that the universe is a closed system therefore scarcity is the only feasible perception of that universe in which we live. Scarcity and scumbags make a good fit.

At this point in our considerations of the history of how we came to understand the universe, it is worth noting that all your insistence has been supported by physics. You do not even begin to touch upon quantum mechanics and all the implications that come with this, and because you do not even acknowledge the existence of quantum mechanics it has been largely ignored by you that quantum mechanics was borne of a failure of physics to measure accurately on a sub-atomic level. Physics has its limitations, and you, with your assertions that no amount of human ingenuity can overturn the laws of physics misses, first the point that physics only explains what it explains and beyond that we have to turn to different equations all together if we are to continue understanding our universe, and secondly precisely what nenothtu explained to you. That being that human ingenuity does not even attempt to "overturn" the laws of physics but instead exploits all available laws to their advantage.

It is worth noting how apoplectic physicists get when New Age Guru's begin pointing to quantum mechanics to claim that math bears out their spiritual doctrines. Physicists can barely contain their disgust and outrage over this, all the while berating the New Age kooks because they clearly don't understand "the physics behind quantum mechanics" which again misses the point that quantum mechanics is not physics and only exists because of the limitations of physics. In that regard the physicists arguing with the New Age kooks come off sounding and reading as just a whole different set of kooks.

In fairness to the New Age kooks, they are not missing important points that have surfaced since the advent of quantum mechanics and I think they are more in tune with things such as the relationship between the observer and the observed than physicists are willing to give them credit for, and as far as the physicist go, they are not only - and kookily so - way too slow to acknowledge the limitations of physics, they are also way to slow - if they do at all - to acknowledge the biggest problem with quantum mechanics which is that it appears to be a whole bunch of self fulfilling math, which again give some vindication to the New Agers who are claiming that we can manifest our own realities.

Just look at your reality where all of humanity is hopelessly evil and the universe is a finite closed system doomed to entropy and all the while scarcity remains the theme. Consider this: Isn't it at all possible that you look at humanity and see a bunch of demons because you are willfully ignoring all the angels? Surely we have seen you ignore two possible solutions to an expanding universe paradigm in order to advocate your scarcity paradigm, and let's make no mistakes about this, this is why in a thread about ATS members criticism of the OWS, we are now taking some time to discuss possible explanations of the universe itself...because you are advocating a scarcity paradigm, and I am advocating a paradigm of abundance.

You present yourself as having all the knowledge needed to explain the universe, pretending that all the vast unknowns of the universe are merely empty nothings that have no relevance in your world view. It is your dogma, and you are welcome to it, but this dogma offers us no answers or even solutions in how we might fix the problems we face in this country, and indeed, the only reason I am having this discussion with you is because I actually offered up suggestions for solutions and you chose to argue them.

You can begin by being self effacing and claiming idiocy and then turn around and hope to present yourself as a world class physicist who has resolved all unknowns of the universe and has the definitive answer if you want, but I assure you, many will see through this holographic bluster and fuster and begin looking for the timid little man behind the curtain. Reification is not proof of anything, and again I say to you, there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

It has been my observation that most Humans are:
-never happy and content.
-always feel some one else has it better than them

-feel they are smarter or somehow more clever than the rest of the:
1. sheeple
2. religious
3.athiests
4.people of the opposite sex
5.older people
6. younger people................. and on and on

Most people also:
-always want to point the finger of blame outward
-always want to point the finger of praise at themselves
-will talk a mean game of revolution BUT
-will only take a stand while they sit on their ass
-AND, what I feel is the most pathetic Human trait.......
-get a greater feeling of contentment knowing someone else is worst off than themselves and suffering rather than know that person or group is happy. Even if it means they would also be equally happy (but not happier than that person/group).

Like yourself I come to ATS to see this whole scene play out on a continuous basis.
And take MY stand while I sit on my ass. (like right now!)

If it was anyother way we would be Happy Little Ponies happily playing pianos and not Humans.
They don't call it "Human Nature" for nuthin'

P.S. I like Ponies!

Originally posted by grubblesnert
It has been my observation that most Humans are:
-never happy and content.
-always feel some one else has it better than them

-feel they are smarter or somehow more clever than the rest of the:
1. sheeple
2. religious
3.athiests
4.people of the opposite sex
5.older people
6. younger people................. and on and on

Most people also:
-always want to point the finger of blame outward
-always want to point the finger of praise at themselves
-will talk a mean game of revolution BUT
-will only take a stand while they sit on their ass
-AND, what I feel is the most pathetic Human trait.......
-get a greater feeling of contentment knowing someone else is worst off than themselves and suffering rather than know that person or group is happy. Even if it means they would also be equally happy (but not happier than that person/group).

Like yourself I come to ATS to see this whole scene play out on a continuous basis.
And take MY stand while I sit on my ass. (like right now!)

If it was anyother way we would be Happy Little Ponies happily playing pianos and not Humans.
They don't call it "Human Nature" for nuthin'

P.S. I like Ponies!

Very excellent answer. While these people are out there throwing temper tantrums, destroying property belonging to others, I wonder how many of those same people are giving up their sleeping bags to really homeless people. It's easy to say it is not fair, when it really is fair, without considering that the people who are homeless and starving have no one who protests for them.

How many of those people throwing temper tantrums would sell their iPods, game systems, computers and do without internet access to raise money for the starving and homeless. Yes, life is unfair, so tweet about it.

Human nature is true.

I am trying to understand why msm is filled with all sorts of attention to the Penn State riots. All those people demanding a couch who is, at minimum, a accessary to the sexual abuse of a number of young children be reinstated. Yet all across this nation we are seeing history in the making and not one word on the nightly news. People of all ages across all socio-economic lines are standing up saying ENOUGH! We've had enough! Enough lies, enough of a bought and paid for government. We/ve had enough corruption. Enough abuse.

Back in the day when the people of this nation stopped a war there were people who did nothing but watch us.. They figured out a few things. One, we have the collective attention span of a gnat. When Ford pardoned Nixon his advisors said we, the citizens of this country, would lose interest in about 3 wks. I'm not sure which is worse..that they told us that or that they were right. Americans did lose interest in about 3 wks. Another thing noticed was don't report the activity of various groups because people would join in if they knew when & where a rally was being held. At this point I believe tptb are just trying to out wait the occupied cities.

So, today I will pick up my poster. I will stand on a busy city street. I will say 'we are all watching' & hope just one other person will take notice and remember.

I LOVE the haters, they always remind me that we are doing something RIGHT!

We are WINNING!





Rage for us some more and refer to my sig officer!

V

The polls tell a different story, the anti OWS people are not all who you think they are. they are working for the other side, these sock accounts have a pattern... it is not hard to figure out what the goal is.


food for thought:

Meet the Guy Who Snitched on Occupy Wall Street to the FBI and NYPD Thomas Ryan

gawker.com...

The Occupy Wall Street protests have been going on for a month. And it seems the FBI and NYPD have had help tracking protesters' moves thanks to a conservative computer security expert who gained access to one of the group's internal mailing lists, and then handed over information on the group's plans to authorities and corporations targeted by protesters.

They want to create dissent within OWS, don't fall for it! Like I said we are WINNING!

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier

They want to create dissent within OWS, don't fall for it! Like I said we are WINNING!

Winning what?

You guys are creating your own internal dissent, which is why the rest of the world is losing interest and moving on to more important things.

Once again:

Compare/Contrast the Tea Party Rallies of last year to the OWS movement.

No violence, deaths, arrests, plague, rapes in the Tea Party protests, but in OWS it's absolute chaos and lawlessness coupled with irresponsibility, narcissism, entitlement and selfishness. Perception is reality.

Actions speak louder than Sharpie'd protest signs.

And who does the DNC support? The Tea Party? Nope. They support chaos, enable groups like the neo-nazis, anti-semitists, anarchists, and all those that seek to cripple our constitution. The DNC just wants votes and power, they don't care where the get it from.

I read the first page and the distribution is typical.
OWS is criticized precisely because there are many more right wing conspiracy theorists here than left.

I am an American citizen who grew up in a Soviet-repressed country. Part of that I do not wish to anyone. However, as soon as I lived enough in the US I realized that part of the Communist propaganda was TRUE - the part that there is effective attempts at mind control and influencing of American citizens by big business interests on every front - media, literature, teaching - to be absolutely paranoid against anything remotely resembling the Left, Socialism, Communism etc.

People preached to me that the government is inefficient in cleaning up trash on the street etc. - in order to explain why a society should leave its own old, decrepit or crazy or sick people to their fates.

As of 1990 - despite my continued resistance to the bland and controlling Soviet model and barely materialistic theories - I stopped buying into any sort of neoliberalism. Why? Because I was exposed to the ruthlessness of the system as well as many of my friends and colleagues.

I also began to realize that welfare and health care (at European prices not teh blown-out-of-proportion US prices) were not the real questions. They are red herrings.

The numbers will telll you that corporations, the military industrial complex and foreign wars - as well as foreign "aid" which is many times simply an attempt to control other lands for teh beenfit of again the same corporations - take a hell of a lot more money from the taxes of Americans than anything else. Welfare is only the icing on the cake.

But the clever mind control that anything contradicting this wild west logic is evil and communist outlived the Soviet Union itself.

Mind you, I never took a welfare check all the time while I was there, nor any kind of help from the government. I paid some taxes though.

Just bravo in general to the entire opening statement and question. I am not a vet to this site just a newbie in fact and I am also fairly young. Yet I am just as flabbergasted at our countrys response at large to the OWS movement. What the Heck America? I may be young but I am sure as hell not gullible or stupid and I cannot fathom the way our country is behaving. Since when was it ok to attack our own citizens? I would think the violence toward these civil protesters would be enough to spur ANYONE into action whether you agree with OWS or not. By sitting there and allowing violence to happen to a citizen while they are utilizing their constitutional rights is the same as saying that you accept it. And that not only do you accept it but you will allow it to happen to you as well. Beyond the political agenda here there are people who are being treated inhumanely at the most basic levels. So whats it going to be America? Are you going to sit on your butts and continue to watch your fellow Americans be brutally attacked and mistreated or will you stand with them in defense or your own rights? The time may come when the option to do so is no longer available.

Originally posted by DarthAwesome

Just bravo in general to the entire opening statement and question. I am not a vet to this site just a newbie in fact and I am also fairly young. Yet I am just as flabbergasted at our countrys response at large to the OWS movement. What the Heck America? I may be young but I am sure as hell not gullible or stupid and I cannot fathom the way our country is behaving. Since when was it ok to attack our own citizens? I would think the violence toward these civil protesters would be enough to spur ANYONE into action whether you agree with OWS or not. By sitting there and allowing violence to happen to a citizen while they are utilizing their constitutional rights is the same as saying that you accept it. And that not only do you accept it but you will allow it to happen to you as well. Beyond the political agenda here there are people who are being treated inhumanely at the most basic levels. So whats it going to be America? Are you going to sit on your butts and continue to watch your fellow Americans be brutally attacked and mistreated or will you stand with them in defense or your own rights? The time may come when the option to do so is no longer available.

Since when is it ok for the citizens to attack private businesses? (owned by citizens). The occopy movement has been given ample opportunity to voice their concerns.

Attacking private business owners and overtake public land? I pay taxes for that property and it's up-keep. The OWS people think it's thiers, it's not. It's ours. You want an example of peaceful protests? See: the Tea Party. No rapes. No murders. No violence. You want idiocy? See: OWS. Bunch of left wing extremist nutjobs spouting anti-semitism, anti-americanism, anti-capitalism, gimme gimme gimme.

Nice to hear the DNC backs the OWS. It shows their true colors. Anything for a vote, right, DNC?

Originally posted by DarthAwesome

Just bravo in general to the entire opening statement and question. I am not a vet to this site just a newbie in fact and I am also fairly young. Yet I am just as flabbergasted at our countrys response at large to the OWS movement. What the Heck America? I may be young but I am sure as hell not gullible or stupid and I cannot fathom the way our country is behaving. Since when was it ok to attack our own citizens? I would think the violence toward these civil protesters would be enough to spur ANYONE into action whether you agree with OWS or not. By sitting there and allowing violence to happen to a citizen while they are utilizing their constitutional rights is the same as saying that you accept it. And that not only do you accept it but you will allow it to happen to you as well. Beyond the political agenda here there are people who are being treated inhumanely at the most basic levels. So whats it going to be America? Are you going to sit on your butts and continue to watch your fellow Americans be brutally attacked and mistreated or will you stand with them in defense or your own rights? The time may come when the option to do so is no longer available.

I've noticed a string of newbies like this have popped up trying to enourage people to turn violent. There's certainly a pattern when you check out these newbie's posts and sigs

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier

They want to create dissent within OWS, don't fall for it! Like I said we are WINNING!

Winning what?

Hearts and minds, the only things that empires cannot take from us.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier

They want to create dissent within OWS, don't fall for it! Like I said we are WINNING!

Winning what?

Hearts and minds, the only things that empires cannot take from us.

They seem to be failing at that if that's their intention, rather than "winning". Every day, I see more and more people alienated by their antics than giving over their hearts and minds.

I've never been a big fan of "Hearts and Minds" campaigns, anyhow. I can still recall the old Hearts and Minds saying - "Give us your hearts and Minds, or we'll burn your damned huts down." OWS seems to be pointed in that same direction.