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.

 

Prepare To Have Your Mind Boggled

page: 5
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by Sinny
 


I think you are confusing physical form with numerical representation.

Most of what you have stated is just word play and means nothing in reality.

Its like saying zero isnt nothing as it contains 4 letters

Ya, I agree.

However, as one other poster stated, ZERO charge is actually the presence of equal positive and negative charges that cancel each other out. So ZERO charge doesn't mean nothing is present...

I think of 0 as just a number: -2, -1, 0, +1, +2. It's a position; a measurement. It's limited by our own knowledge. As an example, if I measure my speed sitting at my desk I would conclude 0 mph (discarding any knowledge of the cosmos). However, if I considered the speed of earth around the sun I might say something else. If I considered the speed of the sun revolving around hte core of the galaxy, I'd say something more. And on and on and on. Where does it end (at light speed)? Since we don't actually know how much bigger the universe is, how do we even know how fast we're moving? We relate how fast we're moving in comparison to something else, correct? So to know our absolute speed we would have to be able to see the whole universe to see all of the competing factors. We could narrow it down to a central point that we're revolving around to calculate our speed. But if our region of observation is limited then I cannot understand how the math will be 100% accurate.
edit on 24-6-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 


You explained the flaws in this thread far better to me.

At least the OP has given up responding to every detractor with negative comments and insults.

I guess that is covered by their initial claim that we are all mindless if we don't have our minds boggled.

Philosophy for the sake of Philosophically impressing others is just self aggrandizement.

It's one thing to question the meanings of things to actually study the nature of meanings.

It's another to say, "hey look at me! I'm special I want attention and if you don't give it to me nertz on you".

That is what this thread is, attention seeking by a pseudo-intellectual.

Good job on breaking down the thread.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


The Math is always 100% accurate, the premise, however, is not

Math can only work with the data it is given.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Pigraphia
 


LOL attention seeking?!

Does that mean anyone who makes a thread on ATS is attention seeking?

It was something I read and found interesting, so I thought I'd share.

As for me insulting everyone, I was responding to the trolls that commented about Elvis Presley, and the guy who wanted to know why is mind wasn't blown, when I didn't state I would blow anyones mind.

You clearly have nothing better to do than harass *me* with *your* insults.

I don't know why you feel so pasionate about the subject. Freak.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
I'm sorry, if that don't boggle your mind, you don't have one.


Your so cool. We don't have minds because your not capable of explaining something.
Great thread.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
and the guy who wanted to know why is mind wasn't blown, when I didn't state I would blow anyones mind.


Originally posted by Sinny
I'm sorry, if that don't boggle your mind, you don't have one.


You're nitpicking, so they got "boggle" and "blown" mixed up.
To boggle a mind and blow a mind are synonyms.


Originally posted by Sinny
I don't know why you feel so pasionate about the subject. Freak.


There you go with the insults again.
That's a very attention seeking mind set.
If someone isn't adoring you you insult them.

I've said it before and I will expound upon my statement.

Philosophy for the sake of Philosophically impressing others is just self aggrandizement.
That is exactly what you did with this thread.
If you wanted to bring something interesting to the table fine.
You did more than that you preemptively insulted people if they don't think your post is oh so amazing.

Then you say "oh well this is someones idea not mine".
In that case you added nothing of value to the topic you just regurgitated another persons theory.
Posting someones theory and adding nothing to it of your own is also attention seeking.
You're basically saying "here is what another person said, I don't have anything to add but I want attention so I'm going to post their theory".
Follow that up with "since I have nothing to add, I'm going to insult anyone who doesn't like this theory because not liking this theory means they don't like something I like and that hurts my feelings because the whole world revolves around me and everyone should like what I like".

Sure it's a bit wordy but that's what your post comes across as.

So go ahead insult me and others for not being oh so adoring fans, the more you insult others the more you detract from yourself.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Vandettas
 


Oh don't forget if we attack the theory enough they then say "well it's not my theory it's something I found".

That adds a layer of defense to their position that we are all mindless, it's not that we don't understand her.
We don't understand the amazing theory that they found.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
0 and 1, all your computer knows about. Yet here you are surfing ATS. Your computer makes up information from zero-entropy source it is run on. You are turning zero-entropy energy into full-entropy energy and producing information in the process.

Just as a planet does via life and consciousness.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Well.....as Jesus put it: "Let there be light"

"That's a good enough explanation for me!" - 75% of America



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Pigraphia
 


Yea. That insult was on purpose.

And yea, I did regurgitate it. Then I added that it was mind boggling. If the worlds top scientists find it boggling and fascinating, then I thought the rest of the world might.

It was simply a late night thought before bed. Your accusation of attention seeking is most irksome.

And yea, there is a difference between blown and boggled.

Now if you don't mind... Leave me alone.
edit on 24-6-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Correct me if I am wrong for I did read the entire thread and may have just plain missed the link. You attribute your thoughts to Michio Kaku...

I'm wondering if you could provide your original source so that we may be able to get it in the original context. If you really want our attention and a real discussion a link would do you a great service.

I'm not a member here to shoot down out of the box thinkers... But when one just rambles then defends with mud slinging and provides no links or anything along those lines I am forced to call it as I see it.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


Consciousness is the basis for everything. It creates out of it's own expectation. We will never find the end of the universe because as we search our expectations will create more and more, so there will be no end. There is no "I", no "me" just consciousness experiencing this fantastically detailed holographic computer simulation. We are immersed in a computer simulation (the best metaphor that I can come up with). There is no death and I (there is no I right?)....think that we are about to either start the game all over OR move to the next level. If you are reading this, I hope that we get to go to the next level Or it probably doesn't matter does it?



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by Pigraphia
 


Yea. That insult was on purpose.

And yea, I did regurgitate it. Then I added that it was mind boggling. If the worlds top scientists find it boggling and fascinating, then I thought the rest of the world might.

It was simply a late night thought before bed. Your accusation of attention seeking is most irksome.

And yea, there is a difference between blown and boggled.

Now if you don't mind... Leave me alone.
edit on 24-6-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)


Ah so insulting people for no reason is a valid form of discourse?
Good to know...

Saying something is boggling is not adding any value to a discussion.
You added nothing of value to the theory, you didn't add your thoughts or insights.
You simply want attention.

I never said there wasn't a difference, but they are synonyms as in similar meanings.
I never said they were exactly the same.
My issue is that you insult someone for using a synonym which was a valid comment on their part.

Oh you find observation irksome... that's what happens in true discourse.
Observations are made on the subject at hand and how those discussing it present their discussions and treat others.

"leave me alone *cry*"
You wanted attention and now you have it, you insult others and you get called on it.
If you didn't want to be called on insulting others or for seeking attention you shouldn't have done either.

As for the boggling revelation, first you jumbled up what the theory is so much I wouldn't be able to be boggled without the original source material.
Even with it, scientists make amazing theories all the time in terms of theoretical physics, if I spent by time being boggled by every one of them I would have no time to actually consider the theories and think critically.

I find critically thinking on a subject is a better use of ones time than being boggled by it.
Being boggled admits you can't think for yourself and you are just amazed at the work of others.

Spend more time thinking for yourself and you won't need the attention of others.

reply to post by constantwonder
 


A very reasonable request to make.

Too bad it's posed to the unreasonable.
edit on 24-6-2012 by Pigraphia because: fixing spelling mistakes



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Sinny,

I like to think of ATS as a place where can exchange strange ideas or theory. That being said, there is no reason to so blatantly bash others for their input.

Yes some has been snarky or arrogant, but others have been calm and to the point. I only ask you to provide a source to what Kaku said and you won't even respond.

I am sorry but your behavior doe not help your case. Not everyone is going to agree with you here. That is part of the beauty of ATS. Opposing views should be fuel to refine your argument and reason to provide more evidence or supportive material.

Instead of this however you choose to be combative. That is not the ATS way... You are not alone we all get frustrated and snippy but to use abusive language because we only want to have a good debate is beyond the pale.

We can discuss this with civility or not at all. If you aren't willing then you are missing out on the great community here and that is a real shame.

Back on topic.... Please provide a link to the work or words of Kaku to which you refer.

Sincerely your friend (please dont read that as disinginous)
CW



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kovenov
reply to post by Sinny
 


I just want to add my name to the list of people who also believe (i.e. it is true that ... ) there is no such physical state as prescribed by the concept of nothing.


I have a practical and operational definition of "something physically existing" --- it serves as a source term in General Relativity on the right hand side of the Einstein equation.
edit on 24-6-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


It certainly tells me your mind is
NOTHING if not boggled.





Now if you don't mind... Leave me alone.


This is to be laughed at and should cause anyone to ponder what they think they might know about being cool, or how existence came to be. You can't put up a thread on ATS and then ask not one person to, leave you alone.
Wow, just wow !
edit on 24-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinny
 


Put seven apples on a plate, then take seven apples off of the plate. Zero apples are left on the plate, not very mind boggling at that level.



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinny
Can I just ask trolling idiots to keep off this thread.

(Slap round the face for me, for thinking I could have a decent discussion on ATS)



Calm T F down. Take a breath, maybe a pill. When will my brain blow? quoting opposites? What was will never be.

Oh BTW, just saying. >u



posted on Jun, 24 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokingmonkey
reply to post by Sinny
 


Put seven apples on a plate, then take seven apples off of the plate. Zero apples are left on the plate, not very mind boggling at that level.


Lmao

This is to much. Mov'in on.



"There are two things I know that go to infinity. The universe and the stupidity of man. I'm not real sure about the universe ".
Albert Einstien
edit on 24-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
26
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join